Asymmetry in Low-Rank Adapters of Foundation Models
About
Parameter-efficient fine-tuning optimizes large, pre-trained foundation models by updating a subset of parameters; in this class, Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) is particularly effective. Inspired by an effort to investigate the different roles of LoRA matrices during fine-tuning, this paper characterizes and leverages unexpected asymmetry in the importance of low-rank adapter matrices. Specifically, when updating the parameter matrices of a neural network by adding a product $BA$, we observe that the $B$ and $A$ matrices have distinct functions: $A$ extracts features from the input, while $B$ uses these features to create the desired output. Based on this observation, we demonstrate that fine-tuning $B$ is inherently more effective than fine-tuning $A$, and that a random untrained $A$ should perform nearly as well as a fine-tuned one. Using an information-theoretic lens, we also bound the generalization of low-rank adapters, showing that the parameter savings of exclusively training $B$ improves the bound. We support our conclusions with experiments on RoBERTa, BART-Large, LLaMA-2, and ViTs.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image Classification | Office-Home (test) | Mean Accuracy89 | 402 | |
| Image Classification | OfficeHome | -- | 161 | |
| Paraphrase Detection | MRPC | Empirical Error G(W)0.27 | 90 | |
| Relational Reasoning | CLUTRR | Empirical Generalization Error G(W)1.04 | 60 | |
| Linguistic Acceptability | CoLA (test) | Avg Accuracy69.3 | 56 | |
| Image Classification | OfficeHome | Generalization Error (G(W))0.08 | 40 | |
| Linguistic Acceptability | COLA | Generalization Error Approximation (G(W))0.29 | 40 | |
| Paraphrase Identification | PAWS | G(W) Error Approximation0.98 | 40 | |
| Question Classification | TREC50 | Generalization Error G(W)1.53 | 30 | |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-10 (test) | Test Accuracy99 | 24 |