Both are very cool, but I wonder if I missed something else?
I think the literature is clear on that?
"LoRA vs Full Fine-tuning: An Illusion of Equivalence" -- https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21228v1
Quoting from the conclusions:
> The paper describes the finding that LoRA and full fine-tuning, with equal performance on the fine-tuning task, can have solutions with very different generalization behaviors outside the fine-tuning task distribution. We found that LoRA and full fine-tuning yield models with significant differences spectral properties of their weight matrices: LoRA models often containing “intruder dimensions”, high-ranking singular vectors approximately orthogonal to the singular vectors of pre-trained weight matrices. The existence of intruder dimensions correlates with the fine-tuned model forgetting more of the pre-training distribution as well as forgetting more when trained on tasks sequentially in a continual learning setup.
I'm surprised they didn't cite this; it's a well known paper.
Oh, you mean rejected just like these papers?
Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space[1], one of the most influential papers in the space with tens of thousands of citations[2]? Or the RoBERTa[3] paper (dramatically improved upon BERT; RoBERTa and derived models currently have tens of millions of downloads on HF and still serve as a reliable industry workhorse)? Or the Mamba paper[4] (pretty much the only alternative to transformers that actually gets used)? Do you want me to keep going?
Honestly, I find that whether a paper gets rejected or not means diddly squat considering how broken the review system is, and through how much honestly terrible papers I have to wade through every time I'm looking through the conference submissions for anything good.
[1] -- https://openreview.net/forum?id=idpCdOWtqXd60
[2] -- https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7447715766504981253
I'm surprised you copied and pasted all of that without explaining what it means.
Does LoRA perform worse, better or statistically insignificantly different to FullFT?
You aren't able to tell from what you pasted, are you?
There are techniques like PiCa and SVFT which can mitigate much of the loss, though.
I’m shocked they didn’t look at progressive merging of LoRAs. Research shows that’s the best way of improving its ability to model higher level features.
Seems like a massive miss, not to mention there is other research that contradicts a lot of their findings. This feels a bit like a researchers first pass at learning LoRA
Progressive merging of LoRa is somewhere inbetween and categorically more complex than just LoRa so would be dominated by standard LoRa in that case.
While progressive merging could train faster as fewer params are trainable at any given time, it results in very larger adapter diffs OTO the size of the original model and doesn't retain the benefits of being able to deploy multiple adapters over the same base model idt.
I don’t get why a trajectory would provide only one bit of information.
Each step of the trajectory is at least giving information about what state transitions are possible.
An infinitely long trajectory can explore the whole state space if there are no absorbing states. Such a trajectory would provide a massive amount of information about the system, even if we ignored the final reward.
This is in contrast to more "supervised" forms of learning where you could get a loss for each token produced (e.g. cross entropy loss), and where you'd get, as a consequence O(number of tokens) information into your gradients.
I’m still not fully convinced of the 1bit claim, they made other mistakes in the blog post
Stumbled on this today... https://hackerpager.net/
I really want something like this with flip out keyboard and could do Signal on LTE/WiFi.
Be sure to validate everything you're reading though as of late I've come across more and more things that don't seem 100% accurate in their docs, seems to heavily depend on what section.
