VeLoRA: Memory Efficient Training using Rank-1 Sub-Token Projections

Large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as powerful tools for tackling many language-processing tasks. Despite their success, training and fine-tuning these models is still far too computationally and memory intensive. In this paper, we identify and characterise the important components needed for effective model convergence using gradient descent. In doing so we find that the intermediate activations used to implement backpropagation can be excessively compressed without incurring any degradation in performance. This result leads us to a cheap and memory-efficient algorithm for both fine-tuning and pre-training LLMs. The proposed algorithm simply divides the tokens up into smaller sub-tokens before projecting them onto a fixed 1-dimensional subspace during the forward pass. These features are then coarsely reconstructed during the backward pass to implement the update rules. We confirm the effectiveness of our algorithm as being complimentary to many state-of-the-art PEFT methods on the VTAB-1k fine-tuning benchmark. Furthermore, we outperform QLoRA for fine-tuning LLaMA and show competitive performance against other memory-efficient pre-training methods on the large-scale C4 dataset.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer bRtV5/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-07

Summary

This paper proposes a novel algorithm named VeLoRA, which achieves memory-efficient training by compressing the intermediate activations of large-scale language models into a fixed one-dimensional subspace. VeLoRA divides tokens into smaller sub-tokens and projects them during the forward pass, then reconstructs the activations during the backward pass, thereby reducing memory usage. Experimental results demonstrate that VeLoRA performs excellently across various benchmarks, complementing other parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods, and significantly reducing memory requirements while maintaining high performance.

Strengths

1 The method is easy to understand and succinctly compresses the intermediate activations. 2 The method has a relatively complete derivation and explanatory analysis.

Weaknesses

1 The number of parameters used by VeLoRA, especially in Tables 1 and 2, is not specified. 2 In Table 1, although there is an improvement in the average results compared to LoRA, the performance degrades on datasets such as Caltech101, Resisc45, and Clevr-Count. Why is this the case? 3 For PEFT methods, the experiments on visual tasks are insufficient. According to the category in "Yu B X B, Chang J, Wang H, et al. Visual tuning[J]. ACM Computing Surveys, 2023.", VeLoRA experiments are based only on the Parameter Tuning category, neglecting Prompt Tuning and Adapter Tuning. Therefore, the current results do not fully demonstrate the universality of the proposed method. 4 Although the authors mention time issues in the Limitations section, the training duration before and after introducing VeLoRA should be presented. 5 For Tables 1 and 2, the improvements brought by VeLoRA are not significant. Although the authors declare this in Q7 of the Checklist, a significance analysis is still necessary, especially in cases where the improvement is not evident.

Questions

see Weaknesses.

Rating

5

Confidence

3

Soundness

2

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors mention training time issues in the Limitations section, but the relevant results are not presented.

Reviewer UGFV7/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-11

Summary

This paper introduces VeLoRA, a novel method for memory-efficient training and fine-tuning of large language models. The key idea is to compress intermediate activations during the forward pass by projecting sub-tokens onto a fixed 1-dimensional subspace, then coarsely reconstructing them during backpropagation. This approach complements existing parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods and allows for significant memory savings without sacrificing model performance. The authors evaluate VeLoRA on several benchmarks including VTAB-1k, GLUE, MMLU, and C4, demonstrating competitive or improved results compared to state-of-the-art methods like LoRA, QLoRA, and GaLore while reducing memory requirements.

Strengths

1. VeLoRA presents an innovative solution to the critical problem of memory efficiency in training large language models. The method is conceptually simple yet highly effective, offering substantial memory savings without compromising performance. 2. The authors provide extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks and model sizes, from vision transformers to large language models. This thorough evaluation demonstrates the broad applicability and scalability of VeLoRA. 3. Complementary to existing methods: VeLoRA is shown to be compatible with and complementary to other PEFT methods, enhancing their memory efficiency. This makes the approach highly practical and easy to adopt in existing workflows.

Weaknesses

Limited theoretical analysis: While the paper provides some intuition for why VeLoRA works, a more rigorous theoretical analysis could strengthen the understanding of its effectiveness and potential limitations.

Questions

How does VeLoRA affect training and inference times compared to baseline methods? Is there a significant computational overhead? Are there any particular types of tasks or model architectures where VeLoRA might be less effective or even detrimental to performance?

