Papers › Delta Tuning: A Comprehensive Study of Parameter Efficient Methods for Pre-trained...
Delta Tuning: A Comprehensive Study of Parameter Efficient Methods for Pre-trained Language Models
Ning Ding, Yujia Qin, Guang Yang, Fuchao Wei, Zonghan Yang, Yusheng Su, Shengding Hu, Yulin Chen, Chi-Min Chan, Weize Chen, Jing Yi, Weilin Zhao, Xiaozhi Wang, Zhiyuan Liu, Hai-Tao Zheng, Jianfei Chen, Yang Liu, Jie Tang, Juanzi Li, Maosong Sun
Despite the success, the process of fine-tuning large-scale PLMs brings prohibitive adaptation costs. In fact, fine-tuning all the parameters of a colossal model and retaining separate instances for different tasks are practically infeasible. This necessitates a new branch of research focusing on the parameter-efficient adaptation of PLMs, dubbed as delta tuning in this paper. In contrast with the standard fine-tuning, delta tuning only fine-tunes a small portion of the model parameters while keeping the rest untouched, largely reducing both the computation and storage costs. Recent studies have demonstrated that a series of delta tuning methods with distinct tuned parameter selection could achieve performance on a par with full-parameter fine-tuning, suggesting a new promising way of stimulating large-scale PLMs. In this paper, we first formally describe the problem of delta tuning and then comprehensively review recent delta tuning approaches. We also propose a unified categorization criterion that divide existing delta tuning methods into three groups: addition-based, specification-based, and reparameterization-based methods. Though initially proposed as an efficient method to steer large models, we believe that some of the fascinating evidence discovered along with delta tuning could help further reveal the mechanisms of PLMs and even deep neural networks. To this end, we discuss the theoretical principles underlying the effectiveness of delta tuning and propose frameworks to interpret delta tuning from the perspective of optimization and optimal control, respectively. Furthermore, we provide a holistic empirical study of representative methods, where results on over 100 NLP tasks demonstrate a comprehensive performance comparison of different approaches. The experimental results also cover the analysis of combinatorial, scaling and transferable properties of delta tuning.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2203.06904")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 2 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: official repository: 2 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
2 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from thunlp/opendelta. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
61752df4de80a655 · report
3a4241719c34a3d0 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections