W2T: LoRA Weights Already Know What They Can Do
Organizations: University of Surrey · Stanford University · University of Notre Dame
Abstract
Each LoRA checkpoint compactly stores task-specific updates in low-rank weight matrices, offering an efficient way to adapt large language models to new tasks and domains. In principle, these weights already encode what the adapter does and how well it performs. In this paper, we ask whether this information can be read directly from the weights, without running the base model or accessing training data. A key obstacle is that a single LoRA update can be factorized in infinitely many ways. Without resolving this ambiguity, models trained on the factors may fit the particular factorization rather than the underlying update. To this end, we propose \methodfull, which maps each LoRA update to a provably canonical form via QR decomposition followed by SVD, so that all equivalent factorizations share the same representation. The resulting components are then tokenized and processed by a Transformer to produce a weight-space embedding. Across language and vision LoRA collections, W2T achieves strong results on attribute classification, performance prediction, and adapter retrieval, demonstrating that LoRA weights reliably indicate model behavior once factorization ambiguity is removed. Code is available at https://github.com/xiaolonghan2000/Weight2Token.
Figures & tables
| Algorithm | GoEmotions-LoRA | CelebA-LoRA | CUB-LoRA | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Macro-F1 | Micro-F1 | AUROC | Macro-F1 | Micro-F1 | AUROC | Macro-F1 | Micro-F1 | AUROC | |
| MLP | |||||||||
| CNN | |||||||||
| ViT | |||||||||
| GLNet | |||||||||
| W2T (Ours) | 5.67 | 24.84 | 61.25 | 50.38 | 75.02 | 89.64 | 18.34 | 43.24 | 73.72 |
| Method | Split | MAE | RMSE | Pearson | Spearman |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MLP | Valid | ||||
| Test | |||||
| CNN | Valid | ||||
| Test | |||||
| ViT | Valid | ||||
| Test |
| Method | Average | ARC-C | BoolQ | GSM8K | MBPP |
| RawCos | 33.41 | ||||
| MLP | |||||
| CNN | |||||
| ViT | |||||
| GLNet | |||||
| W2T (Ours) | 65.71 | 99.14 | 50.76 | 87.96 |
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| Singular-value gap | |
| Update gap | |
| Factor cosine (mean) | |
| Time (ms), SVD / QR–SVD | |
| Speedup |
| Method | Macro-F1 | Micro-F1 | mAUROC |
|---|---|---|---|
| MLP | |||
| CNN | |||
| ViT | |||
| GLNet | |||
| W2T (Ours) | 48.06 | 73.84 | 89.23 |
| Oracle (SD1.5) |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Dataset | Raw data LoRA | Key settings | Size | Checkpoint label |
| CelebA | one identity one LoRA; 21 images per identity | q/v; ; ; lr 1e-4/3e-4/1e-3/3e-3; steps 100/133/167/200 | 10,177 | 40-d identity-level attribute vector |
| CUB | one image one LoRA | q/v; ; ; lr 1e-4/3e-4/1e-3/3e-3; steps 100/150/200/250 | 11,788 | 312-d image-level attribute vector |
| GoEmotions | one train sample one LoRA | q/v; ; ; lr 5e-6–3e-4; epoch 1–4; dropout 0–0.1 | 20,000 | 28-d emotion multi-hot vector |
| ARC-Easy | one full-data trial one LoRA | q/v; ; ; lr 5e-6–3e-4; epoch 1–4; dropout 0–0.1 | 10,000 | checkpoint accuracy |
| ARC-Challenge BoolQ GSM8K MBPP | Full-datasets runs gallery LoRAs | q/v; ; ; lr 5e-6–3e-4; epoch 1–4; dropout 0–0.1 | 1,296 | task identity |
| few-shot runs query LoRAs | q/v; ; ; lr 2e-4; epoch 3; dropout 0.05; shots 1/8/16/64/128/256; 25 queries per shot | 600 | task identity |
| Attribute | W2T | Image-based | Summary | |||
| (ours) | DMM-CNN | PS-MCNN-LC | GNAS | Best img. | Gain | |
| Wearing Necklace | 96.41 | +7.43 | ||||
| Narrow Eyes | 95.10 | +6.03 | ||||
| Big Lips | 76.47 | +3.34 | ||||
| Straight Hair | 88.24 | +2.28 | ||||
| Rosy Cheeks | 98.37 | +1.45 | ||||
| W2T | GLNet | MLP | CNN | ViT | |
| Params (M) | 17.75 | 23.16 | 51.06 | 77.75 | 39.91 |
| Shots | Rel. cost | Hit@1 (%) | NDCG@10 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 38.00 | 42.77 | |
| 8 | 63.00 | 60.94 | |
| 16 | 62.00 | 61.90 | |
| 64 | 69.00 | 65.71 | |
| 128 | 65.00 | 63.65 | |
| 256 | 71.00 | 72.03 |