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

NA

Reviewer KYfS5/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-12

Summary

This paper proposes VeLoRA, an activation-compression method to reduce memory consumption. VeLoRA compresses the activations by multiplying them with a vector, and the activations are then decompressed before gradient back-propagation. VeLoRA has proven to be effective on both vision and language models.

Strengths

- The paper presents an interesting method to reduce memory consumption when training large models. - Experimental results show that VeLoRA can not only reduce GPU memory, but also achieve better performance.

Weaknesses

- VeLoRA reduces memory usage by compressing activations. However, the widely used gradient checkpointing method can almost entirely eliminate the need for storing intermediate activations by recomputing them. How much speed advantage does VeLoRA offer compared to gradient checkpointing? - The rank-1 mapping method used in VeLoRA is not intuitive to me. Can you explain why the rank-1 mapping is effective from a theoretical or intuitive perspective? In my opinion, the rank-1 mapping is equivalent to a weighted average, so does this mean that setting $v$ as a constant value $ (1/\sqrt m, 1/\sqrt m, \ldots, 1/\sqrt m) \in \mathbb{R}^m $ would also be feasible? - Although VeLoRA's reduction in memory usage is not significant, its improvement in model performance is impressive. Can you explain the reasons behind this effect?

Questions

See weaknesses above. Overall, VeLoRA is a very interesting method, but the paper should provide a more clear explanation of the intuition or insights behind the method. For this reason, I cannot definitively say that the paper is solid, but my view is generally positive.

Rating

5

Confidence

3

Soundness

2

Presentation

2

Contribution

2

Limitations

Limitations and Broader Impact are discussed in the paper.

Reviewer sd525/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-13

Summary

In this paper, the authors propose to compress the activations by down-projecting the input tensors with a vector to save memory for large-scale training. The empirical results show that their proposed method, VeLoRa, achieves better performance compared with previous work. Strengths: 1. The topic of efficient training is important, given that the models are scaled up at a rapid rate. 2. The paper is well written and easy to follow. 3. The empirical results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed method. Weaknesses 1. Missing several closely related work. 2. In addition to activation low-rank projection, the authors also propose a token grouping strategy. However, the benefit of this technique is unclear to me. Given the concerns above, I recommend a borderline rejection of this paper. [1] [Accelerating deep learning with lossy compression](https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0412625) \ [2] [Flora: Low-Rank Adapters Are Secretly Gradient Compressors](https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03293)

Strengths

1. The topic of efficient training is important, given that the models are scaled up at a rapid rate. 2. The paper is well written and easy to follow. 3. The empirical results confirm the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Weaknesses

1. Missing several closely related work. The most related topic is activation compression (e.g. see [1] as an example of such a line of research). In addition, the paper uses GaLore as the baseline. However, there is existing work showing superior performance without conducting expensive SVD operations (e.g. [2]). The paper lacks proper comparisons with these baselines. 2. In addition to activation low-rank projection, the authors also propose a token grouping strategy. However, the benefit of this technique is unclear to me. In Table 5 (b), the authors show that different numbers of groups will behave inconsistently: some work better while some do not without a clear pattern. It might be the variance that is playing the important role here.

Questions

See the weaknesses.

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

The authors have adequately addressed the limitations.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-11

Thank you and we are happy to further discuss about the paper.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-11

Dear reviewer bRtV, We are keen to know if there are any remaining concerns that need to be addressed or if further discussions is needed. Your feedback is invaluable in enhancing the quality of the paper and we look forward to your response. Thank you.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-12

We are happy to have addressed your concerns and happy to hear that you recommend the paper to be accepted.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-12

Dear reviewer UGFV, We are truly grateful for your positive feedback on our paper. Your constructive comments have been invaluable in helping us refine our work. We're excited to share that we have now expanded the theoretical analysis in response to your insights. Additionally, we have included a comparative speed analysis of our method against alternatives, which we believe strengthens our contribution. We hope that our rebuttal has successfully addressed your concerns. Your expertise and perspective are deeply appreciated, and we welcome any further discussion. Thank you.

Reviewer UGFV2024-08-12

Thanks for authors' response.The response answers my questions well and theoretical analysis helps better understand the process.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

We are glad to see that we were able to answer your questions. We will include the full theoretical analysis in the revised paper.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Dear Reviewers, We would like to thank you for all the constructive comments, which are very helpful in improving our paper. We are glad to see that we have addressed all of the issues raised and we will incorporate these changes into the updated manuscript. Best regards, Authors

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC