Cheap and Quick: Efficient Vision-Language Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models

Recently, growing interest has been aroused in extending the multimodal capability of large language models (LLMs), e.g., vision-language (VL) learning, which is regarded as the next milestone of artificial general intelligence. However, existing solutions are prohibitively expensive, which not only need to optimize excessive parameters, but also require another large-scale pre-training before VL instruction tuning. In this paper, we propose a novel and affordable solution for the effective VL adaption of LLMs, called Mixture-of-Modality Adaptation (MMA). Instead of using large neural networks to connect the image encoder and LLM, MMA adopts lightweight modules, i.e., adapters, to bridge the gap between LLMs and VL tasks, which also enables the joint optimization of the image and language models. Meanwhile, MMA is also equipped with a routing algorithm to help LLMs achieve an automatic shift between single- and multi-modal instructions without compromising their ability of natural language understanding. To validate MMA, we apply it to a recent LLM called LLaMA and term this formed large vision-language instructed model as LaVIN. To validate MMA and LaVIN, we conduct extensive experiments under two setups, namely multimodal science question answering and multimodal dialogue. The experimental results not only demonstrate the competitive performance and the superior training efficiency of LaVIN than existing multimodal LLMs, but also confirm its great potential as a general-purpose chatbot. More importantly, the actual expenditure of LaVIN is extremely cheap, e.g., only 1.4 training hours with 3.8M trainable parameters, greatly confirming the effectiveness of MMA. Our project is released at https://luogen1996.github.io/lavin.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer 4c4u6/10 · confidence 3/52023-06-12

Summary

This paper presents a novel method to connect vision-language instruction tuning with large language models. To implement this, the authors introduce the adapters rather than heavy bottlenecks between vision-language input tokens and LLM. A routing mechanism is designed to adaptively choose the right direction for different modalities of inputs. After applying this method to the recent strong LLaMa model, the proposed method achieves efficient instruction tuning and close the performance gap with that of the original large language model.

Strengths

- The paper is well-written and most parts of this paper are easy to follow. - The proposed method achieves significant performance improvement pertaining to instruction tuning while using a very small magnitude of trainable parameters. - The proposed method demonstrates favorable results on both single- and multi-modal instructions.

Weaknesses

- My biggest concern lies in the routing mechanism. - Why do we need the routing between different kinds of inputs? Can we just use determined inputs to the modality-aware adapters? - What the role of ```s``` is is not well explained. - It seems the router output is simply a weighted sum of the two adapters. How should we explain this? - It seems the authors also introduce adapters to the image encoder. This should also be explained. - For the image input features, the authors use the ```[CLS]``` of every fourth layer of CLIP-ViT, are there any rationales behind this? - I'm confused about Sec. 3.2. It seems that Sec. 3.2 can be cohesively organized with that of MMT. Are there more considerations about this section? If not, the writing should be better organized. - Some typos: - Line 156, ```m``` and ```n``` are in reverse order; - Line 170, the dimension definition is not correct.

Questions

see the weaknesses above

Rating

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

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

NA

Reviewer mD9H4/10 · confidence 5/52023-07-04

Summary

This paper presents a cost-efficient method to fine-tune LLMs thus enabling their multimodal reasoning capabilities. The main technical contribution includes using Mixture-of-Modality Adapation, which adopts lightweight adapters to bridge the gap between modality gaps. In the meanwhile, MMA also allows automatic routing such that the model can process both multimodal prompts and text-only prompts. Experiments show superior results on ScienceQA and training efficiency, in terms of both training time and number of trainable parameters.

Strengths

- The proposed method may help significantly reduce the fine-tuning cost of LLMs with multimodal inputs. - The proposed method is conceptually concise and generic. It could be potentially incorporated into different models/systems thus harvesting the development of both LLMs and vision encoders. - Results on ScienceQA is promising, surpassing some strong competitors such as GPT-4.

