LISA: Layerwise Importance Sampling for Memory-Efficient Large Language Model Fine-Tuning

The machine learning community has witnessed impressive advancements since large language models (LLMs) first appeared. Yet, their massive memory consumption has become a significant roadblock to large-scale training. For instance, a 7B model typically requires at least 60 GB of GPU memory with full parameter training, which presents challenges for researchers without access to high-resource environments. Parameter Efficient Fine-Tuning techniques such as Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) have been proposed to alleviate this problem. However, in most large-scale fine-tuning settings, their performance does not reach the level of full parameter training because they confine the parameter search to a low-rank subspace. Attempting to complement this deficiency, we investigate the layerwise properties of LoRA on fine-tuning tasks and observe an unexpected but consistent skewness of weight norms across different layers. Utilizing this key observation, a surprisingly simple training strategy is discovered, which outperforms both LoRA and full parameter training in a wide range of settings with memory costs as low as LoRA. We name it Layerwise Importance Sampled AdamW (LISA), a promising alternative for LoRA, which applies the idea of importance sampling to different layers in LLMs and randomly freezes most middle layers during optimization. Experimental results show that with similar or less GPU memory consumption, LISA surpasses LoRA or even full parameter tuning in downstream fine-tuning tasks, where LISA consistently outperforms LoRA by over 10%-35% in terms of MT-Bench score while achieving on-par or better performance in MMLU, AGIEval and WinoGrande. On large models, specifically LLaMA-2-70B, LISA surpasses LoRA on MT-Bench, GSM8K, and PubMedQA, demonstrating its effectiveness across different domains.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer kABp5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-10

Summary

This paper proposes an parameter-efficient finetuning (PEFT) method, LISA, that only finetunes some sampled layers while freezing the rest for some certain iterations, and resample the finetuned layers later. To validate LISA's effectiveness, the authors benchmark it on various tasks, like instruction-following, medical QA, math problems, across various sizes of LLMs. The results show that LISA shares a similar GPU memory consumption as LoRA, 1.5x speedup than LoRA for training, better or comparable to LoRA and Full Finetuning for various tasks. The main contributions of this paper are: 1. The proposed method is simple, easy to be applied; 2. The experiments are thorough and consistent to support LISA's effectiveness.

Strengths

1. The paper is well-written and easy to follow; 2. The proposed method, LISA, is simple and practical; 3. The experiments are thorough, and the results are better than the baselines.

Weaknesses

1. Lack of novelty. LISA is very similar to the method proposed in the paper [46] in the references. [46] proposes to pretrain a model layer-by-layer, while LISA shuffles the training order and finetune some for a period. Such novelty is not enough. In addition, the authors don't apply their finding, i.e. skewed weight-norm distribution across layers, to design a better sampling method. Instead, they apply uniform sampling, which makes the finding less relevant. BTW, the finding is very similar to a previous work [2] (Figure 4). 2. Lack of experimental details about the optimizer states, and unfair comparison. Compared to LoRA, LISA basically finetunes the whole model, which means the optimizer states stay the same as Full Finetuning. Since the oprimizer states occupy as twice memory as the model's, I assume LISA offload them to CPU. This part is not explicitely stated, nor in the limitation section. When comparing the training time, the authors only compare the forward and backward time (Figure 4), and ignore the latency introduced by the offloaded optimizer states, which is unfair since LoRA doesn't need to offload. 3. Lack of important ablation study. The benefit of LISA is from the training of the whole model in a layer-by-layer manner. Actually, we can also apply LISA to LoRA. I.e. we can use a very large size LoRA and only finetune the sampled LoRAs. In this way, LoRA has a larger number of trainable parameters, which might close the gap between LISA and LoRA. 4. Unintuitive results without further analysis. The most surprising result is that LISA outperforms full finetuning quite often, which is against our intuition. It also casts a doubt: how do you choose the hyper-parameters (like Table 15)? And what is the error bar for the main results. [1] A fast learning algorithm for deep, Geoffrey E. Hinton, Simon Osindero, Yee-Whye Teh [2] Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning without Introducing New Latency, Baohao Liao, Yan Meng, Christof Monz

Questions

See weakness.

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

2

Contribution

2

Limitations

The authors discuss in the Limitation section.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-09

Thank you very much for the valuable feedback!

Dear Reviewer kABp, Thank you very much for your valuable feedback! We truly hope that our new results can help clarify the concerns. We appreciate the time you have spent on reviewing our paper and providing us with the constructive comments. Please let us know if there are any concerns remaining. If you find our response to have addressed your concerns, it would mean very much to us if you could consider raising the score.

Reviewer K4687/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-13

Summary

This paper proposes a lighter alternative to LoRA, LISA, based on using importance sampling to periodically choose a subset of layers to optimize. It is motivated by observations on the norm of parameter updates made during training with LoRA, compared to full parameter fine-tuning. Experiments are made comparing LISA with LoRA and full parameter fine-tuning on memory efficiency, and moderate/large fine-tuning and continual pre-training. Supplementary experiments are made on the hyperparameters of LISA and training sensitivity. Results show that LISA uses less memory than LoRA and achieves better results on most tasks. The paper also presents a discussion including theoretical properties of LISA.

Strengths

- The method proposed by this paper is of obvious interest for efficient training. - The experimental results presented are convincing, and seem to indicate that the method is promising.

Weaknesses

- The main issue I have with this paper is that the approach presented does not seem to actually use Importance sampling: the weights of the $E$ and $H$ layers are fixed to $1.0$, and the intermediate layers have uniform weights. Besides, the presentation of the distribution and rates used in Section 3.2 is rather unclear.

Questions

- While the choice of that sampling distribution seems motivated by observation on LoRA, there seems to be shortcuts taken, particularly on fixing $E$ and $H$. Is there anything more to motivate this ? Did you try more extensive experiments with only $E + H$ ? - Can you relate your approach with those mentioned in Section 2.2, focusing on layer-selection ?

Rating

7

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

- The limitations have been addressed.

Reviewer Rt8C7/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-13

Summary

This paper proposes a new optimization algorithm called Layerwise Importance Sampled AdamW (LISA) for large language model (LLM) fine-tuning. The authors observe the skewed weight norms across different layers in the Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) method and use this observation to develop LISA, which randomly freezes certain layers during optimization. Experimental results show that LISA outperforms LoRA and full parameter training in various downstream fine-tuning tasks, demonstrating its effectiveness and memory efficiency.

Strengths

(1) The paper addresses an important problem in the field of large language models, which is the high memory consumption during training. The proposed LISA algorithm provides a memory-efficient alternative to the existing LoRA method. (2) The authors provide a clear motivation for their work and thoroughly analyze the layerwise properties of LoRA, which leads to the development of LISA. This analysis adds valuable insights to the field. (3) The experimental results demonstrate the superiority of LISA over LoRA and full parameter training in various downstream tasks. The authors provide detailed comparisons and evaluations, supporting the claims made in the paper. (4) The paper is generally well-written and easy to follow. (5) The design of the proposed "Layerwise Importance Sampling AdamW" is quite interesting and novel, which may be generalized in other related LLM's variants.

Weaknesses

(1) I am curious whether the authors will open-source their implementation? Since efficient training techniques are important to this field, it would be beneficial to have an easy-to-use implementation. In addition, it would be helpful if the authors provide more information on their hyperparameter tuning strategy in the experiments, like how do you choose the best hyperparameters? (2) The some parts of the writing and layout needs improvement. For example, there are too many capitalized letters like line 6 "Parameter Efficient Fine-Tuning". I do not see any reason to capitalize every words. In addition, the figures should be re-organized like Figure 2. (3) The authors seem to define 65B as a boundary for small language models and large language model (see line 56). Just curious, are there any justification or relevant claims? Since there are more and more small language model research nowadays and they are mainly focusing on 1B-7B, it would be interesting to have a clear definition in our community.

Questions

None

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

4

Limitations

The limitation is fine with me.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-12

Thanks for your valuable feedback!

Dear Reviewers, Thank you for your valuable feedback and for taking the time to review our submission. We appreciate your insights and have addressed your comments in our response. If there are any additional concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to reach out. We are more than happy to provide further clarification or discuss any points in more detail. Best regards, Authors

Reviewer K4682024-08-13

I would like to thank the authors for their rebuttal, the clarifications and the supplementary results ! I have updated my *Soundness* rating, and maintain my global rating recommanding acceptance.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Thank you so much for your valuable feedback!

Dear Reviewer K468, We sincerely appreciate your time in reviewing our rebuttal and examining our new results. We are delighted to learn that our response successfully addressed your concerns and contributed to an increase in the _Soundness_ rating. Your constructive advice is really helpful in enhancing the completeness and quality of our paper! Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and consideration. Best regards, Authors

Reviewer kABp2024-08-13

Thank you for the clarification and new eperiments. I'm willing to increase my score.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Thanks very much for your positive feedback!

Dear Reviewer kABp, We sincerely thank you for your positive feedback and the time you dedicated to reviewing our rebuttal. It brings us great joy to learn that our response has addressed your concerns and contributed to increasing the score from 4 to 5. As the score is still borderline, we are wondering if there are any major concerns regarding our current revision. It would be our great pleasure to provide further clarifications and results to address any additional doubts. Your suggestions really help a lot to improve our work and make the justification of our method more complete. We also greatly appreciate your recognition of the simplicity of our algorithm, the quality of our paper, and the contribution it makes. Once again, we would like to express our appreciation for your valuable comments during the reviewing process. Best regards, Authors.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC