Fine-Tuning Without Forgetting via Loss-Adaptive Learning Rates
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Fine-tuning large language models on new data improves task performance but degrades capabilities learned during pretraining, a phenomenon known as catastrophic forgetting. Existing methods mitigate this by modifying the fine-tuning objective to suppress high-loss tokens or sequences, but these tokens are essential for learning new tasks, especially those with poor pretraining coverage. In such settings, hard tokens should still contribute to learning, so forgetting must be controlled without suppressing them. We identify a simple mechanism for doing so: per-step forgetting is bounded by the product of the learning rate and the square root of the current training loss. This suggests that high-loss batches are especially prone to inducing forgetting. Motivated by this observation, we introduce FINCH, a loss-adaptive learning-rate schedule that reduces the learning rate on high-loss batches and increases it as the model converges, while leaving the fine-tuning objective unchanged. Across knowledge acquisition, science, and low-resource language adaptation benchmarks, FINCH reduces forgetting by 93% on average while matching the task performance of standard fine-tuning. On Qwen3-4B knowledge acquisition, FINCH cuts TruthfulQA degradation by 5x and reverses HaluEval degradation, while better preserving confidence calibration. Overall, our results show that learning-rate schedules are an effective tool to shape model behavior during fine-tuning, beyond just target-task optimization.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 62 of its 73 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 May 2026.
Builds on
62 of 73 references.
References · 62
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2016SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restartscited by 4,993
- 2016Overcoming catastrophic forgetting in neural networkscited by 4,718
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2015Trust Region Policy Optimizationcited by 2,503
38 more
- 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,105
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,783
- 2020GLU Variants Improve Transformercited by 1,724
- 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,582
- 2017Accurate, Large Minibatch SGD: Training ImageNet in 1 Hourcited by 1,479
- 2023Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Modelscited by 1,143
- 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,106
- 2018Experience Replay for Continual Learningcited by 1,074
- 2023On-Policy Distillation of Language Models: Learning from Self-Generated Mistakescited by 840
- 2021Robust fine-tuning of zero-shot modelscited by 785
- 2016Language Modeling with Gated Convolutional Networkscited by 688
- 2023An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuningcited by 622
- 2024TOFU: A Task of Fictitious Unlearning for LLMscited by 507
- 2018Lipschitz regularity of deep neural networks: analysis and efficient estimationcited by 413
- 2024Measuring short-form factuality in large language modelscited by 345
- 2023HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 329
- 2024LoRA Learns Less and Forgets Lesscited by 313
- 2024Does Fine-Tuning LLMs on New Knowledge Encourage Hallucinations?cited by 227
- 2026Self-Distillation Enables Continual Learningcited by 212
- 2020The large learning rate phase of deep learning: the catapult mechanismcited by 206
- 2019Episodic Memory in Lifelong Language Learningcited by 188
- 2022Fine-tuned Language Models are Continual Learnerscited by 152
- 2015High Dimensional Bayesian Optimisation and Bandits via Additive Modelscited by 137
- 2025On the Generalization of SFT: A Reinforcement Learning Perspective with Reward Rectificationcited by 121
- 2024Mitigating Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models with Self-Synthesized Rehearsalcited by 114
- 2024Large Language Models Must Be Taught to Know What They Don't Knowcited by 99
- 2024Revisiting Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Model Tuningcited by 93
- 2022How catastrophic can catastrophic forgetting be in linear regression?cited by 80
- 2022TRGP: Trust Region Gradient Projection for Continual Learningcited by 79
- 2024Factuality of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 64
- 2023Monolingual or Multilingual Instruction Tuning: Which Makes a Better Alpacacited by 60
- 2024Injecting New Knowledge into Large Language Models via Supervised Fine-Tuningcited by 56
- 2024Why Warmup the Learning Rate? Underlying Mechanisms and Improvementscited by 45
- 2024Scaling Laws for Forgetting When Fine-Tuning Large Language Modelscited by 36
- 2025How do language models learn facts? Dynamics, curricula and hallucinationscited by 33
- 2026Rethinking the Trust Region in LLM Reinforcement Learningcited by 32
- 2023Preserving Pre-trained Features Helps Calibrate Fine-tuned Language Modelscited by 29
- 2025SFT Doesn't Always Hurt General Capabilities: Revisiting Domain-Specific Fine-Tuning in LLMscited by 23
50 most cited of 62 All 62 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.