LoRA-GA: Low-Rank Adaptation with Gradient Approximation

Fine-tuning large-scale pretrained models is prohibitively expensive in terms of computational and memory costs. LoRA, as one of the most popular Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) methods, offers a cost-effective alternative by fine-tuning an auxiliary low-rank model that has significantly fewer parameters. Although LoRA reduces the computational and memory requirements significantly at each iteration, extensive empirical evidence indicates that it converges at a considerably slower rate compared to full fine-tuning, ultimately leading to increased overall compute and often worse test performance. In our paper, we perform an in-depth investigation of the initialization method of LoRA and show that careful initialization (without any change of the architecture and the training algorithm) can significantly enhance both efficiency and performance. In particular, we introduce a novel initialization method, LoRA-GA (Low Rank Adaptation with Gradient Approximation), which aligns the gradients of low-rank matrix product with those of full fine-tuning at the first step. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that LoRA-GA achieves a convergence rate comparable to that of full fine-tuning (hence being significantly faster than vanilla LoRA as well as various recent improvements) while simultaneously attaining comparable or even better performance. For example, on the subset of the GLUE dataset with T5-Base, LoRA-GA outperforms LoRA by 5.69% on average. On larger models such as Llama 2-7B, LoRA-GA shows performance improvements of 0.34, 11.52%, and 5.05% on MT-bench, GSM8K, and Human-eval, respectively. Additionally, we observe up to 2-4 times convergence speed improvement compared to vanilla LoRA, validating its effectiveness in accelerating convergence and enhancing model performance. Code is available at https://github.com/Outsider565/LoRA-GA.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer dSFq6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-11

Summary

This paper proposes LoRA-GA, which uses an adapter to approximate the gradient update of weights. This method achieves a 2-4 times improvement in convergence speed compared to vanilla LoRA and offers better accuracy than other LoRA-based methods.

Strengths

1. This paper provides a novel perspective on the initialization of LoRA from the gradient updation aspect. 2. The paper is theoretically comprehensive, well-written, and easy to follow.

Weaknesses

1. The difference between LoRA-GA and LoRA reparameterization is not shown in Figure 1. 2. A discussion on the influence of sampled batch size seems necessary.

Questions

1、 The accuracy provided in Table 2 is quite different from the numbers in PiSSA [1]. I wonder where the discrepancy comes from. 2、 From Table 4, the performance improvement brought by SO to Gaussian initialization is about 0.4%, while the improvement brought by SO to GA is 5.0%. Since the SO method appears to be general in Section 3.3, why does SO perform so well with GA? 3、 How does the sampled batch size influence the initialization? 4、 What would happen if the value of r in A and B were swapped? Or if the index sets I_{A} and I_{B} were randomly chosen from [1,2r]? [1] Pissa: Principal singular values and singular vectors adaptation of large language models[J]. arXiv.

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

None

Reviewer vjMb6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

LoRA has a slower convergence rate compared to full fine-tuning. This paper proposes a novel initialization method, LoRA-GA (Low-Rank Adaptation with Gradient Approximation), which aligns the gradients of the low-rank matrix product with those of full fine-tuning from the first step. Numerical experiments demonstrate that LoRA-GA achieves faster convergence and better or comparable performance to full fine-tuning, outperforming vanilla LoRA and its variants on several benchmark datasets.

Strengths

-The paper introduces a novel initialization strategy for LoRA, enhancing its efficiency and performance without altering the architecture or training algorithm. -The idea of aligning the gradients of the low-rank product with the full model’s gradients at the initial step is innovative. -The combination of gradient approximation and stable scale for initialization is a unique contribution.

Weaknesses

-The concept of using eigenvectors for initialization might not be entirely new, but its application in this specific context is original. -The paper could benefit from a deeper exploration of potential edge cases or limitations of the proposed initialization method. -Some sections, particularly those involving complex mathematical derivations, might be challenging for readers without a strong background in the area. Some of the detailed steps may need to be provided in the proof.

Questions

See the weakness.

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The authors have adequately addressed the limitations and potential negative societal impact of their work.

Reviewer P55u6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-15

Summary

This paper proposes a novel initialization method for LoRA based on detailed theoretical analysis. The experimental results illustrate that the proposed method can achieve a great performance on the most tasks.

Strengths

Strength: 1. The paper provide a beautiful theoretical analysis about the initialization method for the gradients of LoRA and full-parameter fine-tuning and then propose their method based on their analysis. 2. The proposed method is also very clear and easy to follow. 3. The provided results illustrate that the proposed method can achieve a better performance compared with the most LoRA variants.

Weaknesses

Weakness: 1. I think the main weakness is from the experiments. I think the authors should provide more results on some complex tasks. For example, the paper mainly focus on GULU benchmark and metamath-100k. However, I think GULU has been solved by current PEFT methods. Then, for the metamath-100k, it selects 100k data from the vanilla metamath dataset. I recommend the author conduct their experiments on the full metamath dataset because the recent LoRA-based papers usually focus on the full dataset and therefore the readers can obtain a fair comparison and more directly to understand which method is better. I think metamath-100k is not a popular choice although Pissa also uses this dataset. 2. I am considering whether the authors tune the hyper-parameters of the baseline methods, because I find the results of some baselines are too weak. The best for LoRA-GA is usually not the best hyperparameters for other methods. I hope the paper can provide a fair comparison. That is also the reason why I suggest the author use a more popular dataset. For example, the default learning rate for the experiments on metamath is 2e−5, and the results on GSM8K are: LoRA (42.08), LoRA+(52.11), LoRA-GA(53.60). However, from the table 7 and table 8 in the appendix, we can find that the results of a larger learning rate 5e-5 in table 8: LoRA (46.89), LoRA+(55.23), LoRA-GA(52.79). That means increasing the learning rate from 2e-5 to 5e-5, the baseline LoRA can be improved from 42.08 to 46.89, LoRA+ can be increased from 52.11 to 55.23 and higher than LoRA-GA. So I considering whether we can obtain a better performance for the baselines when we further tune the hyperparameters. I think that is very important since the reader can better know whether each method can really improve the performance. [1] LoRA Learns Less and Forgets Less. [2] MoRA: High-Rank Updating for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning. [3] MiLoRA: Harnessing Minor Singular Components for Parameter-Efficient LLM Finetuning

Questions

My question is about the hyperparameter selecetion for the baselines. Whether the hyperparameters the authors used in this paper is a good selection.

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer dSFq2024-08-09

Thanks for your response.

Most of my concerns are addressed. So I'm willing to raise the score.

Reviewer P55u2024-08-12

Thanks for your response

Thanks for your response and new results. The authors have solved most of my concerns and I will raise my score to 6.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Thank you for your response. We appreciate that most of your concerns have been addressed, and we are grateful for your willingness to raise the score. If you have any further feedback, please let us know!

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC