This paper relies on 2 prerequisite mathematical and architectural foundations.
Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) is a widely used finetuning method for large models. Its small memory footprint allows practitioners to adapt large models to specific tasks at a fraction of the cost of full finetuning. Different modifications have been proposed to enhance its efficiency by, for example, setting the learning rate, the rank, and the initialization. Another improvement axis is adapter placement strategy: when using LoRA, practitioners usually pick module types to adapt with LoRA, such as Query and Key modules. Few works have studied the problem of adapter placement, with nonconclusive results: original LoRA paper suggested placing adapters in attention modules, while other works suggested placing them in the MLP modules. Through an intuitive theoretical analysis, we introduce PLoP (Precise LoRA Placement), a lightweight method that allows automatic identification of module types where LoRA adapters should be placed, given a pretrained model and a finetuning task. We demonstrate that PLoP consistently outperforms, and in the worst case competes, with commonly used placement strategies through comprehensive experiments on supervised finetuning and reinforcement learning for reasoning.
Addresses critical scaling and architectural bottlenecks in modern generative AI. By moving beyond traditional trade-offs, it delivers enhanced capability while controlling compute overhead.
Its small memory footprint allows practitioners to adapt large models to specific tasks at a fraction of the cost of full finetuning. Different modifications have been proposed to enhance its efficiency by, for example, setting the learning rate, the rank, and the initialization.
Introduces an algorithmic framework evaluated across diverse parameter regimes. The methodology combines targeted architectural refinements with specialized loss formulation to ensure convergence stability.
Empirical evaluation confirms consistent gains: "We demonstrate that PLoP consistently outperforms, and in the worst case competes, with commonly used placement strategies through comprehensive experiments on supervised finetuning and reinforcement learning for reasoning."
Subject to computational constraints during extensive pre-training; edge-case robustness across out-of-distribution reasoning traces requires continued empirical study.
Language models may need to internalize information that arrives over time and retain it through many subsequent updates. To study this challenge, we introduce long-horizon memorization, a setting in which a model learns 100 query-answer tasks through continual supervised fine-tuning without retaining earlier training examples or receiving task identifiers at inference. Sequential updates cause catastrophic forgetting, and no single continual learning mechanism we evaluate maintains strong retention at this horizon. We hypothesize that mechanisms addressing complementary sources of forgetting will be more effective when composed. We organize these compositions along two design dimensions. Data, function, and weight anchors specify what prior information each update should preserve, while low-rank allocation rules determine where successive updates are retained. To test this hypothesis systematically, we construct three distinct 100-task memorization datasets. We introduce task-level successive halving to search the combinatorial design space and use a factorial experiment to measure individual and interaction effects. Our best method combines all three anchors with merged LoRA, ranks among the top 3 methods in all datasets, and raises average final retention from 1.2% under naive sequential fine-tuning to 34.9%, a 28-fold improvement. The data anchor and merged LoRA provide the largest average gains and interact super-additively on all three datasets. Together, these results show that composing complementary mechanisms substantially improves long-horizon memorization beyond what any individual mechanism achieves.
Foundation models, alongside advances in learned game-world models, are reshaping AI across the game lifecycle. Beyond playing games, recent systems model players and game dynamics, support design and development, adapt player-facing experiences at runtime, and evaluate resulting artifacts. Yet these directions have evolved largely separately, obscuring which capabilities transfer across settings and which remain tied to particular games, engines, interfaces, or player populations. We organize the literature into six roles according to the immediate use of AI output: playing and acting; modeling players and games; designing games; building and maintaining games; generating and adapting at runtime; and testing and evaluating games. For each role, we examine what structure is supplied by the game or workflow, what AI learns or produces, which capabilities and artifacts transfer across settings and roles, and what evidence supports the claims. We identify cross-role connections: trajectories train world models, learned environments provide experience for agents, design specifications drive executable implementations, and play or testing feedback guides revision. However, control schemes, rules, engine interfaces, state representations, and player contexts often remain setting-specific, so downstream claims require validation in the target setting. Evaluation is most standardized for bounded game playing and selected learned environments, while persistent state in learned worlds, repeated software revision, validated player modeling, sustained runtime adaptation, and representative automated testing remain less established. The central challenge is to reuse or transfer outputs and capabilities across roles while re-establishing evidence for effectiveness in the game-specific contexts where they are used.
