Leveraging Conditional Mutual Information to Improve Large Language Model Fine-Tuning for Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in recent years, the potential of information theory (IT) to enhance LLM development remains underexplored. This paper introduces the information theoretic principle of Conditional Mutual Information (CMI) to LLM fine-tuning for classification tasks, exploring its promise in two main ways: minimizing CMI to improve a model's standalone performance and maximizing CMI to enhance knowledge distillation (KD) for more capable student models. To apply CMI in LLM fine-tuning, we adapt the recently proposed CMI-constrained deep learning framework, which was initially developed for image classification, with some modification. By minimizing CMI during LLM fine-tuning, we achieve superior performance gains on 6 of 8 GLUE classification tasks compared to BERT. Additionally, maximizing CMI during the KD process results in significant performance improvements in 6 of 8 GLUE classification tasks compared to DistilBERT. These findings demonstrate CMI's adaptability for optimizing both standalone LLMs and student models, showcasing its potential as a robust framework for advancing LLM fine-tuning. Our work bridges the gap between information theory and LLM development, offering new insights for building high-performing language models.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".