AdaMix introduces a mixture-of-adapters approach to parameter-efficient fine-tuning that consistently beats state-of-the-art baselines across major NLP benchmarks. Tested on GLUE, E2E, WebNLG, and DART, AdaMix not only matches but often outperforms full model fine-tuning with BERT, RoBERTa, and GPT-2. Its advantage extends to few-shot learning, where AdaMix narrows the performance gap with full prompt-based fine-tuning, delivering strong results with fewer labeled examples.AdaMix introduces a mixture-of-adapters approach to parameter-efficient fine-tuning that consistently beats state-of-the-art baselines across major NLP benchmarks. Tested on GLUE, E2E, WebNLG, and DART, AdaMix not only matches but often outperforms full model fine-tuning with BERT, RoBERTa, and GPT-2. Its advantage extends to few-shot learning, where AdaMix narrows the performance gap with full prompt-based fine-tuning, delivering strong results with fewer labeled examples.

Smarter Fine-Tuning for NLU and NLG Tasks

2025/10/01 19:00

Abstract and 1. Introduction

  1. Background

    2.1 Mixture-of-Experts

    2.2 Adapters

  2. Mixture-of-Adaptations

    3.1 Routing Policy

    3.2 Consistency regularization

    3.3 Adaptation module merging and 3.4 Adaptation module sharing

    3.5 Connection to Bayesian Neural Networks and Model Ensembling

  3. Experiments

    4.1 Experimental Setup

    4.2 Key Results

    4.3 Ablation Study

  4. Related Work

  5. Conclusions

  6. Limitations

  7. Acknowledgment and References

Appendix

A. Few-shot NLU Datasets B. Ablation Study C. Detailed Results on NLU Tasks D. Hyper-parameter

4 Experiments

4.1 Experimental Setup

Dataset. We perform experiments on a wide range of tasks including eight natural language understanding (NLU) tasks in the General Language Understanding Evaluation (GLUE) benchmark (Wang et al., 2019) and three natural language generation (NLG) tasks, namely, E2E (Novikova et al., 2017), WebNLG (Gardent et al., 2017) and DART (Nan et al., 2020). For the NLU and NLG tasks, we follow the same setup as (Houlsby et al., 2019) and (Li and Liang, 2021; Hu et al., 2021), respectively.

\ Baselines. We compare AdaMix to full model fine-tuning and several state-of-the-art parameterefficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods, namely, Pfeiffer Adapter (Pfeiffer et al., 2021), Houlsby Adapter (Houlsby et al., 2019), BitFit (Zaken et al., 2021), Prefix-tuning (Li and Liang, 2021), UNIPELT (Mao et al., 2021) and LoRA (Hu et al., 2021). We use BERT-base (Devlin et al., 2019) and RoBERTa-large (Liu et al., 2019) as encoders for NLU tasks (results in Table 1 and Table 2), and GPT-2 (Brown et al., 2020) for NLG tasks (results in Table 3).

\ AdaMix implementation details. We implement AdaMix in Pytorch and use Tesla V100 gpus for experiments with detailed hyper-parameter configurations presented in Section D in Appendix. AdaMix with adapters uses a dimension of 16 and 48 using BERT-base and RoBERTa-large encoders following the setup of (Hu et al., 2021; Mao et al., 2021) for fair comparison. AdaMix with LoRA uses rank r = 4 following the setup of (Hu et al., 2021) to keep the same number of adaptation parameters during inference. The number of adaptation modules in AdaMix is set to 4 for all the tasks and encoders unless otherwise specified. The impact of adapter dimension and number of adaptation modules for NLU tasks are investigated in Table 9 and 10. For most of the experiments and ablation analysis, we report results from AdaMix with adapters for NLU tasks. For demonstrating the generalizability of our framework, we report results from AdaMix with LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) as the underlying PEFT mechanism for NLG tasks.

\

4.2 Key Results

4.2.1 NLU Tasks

\ Tables 1 and 2 show the performance comparison among PEFT models with RoBERTa-large and BERT-base encoders respectively. Fully fine-tuned

\ \ Table 1: Results for NLU tasks on GLUE development set with RoBERTa-large encoder. The best result on each task is in bold and “-” denotes missing measure. AdaMix with a mixture of adapters outperforms all competing methods as well as fully fine-tuned large model with only 0.23% tunable parameters.† denotes results reported from (Hu et al., 2021). Mcc refers to Matthews correlation coefficient, and Pearson refers to Pearson correlation. #Param. denotes the number of tunable adaptation parameters used during inference.

\ \ RoBERTa-large and BERT-base provide the ceiling performance. We observe AdaMix with a mixture-of-adapters to significantly outperform other state-of-the-art baselines on most tasks with different encoders. AdaMix with adapters is the only PEFT method which outperforms full model fine-tuning on all the tasks and on average score.

\ \

\ \ 4.2.2 NLG Tasks

\ AdaMix leverages mixture of adaptations to improve over underlying PEFT method as demonstrated in Table 3 for E2E NLG i.e. AdaMix with LoRA and AdaMix with adapters outperform LoRA (Hu et al., 2021) and adapters (Houlsby et al., 2019) respectively. We report results on DART and WebNLG in Tables 4 and 5 in Appendix.

\ 4.2.3 Few-shot NLU

\ In contrast to the fully supervised setting in the above experiments, we also perform few-shot experiments on six GLUE tasks following the same setup (e.g., shots, train and test splits) and evaluation as in (Wang et al., 2021). Detailed experimental configuration presented in Section A of Appendix. AdaMix uses a mixture-of-adapters with prompt-based fine-tuning (Gao et al., 2021).

\ Table 6 shows the performance comparison among different PEFT methods with |K| = 30 labeled examples with RoBERTa-large as frozen encoder. We observe significant performance gap for most PEFT methods with full model promptbased fine-tuning i.e. with all model parameters being updated. AdaMix with adapters outperforms full model tuning performance for few-shot NLU similar to that in the fully supervised setting. Note that AdaMix and LiST (Wang et al., 2021) use similar adapter design with prompt-based fine-tuning.

\

:::info Authors:

(1) Yaqing Wang, Purdue University (wang5075@purdue.edu);

(2) Sahaj Agarwal, Microsoft (sahagar@microsoft.com);

(3) Subhabrata Mukherjee, Microsoft Research (submukhe@microsoft.com);

(4) Xiaodong Liu, Microsoft Research (xiaodl@microsoft.com);

(5) Jing Gao, Purdue University (jinggao@purdue.edu);

(6) Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Microsoft Research (hassanam@microsoft.com);

(7) Jianfeng Gao, Microsoft Research (jfgao@microsoft.com).

:::


:::info This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 DEED license.

:::

\

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Developers of Altcoin Traded on Binance Reveal Reason for Major Price Drop – “Legal Process Has Begun”

Developers of Altcoin Traded on Binance Reveal Reason for Major Price Drop – “Legal Process Has Begun”

The post Developers of Altcoin Traded on Binance Reveal Reason for Major Price Drop – “Legal Process Has Begun” appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Private computing network Nillion explained that the sharp volatility seen in the NIL token price yesterday was caused by a market maker selling a large amount without authorization. The company stated that the party in question did not respond to any communication from the team during and after the sale. Nillion announced that it initiated a buyback process immediately following the incident, using funds from the treasury. It also stated that it had worked with exchanges to freeze accounts related to the sale and initiate legal action against the person or institution responsible. The company maintained that such unauthorized transactions occur from time to time in the crypto space, but that they would not remain passive this time. Nillion also announced that any funds recovered from the unauthorized token sales would be used for additional buybacks. NIL price has lost 36.3% of its value in the last 24 hours and is trading at $0.118 at the time of writing. Chart showing the decline in the price of NIL. NIL broke its all-time high price record at $0.95 about 8 months ago and is trading 87% lower than that record level at the time of writing. *This is not investment advice. Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data! Source: https://en.bitcoinsistemi.com/developers-of-altcoin-traded-on-binance-reveal-reason-for-major-price-drop-legal-process-has-begun/
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/11/21 13:29
Crucial US Stock Market Update: What Wednesday’s Mixed Close Reveals

Crucial US Stock Market Update: What Wednesday’s Mixed Close Reveals

BitcoinWorld Crucial US Stock Market Update: What Wednesday’s Mixed Close Reveals The financial world often keeps us on our toes, and Wednesday was no exception. Investors watched closely as the US stock market concluded the day with a mixed performance across its major indexes. This snapshot offers a crucial glimpse into current investor sentiment and economic undercurrents, prompting many to ask: what exactly happened? Understanding the Latest US Stock Market Movements On Wednesday, the closing bell brought a varied picture for the US stock market. While some indexes celebrated gains, others registered slight declines, creating a truly mixed bag for investors. The Dow Jones Industrial Average showed resilience, climbing by a notable 0.57%. This positive movement suggests strength in some of the larger, more established companies. Conversely, the S&P 500, a broader benchmark often seen as a barometer for the overall market, experienced a modest dip of 0.1%. The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite also saw a slight retreat, sliding by 0.33%. This particular index often reflects investor sentiment towards growth stocks and the tech sector. These divergent outcomes highlight the complex dynamics currently at play within the American economy. It’s not simply a matter of “up” or “down” for the entire US stock market; rather, it’s a nuanced landscape where different sectors and company types are responding to unique pressures and opportunities. Why Did the US Stock Market See Mixed Results? When the US stock market delivers a mixed performance, it often points to a tug-of-war between various economic factors. Several elements could have contributed to Wednesday’s varied closings. For instance, positive corporate earnings reports from certain industries might have bolstered the Dow. At the same time, concerns over inflation, interest rate policies by the Federal Reserve, or even global economic uncertainties could have pressured growth stocks, affecting the S&P 500 and Nasdaq. Key considerations often include: Economic Data: Recent reports on employment, manufacturing, or consumer spending can sway market sentiment. Corporate Announcements: Strong or weak earnings forecasts from influential companies can significantly impact their respective sectors. Interest Rate Expectations: The prospect of higher or lower interest rates directly influences borrowing costs for businesses and consumer spending, affecting future profitability. Geopolitical Events: Global tensions or trade policies can introduce uncertainty, causing investors to become more cautious. Understanding these underlying drivers is crucial for anyone trying to make sense of daily market fluctuations in the US stock market. Navigating Volatility in the US Stock Market A mixed close, while not a dramatic downturn, serves as a reminder that market volatility is a constant companion for investors. For those involved in the US stock market, particularly individuals managing their portfolios, these days underscore the importance of a well-thought-out strategy. It’s important not to react impulsively to daily movements. Instead, consider these actionable insights: Diversification: Spreading investments across different sectors and asset classes can help mitigate risk when one area underperforms. Long-Term Perspective: Focusing on long-term financial goals rather than short-term gains can help weather daily market swings. Stay Informed: Keeping abreast of economic news and company fundamentals provides context for market behavior. Consult Experts: Financial advisors can offer personalized guidance based on individual risk tolerance and objectives. Even small movements in major indexes can signal shifts that require attention, guiding future investment decisions within the dynamic US stock market. What’s Next for the US Stock Market? Looking ahead, investors will be keenly watching for further economic indicators and corporate announcements to gauge the direction of the US stock market. Upcoming inflation data, statements from the Federal Reserve, and quarterly earnings reports will likely provide more clarity. The interplay of these factors will continue to shape investor confidence and, consequently, the performance of the Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq. Remaining informed and adaptive will be key to understanding the market’s trajectory. Conclusion: Wednesday’s mixed close in the US stock market highlights the intricate balance of forces influencing financial markets. While the Dow showed strength, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq experienced slight declines, reflecting a nuanced economic landscape. This reminds us that understanding the ‘why’ behind these movements is as important as the movements themselves. As always, a thoughtful, informed approach remains the best strategy for navigating the complexities of the market. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Q1: What does a “mixed close” mean for the US stock market? A1: A mixed close indicates that while some major stock indexes advanced, others declined. It suggests that different sectors or types of companies within the US stock market are experiencing varying influences, rather than a uniform market movement. Q2: Which major indexes were affected on Wednesday? A2: On Wednesday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 0.57%, while the S&P 500 edged down 0.1%, and the Nasdaq Composite slid 0.33%, illustrating the mixed performance across the US stock market. Q3: What factors contribute to a mixed stock market performance? A3: Mixed performances in the US stock market can be influenced by various factors, including specific corporate earnings, economic data releases, shifts in interest rate expectations, and broader geopolitical events that affect different market segments uniquely. Q4: How should investors react to mixed market signals? A4: Investors are generally advised to maintain a long-term perspective, diversify their portfolios, stay informed about economic news, and avoid impulsive decisions. Consulting a financial advisor can also provide personalized guidance for navigating the US stock market. Q5: What indicators should investors watch for future US stock market trends? A5: Key indicators to watch include upcoming inflation reports, statements from the Federal Reserve regarding monetary policy, and quarterly corporate earnings reports. These will offer insights into the future direction of the US stock market. Did you find this analysis of the US stock market helpful? Share this article with your network on social media to help others understand the nuances of current financial trends! To learn more about the latest stock market trends, explore our article on key developments shaping the US stock market‘s future performance. This post Crucial US Stock Market Update: What Wednesday’s Mixed Close Reveals first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 05:30