Multi-Head Adapter Routing for Cross-Task Generalization

Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) for cross-task generalization consists in pre-training adapters on a multi-task training set before few-shot adaptation to test tasks. Polytropon [Ponti et al., 2023] ($\texttt{Poly}$) jointly learns an inventory of adapters and a routing function that selects a (variable-size) subset of adapters for each task during both pre-training and few-shot adaptation. In this paper, we investigate the role that adapter routing plays in its success and design new variants based on our findings. First, we build on the intuition that finer-grained routing provides more expressivity. Hence, we propose $\texttt{MHR}$ (Multi-Head Routing) which combines subsets of adapter parameters and outperforms $\texttt{Poly}$ under a comparable parameter budget; by only fine-tuning the routing function and not the adapters ($\texttt{MHR}$-$z$) we achieve competitive performance with extreme parameter efficiency. Second, we find that $\texttt{Poly}$/$\texttt{MHR}$ performance is a result of better multi-task optimization, rather than modular inductive biases that facilitate adapter recombination and local adaptation, as previously hypothesized. In fact, we find that $\texttt{MHR}$ exhibits high gradient alignment between training tasks. We find that routing is most beneficial during multi-task pre-training rather than during few-shot adaptation and propose $\texttt{MHR}$-$μ$, which discards routing and fine-tunes the average of the pre-trained adapters on each downstream tasks. This establishes $\texttt{MHR}$-$μ$ as an effective method for single-adapter fine-tuning. We also show that $\texttt{MHR}$-$μ$ can be used as an effective zero-shot transfer method by training the average of the pre-trained adapters for a few additional steps on the multi-task training set: this yields gains up to 3% on absolute accuracy w.r.t. the baselines.

Paper

References (42)

Scroll for more · 30 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer m1AN5/10 · confidence 3/52023-07-02

Summary

This paper proposed a new parameter-efficient few-shot fine-tuning method for pretrained language models. The method is a follow-up work of Poly. The authors proposed to fine-tuning the routing function and freezing the multi-head adapters. This way, the number of updated parameters reduced significantly while achieving a similar accuracy level in the down-streaming tasks.

Strengths

- This paper studied an important problem in efficient fine-tuning of a pretrained language model, i.e., how to achieve a better trade-off between updated parameters and the final accuracy. The paper is well-motivated. - Overall the paper is well-written, especially the experimental section. The authors conducted a comprehensive ablation study on some key questions raised in the paper. - Although the method adopted in the paper (updating routing parameters only) was simple and straight forward, it seemed to work well in multiple different down-streaming tasks.

Weaknesses

- The main shortage of the paper is the limited novelty. I think in comparison to Poly, the main difference of this work is to fine-tune routing only without the adapters. The authors conducted some heuristic analysis in the experimental section to understand the intuition behind. However, the paper may still not distinguish quite clear to the prior work. I would like to see more quantitative results on why fine-tuning routing is essential and necessary, e.g., the learned multi-head adapters are orthogonal in the task space? - Some method parts are not fully clear to me. For example, the authors discussed (IA)^3 in Sec.2.1. However, the definition of h^{k,v} and h^f are not properly introduced.

Questions

See the weakness

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

Yes

Reviewer 1NFM7/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-02

Summary

The authors propose a new parameter-efficient routing method, Multi-head routing (MHR), which combines parameter subsets as opposed to averaging all weights together. They find this yields better performance, and even only finetuning the routing matrix after initial training works well. Furthermore, they explore the training dynamics of MHR and find its gradients are more aligned than other approaches, suggesting that routing-based training helps to mitigate negative transfer during multi-task training.

Strengths

A straightforward approach, with well-performed experiments over a wide variety of tasks. Relaxing the routing to allow for different parameter subsets is a nice extension of the Poly work. Results seem consistent across settings. The exploration of why these routing approaches work well is interesting and poses some interesting questions that could be explored by future work.

Weaknesses

- I think the adaptersoup baseline is a bit unfair since it uses a different parameter-efficient adaptation method to MHR/Poly. Ideally, you would apply the AdapterSoup approach to these other methods. Otherwise, it’s hard to say if adaptersoup is truly worse or if it is just that adapters are suboptimal compared to LoRA. - Gains are somewhat small over Poly, but this can be the case for parameter-efficient tuning. It would be useful to compute statistical significance. - The finding that gradient cosine similarity is enhanced is interesting, but is weak evidence (in my opinion) for task interference/transfer. The suggestion that MHR is helping with negative/positive transfer would be much better served with some experiment directly targeting this (e.g. examining MHR with two tasks known to cause positive/negative transfer, and examining the gains/gradients there) - The fact that using routing doesn't help in the few-shot stage (section 5.3) suggests that averaging and throwing away the modules learnt via MHR would be a better strategy than keeping the routing, no? Since keeping one set of PEFT weights and no routing is simpler than continuing the routing strategy. Overall, I think this paper is solid and well done. While the gains of the method are small, I think the idea is interesting and the results around routing-only finetuning and task gradient alignment are interesting and pose interesting questions for future works.

Questions

- Do you think the adaptersoup baseline is hindered by its use of adapters? What would its performance be like if you used Lora as the PEFT module instead? - If averaging the learnt modules is better than routing during few-shot adaptation, why should we use the routing method after the multitask pretraining stage? Isn’t this simpler than the main MHR approach proposed? - Which T5 XL variant did you use? It would be useful to specify this, since some T5 variants had multi-task data inserted during pretraining (I’m assuming you used the v1.1 lm-adapted ones, which did not).

Rating

7: Accept: Technically solid paper, with high impact on at least one sub-area, or moderate-to-high impact on more than one areas, with good-to-excellent evaluation, resources, reproducibility, and no unaddressed ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

4 excellent

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

The authors do not explicitly discuss limitations, although they discuss impacts in the appendix. It would be good to directly add a section on limitations, including e.g., the need to perform training over few-shot data vs using an ICL approach, the fact that routing is not needed during few-shot training (it seems), or any other limitations you can think of.

Reviewer 5omF5/10 · confidence 3/52023-07-04

Summary

This paper introduces a method called Parameter-efficient Fine-tuning (PEFT) to improve how pre-trained language models adapt to new tasks. They use small adapters and a routing function to select specific adapters for each task. The authors found that finer-grained routing provides better results and propose a method called Multi-Head Routing (MHR) that outperforms previous approaches. They also discovered that the success of their method is mainly due to improved multi-task optimization rather than specific adapter properties. They introduce a simplified variant called MHR-μ that achieves competitive performance with fewer parameters by discarding routing during fine-tuning.

Strengths

++ The paper demonstrates clear and concise writing, making it easily comprehensible. ++ The authors conducted a thorough ablation study to thoroughly evaluate the effectiveness of their proposed approach.

Weaknesses

-- The paper lacks significant technical novelty. The approach of decomposing the parameters in LoRA into different sets is not particularly interesting. Additionally, the designed modules bear strong resemblance to multi-head self-attention and MoE (Mixture of Experts). Moreover, the intuition behind these designs seems ad-hoc and lacks novel insight, which is crucial for assessing the value of the paper. -- The paper fails to provide specific details about the model parameters used in the experiments. Considering that the proposed model is substantially larger than the baselines, it is necessary to have more information in order to properly evaluate the proposal.

Questions

The authors are encouraged to address the mentioned concerns in order to provide a better understanding of their work. It would be beneficial for them to provide further clarification regarding the technical novelty of their proposed parameter decomposition approach in LoRA, highlighting any unique aspects that distinguish it from existing methods such as multi-head self-attention and MoE. Offering additional insights and motivations behind their design choices would also help in assessing the novelty and value of their work. Furthermore, it is important for the authors to address the lack of specific information about the model parameters used in their experiments. Providing details about the size and configuration of the proposed model in comparison to the baselines would enable a more accurate evaluation of its effectiveness. These additional facts would assist in making a fair assessment and potentially lead to a reconsideration of the paper's overall score.

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

2 fair

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

-- No limitation is discussed in the paper.

Reviewer HX6c6/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-07

Summary

In this work, the authors proposed MHR for cross-task generalization. To achieve extreme parameter efficiency, MHR- z and MHR-u are proposed to balance the performance and efficiency. Besides, this work emphasized the importance of the routing function, which is very insightful for the community.

Strengths

1. Excellent presentations for motivation, and experimental results. 2. I am impressed by the performance of MHR-z, the accuracy is close to poly while there are only very few parameters that need to be adjusted in the fine-tuning stage.

Weaknesses

1. The improvement of the MHR is quite limited, which only outperforms the Poly by 1.1%. Besides, there is no significant test, which is very important for such a marginal improvement. 2. Fig. 1 is not well presented.

Questions

1. In Figure 3, why MHR with 32 heads performs worse than 8 heads version? 2. In Figure 1, I would suggest the authors to mark where is the task-specific head. In addition, More information is needed for MHR-Z in the Fig. 1 as well. 3. Does each task associated with a task-specific Z matrix? If not, how to select active modules based on the input task?

Rating

6: Weak Accept: Technically solid, moderate-to-high impact paper, with no major concerns with respect to evaluation, resources, reproducibility, ethical considerations.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

4 excellent

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

The authors did not present any limitations in the manuscript. For the performance issue I pointed out in the weakness section, one potential reason could be the subheads are combined via averaging in your case. In some Mixture-of-experts papers, a set of dynamic weights can be generated to combine the experts dynamically based on the input information(task in your case). This could be helpful to further improve the performance, and related discussion can be conducted in the manuscript as well. [1] Condconv: Conditionally parameterized convolutions for efficient inference, NeurIPS 2019 [2] A mixture of h−1 heads is better than h heads, ACL 2020 [3] Attention over Self-attention: Intention-aware Re-ranking with Dynamic Transformer Encoders for Recommendation, TKDE 2022

Area Chair PF7k2023-08-13

Please respond to author rebuttals.

Dear Reviewers, Please respond to authors after carefully reading the author rebuttals and other reviews. If your assessment of the paper changes, please update your score with a short justification for the new rating. The paper received diverging initial reviews. Please consider discussing with the authors or other reviewers to see whether the reviewers can reach a consensus. Thank you, AC

Reviewer 1NFM2023-08-14

Re: Rebuttal

Hi, thank you for the response and clarifications! I've carefully read your response and the other reviews and am satisfied and keeping my score as-is. I agree that the multi-head splitting over the parameters of the PEFT method itself is interesting and novel, and I think that the experiments and ablations provide interesting insight into multi-task and parameter-efficient learning. While it is somewhat incremental (the overall framework not being *that* different to Poly), I still think the paper provides useful and interesting findings for the field, and passes my bar for novelty. Following up on the response: > For this, we looked at the cosine similarity of the resulting adapters for all 36 summarization tasks. We found that MHR had an average alignment of 0.76 for MHR and 0.73 for Poly. We repeated this experiment for all question answering tasks, and again found superior alignment for MHR than Poly (0.77 vs 0.74). What was the average/median alignment across all tasks, and between diff-task pairs (e.g. summarisation/question-answering)? On their own, it's hard to gauge if the difference between MHR and Poly here is significant, and if the alignment values here are actually high compared to orthogonal or diverging tasks.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-15

Thank you for taking the time to engage with us. Here are some clarifications regarding the adapter alignment results shared in the previous reply. We report the average adapter cosine similarity across different combinations of tasks. | Task Pairs | MHR | Poly | |-------------------------------------|------|------| | all `(313 * 312 / 2)` task pairs | 76.3 | 74.1 | | all Q/A task pairs | 76.7 | 74.3 | | all summarization task pairs | 76.4 | 73.4 | | all Q/A vs summarization task pairs | 75.7 | 72.1 | While the gap across different task pairs is relatively small, we do see that overall, MHR tends to offer better alignment across similar (and less similar) task pairs. That being said, we agree with the reviewer that a more thorough investigation is needed to properly assess how MHR aids transfer across tasks. We will update the paper accordingly in the next version. Thank you.

Reviewer m1AN2023-08-14

Thanks for the authors' response. I think overall this paper had a solid experimental section and might benefit the community about model adaptation although it had a limited novelty. I keep my original rating (Borderline accept).

Reviewer 5omF2023-08-15

Borderline accept

I'd like to express my gratitude to the authors for addressing my concerns, particularly regarding the parameter size. I believe the paper presents a compelling approach to efficient fine-tuning and demonstrates notable performance improvements. As a result, I've adjusted my rating to borderline accept.

Program Chairsdecision2023-09-21

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC