MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404788057 · doi:10.1145/3652892.3700758

Menos: Split Fine-Tuning Large Language Models with Efficient GPU Memory Sharing

2024· article· en· W4404788057 on OpenAlexaff
Chuntian Hu, Baochun Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceParallel computingFine-tuningComputational scienceComputer graphics (images)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fine-tuning of pre-trained large language models has become increasingly popular, yet existing fine-tuning methods are typically centralized, requiring users to send local data to centralized servers, or model owners to open-source their models. However, data and models are valuable assets that few enterprises and users wish to share. In this paper, we deviate from conventional wisdom and advocate the use of split learning for fine-tuning models with private data, local to each of the clients. The most formidable challenge to split fine-tuning is the size of large language models: when multiple clients start their fine-tuning tasks, their use of GPU memory will overwhelm a GPU-equipped server, especially as the number of clients scales up. To address this challenge, we present Menos, the first memory-efficient split fine-tuning framework designed to optimize the server GPU footprint through spatial and temporal sharing. Specifically, Menos utilizes the adapter-based nature of modern fine-tuning techniques, and proposes to spatially share the base model parameters among multiple clients. It also schedules memory-intensive operations during the communication gaps of split learning, thereby temporally sharing limited GPU memory at runtime. Comprehensive real-world evaluations using state-of-the-art large language models demonstrate the effectiveness of Menos, reducing GPU memory consumption by up to 72%, yet incurring negligible overhead.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207