LoRA : Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models

Link : https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.09685

---

Why

• For down-stream applications, full parameter fine-tuning that fine-tunes all the parameters, are most resource-intensive and time consuming.
• Mitigated by adapting only some parameters or learning external modules for new tasks, not good as it introduce inference latency, or reduce the models’ usable.
• Usually often fail to match the fine-tune baselines, posing a trade-off between efficiency and model quality.
• Need a new way !

Code

from perf import LoraConfig, get_peft_model
 
lora_config = LoraConfig(
	task_type = TaskTyle.SEQ_2_SEQ_LM        # Type of task
	r =  8                                   # Rank of the low-rank matrices
	lora_alpha = 16                          # Alpha parameter for scaling
	lora_dropout = 0.1                       # Dropout rate
	bias = 'none'                            # Options: 'none', 'all', 'lora_only'
	target_modules = ["q", "v"]              # Specify target modules in the model
)

1. task_type
   • Description: Specifies the type of task for which the model is being fine-tuned.
   • Values:
     • TaskType.SEQ_2_SEQ_LM for sequence-to-sequence language modeling.
     • TaskType.CAUSAL_LM for causal language modeling.
     • TaskType.TOKEN_CLASSIFICATION for token classification.
     • TaskType.SEQUENCE_CLASSIFICATION for sequence classification.
   • Usage: This helps tailor the fine-tuning process to the specific requirements of different NLP tasks.
2. r
   • Description: The rank of the low-rank matrices used to approximate the weight updates.
   • Values: Positive integer (e.g., 4, 8, 16).
   • Usage: A lower rank reduces the number of trainable parameters, making the fine-tuning process more efficient. However, too low a rank might underfit the data.
3. lora_alpha
   • Description: A scaling factor applied to the low-rank updates.
   • Values: Positive integer (e.g., 16, 32, 64).
   • Usage: This parameter scales the updates from the low-rank matrices. Higher values can increase the influence of the low-rank updates.
4. lora_dropout
   • Description: Dropout rate applied to the low-rank matrices during training.
   • Values: Float between 0 and 1 (e.g., 0.1, 0.05).
   • Usage: Dropout helps to prevent overfitting by randomly setting some weights to zero during training. A dropout rate of 0.1 means 10% of the weights will be set to zero.
5. bias
   • Description: Specifies which biases to apply LoRA to.
   • Values:
     • "none": No biases are updated.
     • "all": All biases are updated.
     • "lora_only": Only the biases in the low-rank matrices are updated.
   • Usage: This controls whether and how the biases in the model are fine-tuned alongside the main weight updates.
6. target_modules
   • Description: Specifies which modules (layers) in the model to target for applying LoRA.
   • Values: List of strings representing module names (e.g., ["q", "v"]).
   • Usage: This allows fine-tuning specific parts of the model, such as query (q) and value (v) projection layers in transformers. By targeting specific modules, you can focus the fine-tuning effort where it’s most needed.

Insight

• Learned over-parametrized models in fact reside on a low intrinsic dimension.
• Low-Rank Adaptation is based on that the change in weights during model adaptation also has a low ‘intrinsic rank’.
• LoRA allows us to train some dense layers in neural network indirectly optimizing rank decomposition matrices of the dense layers’ change during adaptation, while keep the pre-trained weights frozen.

LoRA advantages

• many small LoRA modules can be build for different tasks on a shared pre-trained model. By freezing the model and efficiently switch tasks by replacing the matrices A and B as in fig 1.
• LoRA makes training more efficient and lowers the hardware barrier to entry by 3 times.
• Linear design allows us to merge the trainable matrices with the frozen weights when deployed, introducing no inference latency
• LoRA is orthogonal to other methods and can be combined with many of them.

Other Methods disadvantages

• Adapter Layers Introduce Inference Latency
• Directly Optimizing the Prompt is Hard

Math

During full fine-tuning, the model is initialized to pre-trained with ${\Phi }_0$ and updated to ${\Phi }_0+\Delta \Phi$ by repeatedly following the gradient to maximize the conditional language modeling objective :

$$\underset{\Phi }{\max }\sum _{(x,y)\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum _{t=1}^{|y|}\log \left(P_{\Phi }(y_t|x,y_{<t})\right)$$

where $P_{\Phi }(y|x)$ = pre-trained autoregressive language model and where $\mathbb{Z}={\left\{\left(x_i,y_i\right)\right\}}_{i=1,..,N}$ is training dataset of context-target pairs.

LoRA is more parameter-efficient approach, where the $\Delta \Phi =\Delta \Phi (\Theta )$ is further encoded by a much smaller-sized set of parameters $\Theta$ with $|\Theta |\ll |{\Phi }_0|$. The task of finding $\Delta \Phi$ thus becomes optimizing over $\Theta$:

$$\underset{\Theta }{\max }\sum _{(x,y)\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum _{t=1}^{|y|}\log \left(p_{{\Phi }_0+\Delta \Phi (\Theta )}(y_t|x,y_{<t})\right)$$

Thus the number of trainable parameters $|\Theta |$ can be as small as 0.01% of $|{\Phi }_0|$.

Method

A neural network contains many dense layers which perform matrix multiplication. The weight matrices in these layers typically have full-rank. When adapting to a specific task, previous research shows that the pre-training language model have a low ‘instrisic dimension’ and can still learn efficiently despite a random projection to a smaller subspace. Inspired by that, author hypothesize the updates to the weights also have a low ‘instrisic dimension’ during adaptation