Weaknesses

- Evaluation is not sufficiently convincing. Only quantitative results on ScienceQA are presented. This leads to a narrowed view of the multimodal capabilities of the fine-tuned model. For example, does the model perform equally well on image captioning datasets such as NoCaps, COCO; how does the model perform on cross-modal retrieval / other VQA benchmarks? Missing these results makes it difficult to understand whether the proposed fine-tuning paradigm is actually bridging the modality gap as good as some previous works. - In L50 and also Figure 1(b), authors claim "this paradigm often requires to update most parameters of LLM, limiting the efficiency of VL instruction tuning", "these fine-tune schemes will inevitably undermine the NLP capabilities of LLMs due to the drastic changes in their parameter spaces" and "existing multimodal LLM do not support text-only instructions, greatly hindering their applications". I wouldn't say these are correct. For example, BLIP-2/MiniGPT4 both keep LLMs frozen without updating their parameters, thus one can always prompt its LLMs with text-only prompt without degradation in language generation quality. I am therefore not fully convinced by the motivation of having automatic routing, instead of having just frozen LLMs speaking of to preserve the text generation capabilities.

Questions

NA

Rating

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

Confidence

5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

Limitations are discussed.

Reviewer mWDr6/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-06

Summary

> Update: I bumped up my rating to 6 after rebuttal This paper proposes, LaVIN, an efficient and effective vision-language instruction tuning scheme to adapt LLMs. Specifically, the authors utilize parameter-efficient modules to adapt the LLaMA LM – they insert several adapters to the image encoder and mixture of modality adapters to the LM, the LM is expected to automatically select and route through the adapters of different modalities. LaVIN can be trained in an end-to-end fashion. Because only adapters are learned during training, LaVIN training is much more efficient than LLaVA that uses full tuning. Instruction tuning in LaVIN includes both text-image data and text-only data in a multi-task fashion (but with better separation due to adapters) to enable text-image instructions and text-only instruction at inference time. Strong results are achieved on ScienceQA.

Strengths

1. The proposed method is simple and sound. By the use of a bunch of adapters, the model can naturally learn different-modality instructions in an end-to-end fashion. 2. LaVIN is much more efficient than LLaVA. 3. Empirical results on ScienceQA are strong. 4. The paper is well-written.

Weaknesses

1. I think the proposed method resembles LLaMA-adapter a lot, maybe the authors should better note their difference early in the paper – currently LLaMA-adapter is not described until the experiment. 2. The experimental comparison with LLaMA-Adapter is not an apple-to-apple comparison because LLaMA-Adapter and LaVIN use different instruction tuning datasets – the performance gap may simply originate from the instruction tuning datasets. A better baseline should be using LLaMA-Adapter on the same instruction tuning datasets.

Questions

As mentioned in the weakness section, I think LLaMA-adapter should be described early in the paper and a fair comparison with it is needed.

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

4 excellent

Presentation

4 excellent

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

The authors have discussed the limitations of the proposed method in Section 5.

Reviewer q2tp7/10 · confidence 3/52023-07-07

Summary

This paper proposes Mixture-of-Modality Adaptation (MMA), which adopts lightweight adapters to bridge the gap between LLMs and VL tasks. The adapter utilizes a router to automatic shift between single-modal and multi-modal instructions. When applying MMA to LLaMA and training on both single-modal and multi-modal data, their proposed approach achieves competitive performance with supervised methods on ScienceQA dataset. Besides, the training of MMA is efficient and cheap.

Strengths

1. The mixture-of-modality adapter could dynamically adjust the adaptations for single-modal inputs and uni-modal inputs, which help preserve the NLP capability of LLMs. 2. Achieve competitive performance given small number of training parameters. 3. Ablation studies support the effectiveness of mixture-of-modality training and mixture-of-modality adaptation.

Weaknesses

1. The adapter idea has been extensively explored in previous efficient VL training, and using adapter to efficiently bridge vision and LLM has been explored in LLaMA-Adapter. 2. Missing discussion/ablation of how the router in the MMA helps with the LLM learn visual information while preserving NLP capability. 3. This paper only evaluates on ScienceQA. Evaluation on other benchmarks like (COCO Caption) is needed for better comparison with LLaMA-Adapter.

Questions

NA

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

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

NA

Reviewer 3xnb5/10 · confidence 3/52023-07-07

Summary

The paper presents a novel method to do efficient vision language fine-tuning. Through a mixture of modality adaptation mechanism, the model can close the gap between different modalities. Additionally, the paper proposes a routing algorithm to switch between multiple tasks. The training cost of the proposed system is low as the number of total trainable parameters is less than 4M. The model has been evaluated on public benchmark of ScienceQA.

Strengths

- The proposed method is efficient. The total trainable parameters are less than 4M. - The mixture-of-modality adaptation mechanism provides a way to adapt the LLM to vision modalities without expensive VL pretraining. - The proposed method has been evaluated on public available benchmark, achieves comparable results, and for some of the evaluation metrics, it surpasses some existing models that have larger sizes

Weaknesses

For weaknesses, please see my questions in below section.

Questions

- The model is only tested on one dataset, which might not be convincing enough regarding the effectiveness of the model. Can the authors evaluate the model using more public datasets? - The proposed model utilizes two adapters and one routing function to decide which adapter to use. The features generated after the routing function is affected by scale factor, will the performance be sensitive with the scale factor? Additionally, the routing function is defined as a weighted summation, is there any other option that performs better? - How to make it possible to extend the model to more modalities, e.g. video, audio signal.

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

2 fair

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer mWDr2023-08-15

Thanks for your detailed response! The added results on additional datasets are very helpful. Can you clarify one further question: Regarding the backbone models of LLaMA-adapter and LaVIN, can you confirm that the image encoder and language decoder in LLaMA-adapter and LaVIN are exactly the same?

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-15

Thanks a lot for your reply. Yes, LaVIN and LLaMA-V2 use the same image encoder, i.e., ViT-L/14 from CLIP. The text decoder is also kept the same in most experiments. i.e., LLaMA-7B, expect for zero-shot MME, where LLaMA-13B is used in LaVIN.

Reviewer mWDr2023-08-15

How about LLaMA-Adapter V1 in the scienceQA results? Are the encoder/decoder also the same as LaVIN there?

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-15

Yes, the image encoder and text decoder are exactly the same with LLaMA-Adapter on ScienceQA, i.e., ViT-L/14 from CLIP and LLaMA-7B.

Reviewer mWDr2023-08-15

Cool, I am happy to bump up my score to 6 then. Please add the additional experiments in the rebuttal to the next revision in the paper, they are very helpful.

Reviewer mD9H2023-08-17

Thanks for the detailed response and additional results. The fact that LAVIN significantly underperforms BLIP-2 (and on some datasets even BLIP) diminishes its contributions, despite with fewer computation cost and data required. It may also be possible that these full fine-tuning models can quickly reach comparable performance to LAVIN with reduced data and compute needed. I'd better appreciate the parameter-efficient training methods if they manage to at least come close to full model tuning results. Otherwise I doubt their values in advancing the field. I decide to maintain the original recommendation as such.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-17

Thanks for your reply. Actually, under comparable settings, LaVIN can already achieve comparable performance with the fully tuned model, i.e., LLaVA, on ScienceQA. However, the performance of LaVIN still lags behind BLIP-2 due to the lack of large-scale pre-training, which is not the main focus of this paper. We believe that large-scale pre-training will greatly boost the performance of LaVIN. Besides, our contribution is actually orthogonal to BLIP-2. Our mixture-of-modality adaptation can also apply to BLIP during its fine-tuning stage. As discussed in our rebuttal, frozen LLMs are still suboptimal for multimodal adaption. With the help of LaVIN, the NLP ability of BLIP-2 can be further improved. Based on these aspects, we believe that LaVIN can still be an efficient yet effective multi-modal adaptation strategy for LLMs, which is indeed valuable to the community.

Program Chairsdecision2023-09-21

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC