Entropy-Adaptive Fine-Tuning (EAFT)

• Entropy-Adaptive Fine-Tuning (EAFT) is a technique that uses per-sample or per-token entropy metrics to adaptively modulate the learning signal in neural models.
• It introduces methods like entropy scaling, robust loss minimization, and attention regularization to mitigate overfitting, catastrophic forgetting, and bias.
• EAFT is applied across language models, diffusion models, and self-supervised systems, demonstrating improved robustness, faster convergence, and fairer adaptation.

Entropy-Adaptive Fine-Tuning (EAFT) refers to a broad family of techniques that leverage per-sample or per-token entropy metrics to modulate the learning signal during fine-tuning, adaptation, or optimization of neural models. These methods exploit entropy both as a diagnostic (revealing uncertainty, conflict, or overfitting) and as an adaptive mechanism for loss scaling, regularization, or sample weighting. EAFT can be instantiated in diverse contexts including LLMs, diffusion models, regular neural classifiers, and self-supervised or test-time adaptation pipelines. EAFT methods consistently demonstrate improved robustness, faster convergence, mitigation of catastrophic forgetting, and fairer/bias-resistant adaptation across a range of domains and architectures (Diao et al., 5 Jan 2026, &&&1&&&, Seto et al., 2023, Lin et al., 2023, Attanasio et al., 2022, Tang, 2024, Varno et al., 2019).

1. Theoretical Foundations and General Motivation

Entropy-adaptive approaches originate from the observation that standard fine-tuning methods often force neural networks to learn from all tokens or samples equally, irrespective of their intrinsic confidence or prior predictions. The outcome is destructive gradient updates—particularly in cases of "confident conflicts," with low prediction probability but low entropy, where the model is certain of a wrong answer (Diao et al., 5 Jan 2026). By introducing entropy as a gating or weighting factor, EAFT methods distinguish epistemic uncertainty from knowledge conflict, adaptively suppress gradients from adversarial or outlier inputs, and promote learning in genuinely uncertain regions.

Entropy is commonly computed as the Shannon entropy of the model’s output distribution over the vocabulary or class set:

$H_t = -\sum_{v} P_t(v) \log P_t(v),$

with extensions to top-K approximation, self-attention patterns, or path-space measures in diffusion models. Maximum-entropy initialization can additionally minimize initial noise contamination in transfer scenarios (Varno et al., 2019).

2. EAFT Algorithms and Loss Functions

A central theme in EAFT is the construction of an entropy-gated or entropy-weighted loss function. Representative forms include:

• Entropy-scaling: Replace the uniform cross-entropy loss with an entropy-scaled term:

$$L_{EAFT}(\theta) = -\sum_{t=1}^T \tilde H_t \cdot \log P_\theta(y_t | x, y_{<t}),$$

where $\tilde H_t$ is a normalized entropy gate (e.g., $\tilde H_t = H_t^{\text{top-}K}/\log K$) (Diao et al., 5 Jan 2026).

• Robust loss minimization: REALM introduces a robust loss function $\rho$ that is linear for small entropies and sub-linear for outliers, interpreting loss minimization as self-paced learning (Seto et al., 2023).
• Token-level weighting: In WeFT for diffusion LLMs, each answer token is masked with probability $t_i$ determined by its entropy proxy $\beta_i$, and its loss weighted by $1/t_i$ (Xu et al., 25 Sep 2025):

$$t_i = 1 - (1 - t)^{\beta_i / \beta_{\text{ref}}}, \quad w_i = 1 / t_i$$

• Attention entropy regularization: For Transformers, an entropy-based penalty is applied to self-attention weights, encouraging distributed attention and mitigating overfitting to specific terms (Attanasio et al., 2022).
• Stochastic control in diffusion models: EAFT can be formalized as a stochastic control problem with entropy regularization, yielding a closed-form exponentially tilted path-law (Tang, 2024):

$$Q^{u^*,\nu^*}_{[0,T]}(dY_{(\cdot)}) = (1/C) \exp[r(Y_T)/\alpha] Q_{[0,T]}(dY_{(\cdot)})$$

3. Identification and Handling of Confident Conflicts

The distinction between epistemic uncertainty and knowledge conflict underpins EAFT's suppressive mechanism. Confident conflicts are detected by plotting tokens or samples in the $(p_t, H_t)$ plane, where $p_t$ is low and $H_t$ is low (Diao et al., 5 Jan 2026). Pilot masking or soft suppression of these tokens’ loss terms prevents catastrophic forgetting without sacrificing in-domain performance. Soft gating (continuous scaling by entropy) preserves adaptation flexibility, unlike hard masking or skipping, which can result in loss of essential cues.

Gradient landscape analyses confirm that under standard fine-tuning, confident conflicts generate disproportionately large gradients leading to instability. EAFT’s gating mechanism nullifies this effect (Diao et al., 5 Jan 2026).

4. Extensions to Test-Time Adaptation and Clustering Perspectives

Entropy-adaptive methods have found particular utility in fully test-time adaptation (F-TTA), especially in single-sample or small-batch regimes:

• Clustering interpretation: Entropy minimization functions as an online k-means algorithm, with soft assignment via predicted probabilities, and cluster center updates via backpropagation through entropy loss (Lin et al., 2023). EAFT augments this with robust label assignment (ensembling predictions), similarity-preserving constraints (spectral penalties), outlier-aware sample selection (entropy thresholding), and gradient accumulation for stability.
• Robust loss and self-paced learning in REALM: The robust penalty $\rho$ and diversity indicator $S_{\text{div}}$ provide continuous adaptive weighting and prevent degenerate convergence, outperforming hard-skipping schemes (Seto et al., 2023).

Table: Improvements from EAFT enhancements (Lin et al., 2023).

Enhancement	Effect on Accuracy (CIFAR/ImageNet)	Notes
Robust Assignment	+1.1% (CIFAR-10-C)	Averaging predictions across augmentations
Similarity Constraint	+0.5–0.6% (harder datasets)	Spectral embedding enforcement
Sample Selection	+1.0% (ImageNet-C)	Dynamic mean-based entropy filtering
Gradient Accumulation	+2.9% (CIFAR-100-C, N=100)	Stabilizes updates for small batches

5. Applications in Diffusion Models and Stochastic Control

Recent advances extend EAFT to discrete and continuous diffusion models:

• Weighted entropy-driven fine-tuning (WeFT): Tokens in language diffusion models are assigned entropy-proportional masking rates and loss weights, derived directly from the Kolmogorov solution of discrete diffusion (Xu et al., 25 Sep 2025). Empirical results on LLaDA-8B-Instruct and reasoning benchmarks indicate relative gains of 39–83% over standard SFT, particularly for low-data regimes.
• Entropy regularization in stochastic control: In continuous-time models, entropy-regularized control produces exponential tilting of the path measure, balancing reward maximization and entropy preservation. The value function $v^*$ is solved via HJB equations; the optimal drift correction is $u^*=(\sigma^2/\alpha)\nabla v^*$, and the initial law is tilted by $\exp[v^*(0,y)/\alpha]$ (Tang, 2024). Extensions to general $f$-divergence regularizers are feasible.

6. Empirical Performance and Ablation Studies

EAFT has demonstrated consistent performance gains across languages, vision, and agentic tasks:

• Mitigation of forgetting: EAFT matches domain-task performance of SFT while recovering up to 4.6% accuracy lost to catastrophic forgetting on general benchmarks (Diao et al., 5 Jan 2026).
• Performance on adaptation/corruption benchmarks: REALM achieves 77.5% accuracy (CIFAR-10-C, severity 5), outperforming EATA and SFT, and maintains top gains in regime with few adaptation samples (Seto et al., 2023).
• Bias mitigation in NLP: EAR approaches or surpasses state-of-the-art fairness and bias metrics without requiring identity term lists (Attanasio et al., 2022).
• Initialization gains: Maximum-entropy initialization (ENTAME) yields +10 to +40 pp initial accuracy jumps, with final uplifts of +1–5% in transfer learning scenarios (Varno et al., 2019).

7. Practical Considerations and Hyperparameter Selection

Implementation of EAFT methods relies on judicious choice of entropy computation technique (full vocab vs. top-K), batch size (larger batches preferred for vanilla entropy minimization), robust loss parameters (e.g., $\alpha$, $\lambda$ for REALM), aggregation interval for gradient accumulation, and weighting schedules for entropy penalties (Seto et al., 2023, Lin et al., 2023). Top-K approximation achieves near-unity correlation with exact entropy and incurs minimal memory overhead (Diao et al., 5 Jan 2026). For attention regularization, $\lambda \simeq 0.01$ with a warm-up schedule balances the tradeoff between accuracy and fairness (Attanasio et al., 2022). In diffusion-based EAFT, the temperature $\alpha$ mediates the entropy–reward tradeoff and can be cross-validated.

A plausible implication is that entropy-adaptive strategies will continue to generalize well across novel architectures and learning paradigms, due to their foundation in universal uncertainty quantification and robust loss scaling.

---

EAFT comprises a principled suite of techniques for entropy-driven adaptation and fine-tuning, offering domain-agnostic improvements in both robustness and performance across supervised, self-supervised, and diffusion-based neural frameworks. The field remains active, with new formulations grounded in stochastic control, clustering analysis, and test-time adaptation emerging, and ongoing theoretical, empirical, and implementation-level advances (Diao et al., 5 Jan 2026, Xu et al., 25 Sep 2025, Seto et al., 2023, Lin et al., 2023, Attanasio et al., 2022, Tang, 2024, Varno et al., 2019).