5 ms·

Like most things in ML, the answer of which layers to use come down to empirical evidence more than theory. In a typical Lora training pipeline, you freeze the

by icyfox 3y ago

Like most things in ML, the answer of which layers to use come down to empirical evidence more than theory. In a typical Lora training pipeline, you freeze the contents of the base model and just adjust the Lora layers. The more layers you convert to lora layers the more degrees of freedom you have for the optimization. There are some finetuning regimens that only recommend finetuning the last layer since this is theorized to have the "highest order" representation of the inputs. Other training regimens will finetune all layers. It's largely data and problem dependent. Lora just mirrors this convention.

somethingsome 3y ago
Yeah, but if I remember correctly the paper, LoRA followed the logic that only the last layers on a llm changed drastically during finetuning, and the layers above remained almost unchanged, so it made sense to alterate only the last ones, breaking this by adding a LoRA at each linear layer doesn't seem to follow the logic of why LoRA was created and why it works.
- icyfox 3y ago
  Well, Lora works just because it's a low rank approximation of full updates - much in the same way that SVD works, and regular gradient updating works. It delivers good results by both acting as a regularizer and by allowing larger models to be updated with smaller memory footprints. My point is that the original Lora paper choosing the last layer is one choice. And it is likely the most common one because of its higher symbolic nature typically being all that's needed for good performance on downstream tasks. Depending on the size of your finetuning job I've personally seen updating more layers (or updating some only on a certain learning rate schedule) to be more effective. Lora is just the mathematical technique of updating, it doesn't really have a hypothesis on the ideal training regimen.
  - somethingsome 3y ago
    Thanks, I'll meditate on that and re read the paper with this view in mind. The last sentence makes sense to me, if the finetuning job changes significatively more the weights of other layers than just the last one, it is kinda normal to to use Lora on them. I had the impression that it was rarely the case, but I must be mistaken. I'll think about applications where this is the case.

by icyfox 3y ago

somethingsome 3y ago

Yeah, but if I remember correctly the paper, LoRA followed the logic that only the last layers on a llm changed drastically during finetuning, and the layers above remained almost unchanged, so it made sense to alterate only the last ones, breaking this by adding a LoRA at each linear layer doesn't seem to follow the logic of why LoRA was created and why it works.

icyfox 3y ago
Well, Lora works just because it's a low rank approximation of full updates - much in the same way that SVD works, and regular gradient updating works. It delivers good results by both acting as a regularizer and by allowing larger models to be updated with smaller memory footprints. My point is that the original Lora paper choosing the last layer is one choice. And it is likely the most common one because of its higher symbolic nature typically being all that's needed for good performance on downstream tasks. Depending on the size of your finetuning job I've personally seen updating more layers (or updating some only on a certain learning rate schedule) to be more effective. Lora is just the mathematical technique of updating, it doesn't really have a hypothesis on the ideal training regimen.
- somethingsome 3y ago
  Thanks, I'll meditate on that and re read the paper with this view in mind. The last sentence makes sense to me, if the finetuning job changes significatively more the weights of other layers than just the last one, it is kinda normal to to use Lora on them. I had the impression that it was rarely the case, but I must be mistaken. I'll think about applications where this is the case.