Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates five Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) methods鈥擣ull Fine-Tuning, LoRA, LoRA+, QLoRA, and BitFit鈥攁cross four Small Language Models (SLMs) to determine their efficacy in energy and memory usage for on-device personalization. By employing energy-focused and memory-focused scoring metrics, the authors find that LoRA+ consistently outperforms other methods in energy efficiency, while QLoRA excels in memory efficiency under specific configurations. The results highlight that compact SLMs combined with PEFT techniques can effectively enable personalized deployments on resource-constrained devices, with method selection driven by the dominant resource constraint.
LoRA+ outshines other PEFT methods, achieving the best energy efficiency in 19 out of 24 configurations, paving the way for practical on-device personalization of language models.
Despite rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), deploying and personalizing them on resource-constrained devices remains impractical due to high VRAM, time, and energy costs. Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) of Small Language Models (SLMs) offers a promising alternative, yet few studies compare PEFT methods across architectures using both general and personalization benchmarks while accounting for energy consumption. We compare five fine-tuning approaches (Full Fine-Tuning, LoRA, LoRA+, QLoRA, and BitFit) on four SLMs from two families (Transformer-based: TinyLlama-1.1B, Qwen3-1.7B; SSM-based: Mamba-1.4B, Mamba-2-1.3B) across three GLUE tasks (SST-2, QNLI, STS-B) and three LaMP personalization tasks (LaMP-1, LaMP-2, LaMP-3). Each configuration is evaluated with the energy-focused NetScore-E and the memory-focused NetScore-M, the two variants that reflect the constraints binding on-device deployment. Methods are selected with a strict energy-first rule (highest NetScore-E, ties broken by NetScore#). LoRA+ achieves the highest NetScore-E in 19 of 24 configurations and the highest NetScore-M in 13 of 24, and is the selected method in 18 of 24. QLoRA, available only for the Transformer models, cuts peak finetuning VRAM by up to 3.9x relative to LoRA and therefore takes the best NetScore-M in 5 of the 12 Transformer configurations, although its de-quantization overhead leaves it selected in only one of them once energy decides. BitFit and full fine-tuning are almost never competitive on either variant, and TinyLlama-1.1B leads the energy-focused NetScore-E on five of the six benchmarks and the memory-focused NetScore-M on four. These results show that compact SLMs paired with PEFT provide a practical, energy-aware path to personalized on-device deployment, with the optimal method set by the dominant constraint: LoRA+ for energy and QLoRA for memory.
