Stable-LoRA: Stabilizing Feature Learning of Low-Rank Adaptation
Authors: Yize Wu, Ke Gao, Ling Li, Yanjun Wu
Organizations: Intelligent Software Research Center, Institute of Software, CAS, Beijing, China · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) is a widely adopted parameter-efficient method for fine-tuning Large Langauge Models. It updates the weight matrix as W=W0+sBA, where W0 is the original frozen weight, s is a scaling factor and A,B are trainable low-rank matrices. Despite its robust empirical effectiveness, the theoretical foundations of LoRA remain insufficiently understood, particularly with respect to feature learning stability. In this paper, we first establish that, LoRA can, in principle, naturally achieve and sustain stable feature learning (i.e., be self-stabilized) under appropriate hyper-parameters and initializations of A and B. However, we also uncover a fundamental limitation that the necessary non-zero initialization of A compromises self-stability, leading to suboptimal performances. To address this challenge, we propose Stable-LoRA, a weight-shrinkage optimization strategy that dynamically enhances stability of LoRA feature learning. By progressively shrinking A during the earliest training steps, Stable-LoRA is both theoretically and empirically validated to effectively eliminate instability of LoRA feature learning while preserving the benefits of the non-zero start. Experiments show that Stable-LoRA consistently outperforms other baselines across diverse models and tasks, with no additional memory usage and only negligible computation overheads. The code is available at https://github.com/Yize-Wu/Stable-LoRA.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of Stable-LoRA. The weight-shrinkage operation is emphasized as a patch to the gradient-descent procedure.
Figure 2: Averaged norm of A and B on the 0.5B model and HellaSwag. While the scale of B is smaller, it grows more rapidly than A ( ∣gB∣>∣gA∣ ), indicating a practical violation of feature learning stability.
Model
Method
HellaS.
SIQA
ObQA
ARC-E
ARC-C
Avg.
0.5B
AdamW
65.65
67.04
63.00
66.92
47.10
61.94
LoRA+
64.75
67.91
64.40
67.80
47.87
62.55
Riemann
60.79
66.94
65.00
67.30
47.35
61.48
LoRA-RITE
62.73
66.89
66.00
67.13
46.50
61.85
Stable-LoRA
66.73
68.27
67.00
69.15
48.89
64.01
1B
AdamW
83.76
71.70
73.20
76.81
54.01
71.90
Table 1: Task accuracies of models on datasets of question-answering tasks.
Method
1B
3B
1000
2000
5000
1000
2000
5000
AdamW
23.88
27.14
31.08
51.48
53.45
58.83
Stable-LoRA
24.56
27.75
31.84
52.16
54.74
59.44
Table 2: Task accuracies of models on (math) CoT reasoning tasks for different training steps.
Model
Target
qv
qkvo
qkvogud
AdamW
Stable-LoRA
AdamW
Stable-LoRA
AdamW
Stable-LoRA
0.5B
61.54
62.46
63.03
63.48
64.35
64.75
1B
71.90
72.80
73.76
73.96
75.04
75.44
1.5B
80.27
80.75
80.94
81.15
81.71
81.82
3B
83.79
84.13
84.54
84.93
85.31
85.60
Table 3: Task accuracies of models on the combined dataset of question-answering tasks.
Method
0.5B
1B
1.5B
3B
Stable-LoRA
62.46
72.80
80.75
84.13
Stable-LoRA w/o the stable condition
62.52
72.72
80.61
84.10
Table 4: Task accuracies on the combined QA dataset from Stable-LoRA with/without the stable condition.
Method
AdamW
LoRA+
Riemann
LoRA-RITE
Stable-LoRA
Time(s)
217.4
217.4
235.5
317.3
218.8
+%
-
+0.0%
+8.3%
+46.0%
+0.6%
Table 5: Comparison of training time of different methods on 0.5B model and HellaSwag.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
#Train
#Test
HellaSwag
39905
10042
SIQA
33410
1954
ObQA
4957
500
ARC-E
2251
2376
ARC-C
1119
1172
MetaMathQA
40000
1319
Appendix
Table 6: Detailed information about datasets.
Hyper-parameter
Value
Learning rate η
[5e-5,{1 ∼ 8}e-4]
Scale factor s
2.0 to 64.0 (interval 1.0)
Target modules
qproj,vproj
Rank r
8
Weight decay ratio w
0.01
Dropout ratio
0.0
Appendix
Table 7: Hyper-parameters.
Target
Method
0.5B
1B
1.5B
3B
qv
AdamW
61.54
71.90
80.27
83.79
Stable-LoRA λ=0.0005
62.36
72.80
80.75
84.13
Stable-LoRA λ=0.001
62.13
72.37
80.55
84.08
Stable-LoRA λ=0.002
62.05
71.92
80.44
83.71
Stable-LoRA λ=0.005
62.46
72.29
80.50
83.85
qkvo
AdamW
63.03
73.76
80.94
84.54
Appendix
Table 8: Task accuracies of different λ s on the combined QA datasets.
Step
AdamW
Stable-LoRA λ=0.0005
Stable-LoRA λ=0.001
Stable-LoRA λ=0.002
1000
68.61
69.75
70.05
69.60
2000
70.96
71.42
71.49
71.87
3000
71.72
74.37
73.39
72.02
Appendix
Table 9: Task accuracies of Llama-3.1-8B with targets of qkvogud on the math reasoning dataset.
Model
Target
Method
HellaS.
SIQA
ObQA
ARC-E
ARC-C
Avg.
0.5B
qkvo
AdamW
68.00
68.42
67.20
68.73
48.98
64.27
Stable-LoRA
68.98
68.83
67.80
69.57
49.83
65.00
qkvogud
AdamW
68.76
69.14
67.60
69.49
48.04
64.61
Stable-LoRA
69.08
69.50
68.80
70.79
49.74
65.58
1B
qkvo
AdamW
85.09
73.44
74.60
77.23
55.20
73.11
Stable-LoRA
86.21
73.90
74.60
78.16
56.51
73.88
Appendix
Table 10: Task accuracies of models and different targets on QA datasets. The top and bottom value are from AdamW and Stable-LoRA respectively.
Model
Method
HellaS.
SIQA
ObQA
ARC-E
ARC-C
Avg.
1B
DoRA
82.47
71.49
73.60
76.98
53.84
71.68
Stable-LoRA
84.41
72.26
73.80
77.36
54.78
72.52
3B
DoRA
93.38
80.04
82.80
88.47
72.27
83.39
Stable-LoRA
93.59
80.25
84.00
88.68
73.63
84.03
Appendix
Table 11: Task accuracies of DoRA and Stable-LoRA on 1B and 3B models, qv and QA datasets.