Parameter Efficient Instruction Tuning: An Empirical Study

AI-generated keywords: Instruction Tuning Finetuning PEFT Methods LoRA Adapter

AI-generated Key Points

  • Parameter Efficient Finetuning (PEFT) is a cost-effective alternative to full parameter finetuning for pretrained language models.
  • PEFT methods such as LoRA and adapter can closely approximate the performance of full finetuning under ideal training conditions.
  • Both LoRA and adapter may experience training instability if not optimized properly.
  • LoRA surpasses adapter in open instruction tuning settings by demonstrating robust generalization across diverse tasks but requires a substantial number of tasks for effective unseen task generalization.
  • Limitations exist in long-form generation capabilities for both methods, highlighting ongoing challenges within PEFT approaches that require further innovation.
  • Tailoring PEFT methods to specific model sizes, task types, and data availability is crucial for optimal performance.
  • Continued refinement of PEFT methods is needed to enhance stability and expand applicability to more complex datasets in the evolving landscape of language model finetuning.
  • Researchers should explore trade-offs between different PEFT strategies to advance towards more sophisticated techniques that maximize efficiency and effectiveness in instruction tuning scenarios across various domains.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Pengfei He

7 pages, 7 figures
License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: Instruction tuning has become an important step for finetuning pretrained language models to better follow human instructions and generalize on various tasks. Nowadays, pretrained language models become increasingly larger, and full parameter finetuning is overwhelmingly costly. Therefore, Parameter Efficient Finetuning (PEFT) has arisen as a cost-effective practice for instruction tuning because of significantly smaller computational, memory, and storage cost compared to full finetuning. Despite their widespread adaptations, the vast hyperparameter spaces, the number of PEFT methods, the different focus of instruction tuning capabilities make disentangling the impact of each aspect difficult. This study systematically investigates several representative PEFT methods, surveying the effect of hyperparameter choices including training hyperparameters and PEFT-specific hyperparameters, how different models sizes and the number of instruction tasks affect the performance, in-task-distribution memorization and open instruction following capability. Our empirical study shows that only LoRA and adapter can get close to full finetuning with ideal training settings. The ideal training setting includes an appropriate learning rate, largest LoRA rank or adapter size allowed and diverse training tasks. On the other hand, LoRA and adapter suffer from training instability if such an ideal training condition is not met. Additionally, LoRA requires a greater number of tasks for effective unseen task generalization, exhibit slower learning speed. Moreover, LoRA has weaker task-level memorization. Lastly, LoRA and adapter fall short in complex reasoning, coding and long-form generation compared to finetuning in open instruction tuning settings but it shows stronger capabilities compared to adapter.

Submitted to arXiv on 25 Nov. 2024

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2411.16775v1

In the realm of instruction tuning for finetuning pretrained language models, Parameter Efficient Finetuning (PEFT) has emerged as a cost-effective alternative to full parameter finetuning. This is due to its significantly smaller computational, memory, and storage costs. This study delves into the effectiveness of various PEFT methods, with a particular focus on LoRA and adapter. The research showcases that these methods can closely approximate the performance of full finetuning when implemented under ideal training conditions. These conditions include appropriate learning rates and larger LoRA ranks or adapter sizes, along with diverse training tasks. However, it is noted that both LoRA and adapter may experience training instability if not optimized properly. Furthermore, while LoRA surpasses adapter in open instruction tuning settings by demonstrating robust generalization across diverse tasks, it requires a substantial number of tasks to achieve effective unseen task generalization. The study also highlights limitations in long-form generation capabilities for both methods, indicating ongoing challenges within PEFT approaches that necessitate further innovation and exploration. The findings underscore the importance of tailoring PEFT methods to specific model sizes, task types, and data availability for optimal performance. As the landscape of language model finetuning evolves, there is a call for continued refinement of these methods to enhance stability and expand applicability to more complex datasets. By exploring the trade-offs between different PEFT strategies and their impacts on model performance, researchers can advance towards more sophisticated techniques that maximize both efficiency and effectiveness in instruction tuning scenarios across various domains. Ultimately, this study aims to guide future research efforts towards optimizing the efficiency and efficacy of instruction tuning practices in real-world applications.
Created on 30 Apr. 2025

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.