ChainDoRA: Tensor-Train Factorized Weight-Decomposed Low-Rank Adaptation for Parameter-Efficient LLM Fine-Tuning
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Khulna University of Engineering & Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Brac University, Dhaka, Bangladesh · Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY, USA
Abstract
Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) adapts large language models (LLMs) to downstream tasks while updating only a small fraction of their pretrained parameters. Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) uses two trainable low-rank matrices, while Weight-Decomposed Low-Rank Adaptation (DoRA) further separates weight magnitude and direction but retains the dense LoRA-style factorization in its directional branch. We propose ChainDoRA, a weight-decomposed adaptation framework that constructs the directional low-rank factors from a connected Tensor-Train (TT) chain, where the adapter rank forms the boundary rank between input- and output-side TT contractions and an independent TT rank controls representation capacity and parameter cost. Under a controlled 15,119-example response-only adaptation setting with LLaMA-7B, ChainDoRA is evaluated against matched LoRA and DoRA baselines on seven commonsense reasoning benchmarks. ChainDoRA with TT rank 16 achieves a seven-task average accuracy of 72.30%, compared with 69.88% for LoRA and 69.39% for DoRA, while requiring only 5.35M trainable parameters versus 56.10M for LoRA and 56.98M for DoRA, corresponding to a 90.62% reduction relative to DoRA. Ablations over TT rank and adapter placement show controllable parameter-accuracy trade-offs, indicating that connected TT parameterization can substantially reduce the parameter cost of magnitude-direction adaptation while preserving, and in this setting improving, downstream reasoning performance.
Figures & tables
| Method | Low-Rank Update | Tensor Representation | Magnitude–Direction | Joint Structure | Primary Structural Mechanism |
| LoRA [ 3 ] | ✓ | – | – | – | Dense trainable low-rank factors |
| AdaLoRA [ 9 ] | ✓ | – | – | – | Adaptive rank-budget allocation |
| DoRA [ 4 ] | ✓ | – | ✓ | – | Magnitude–direction decomposition |
| LoRETTA [ 7 ] | ✓ | TT | – | – | Tensorized adapters / reparameterization |
| TT-LoRA [ 8 ] | ✓ | TT | – | – | TT-parameterized adaptation |
| DoTA [ 12 ] | – | MPO | Weight-decomposed | – | Pretrained-weight MPO initialization |
| Module | Input Modes | Output Modes | ||
| 4096 | 4096 | |||
| 4096 | 4096 | |||
| 4096 | 4096 | |||
| 4096 | 11008 | |||
| 11008 | 4096 |
| Configuration | Value |
| Backbone | LLaMA-7B |
| Adaptation pool | 15,119 examples |
| Optimization examples | 14,999 |
| Validation examples | 120 |
| Training epochs | 3 |
| Optimizer | AdamW |
| Benchmark | Test Examples | Primary Reasoning Type |
| BoolQ | 3,270 | Yes/no reasoning |
| PIQA | 1,838 | Physical commonsense |
| SocialIQA | 1,954 | Social commonsense |
| WinoGrande | 1,267 | Coreference / commonsense |
| ARC-Easy | 2,376 | Science reasoning |
| ARC-Challenge | 1,172 | Challenging science reasoning |
| Configuration | Target Set | Trainable Params. | |
| TT16-Full | 16 | QKV+MLP | 5,346,816 |
| TT8-Full | 8 | QKV+MLP | 2,784,000 |
| TT4-Full | 4 | QKV+MLP | 1,748,352 |
| TT16-QV | 16 | QV | 1,867,776 |
| TT16-QKV | 16 | QKV | 2,801,664 |
| TT16-MLP | 16 | MLP | 2,545,152 |
| Method | Params. | BoolQ | PIQA | SocialIQA | WinoGrande | ARC-E | ARC-C | OBQA | Avg. |
| LoRA | 56.10M | 64.83 | 72.09 | 72.47 | 65.82 | 78.03 | 62.88 | 73.00 | 69.88 |
| DoRA | 56.98M | 65.60 | 74.54 | 70.21 | 65.51 | 76.60 | 60.07 | 73.20 | 69.39 |
| ChainDoRA | 5.35M | 66.24 | 77.64 | 71.80 | 66.30 | 82.32 | 67.58 | 74.20 | 72.30 |
| Method | Trainable Params. | Compression | Reduction |
| LoRA | 56,098,816 | 90.47% | |
| DoRA | 56,975,360 | 90.62% | |
| ChainDoRA | 5,346,816 | – |
| Params. | BoolQ | PIQA | SocialIQA | WinoGrande | ARC-E | ARC-C | OBQA | Avg. | |
| 4 | 1.748M | 57.16 | 75.63 | 66.33 | 59.91 | 77.90 | 58.62 | 66.80 | 66.05 |
| 8 | 2.784M | 64.62 | 76.61 | 67.96 | 63.85 | 80.98 | 62.29 | 71.00 | 69.61 |
| 16 | 5.347M | 66.24 | 77.64 | 71.80 | 66.30 | 82.32 | 67.58 | 74.20 | 72.30 |
| Target | Params. (M) | Avg. (%) | (pp) |
| QV | 1.868 | 70.43 | |
| QKV | 2.802 | 68.60 | |
| MLP | 2.545 | 70.93 | |
| QV+MLP | 4.413 | 70.93 | |
| QKV+MLP | 5.347 | 72.30 | – |
| Configuration | Params. (M) | Avg. (%) |
| TT16-Full | 5.347 | 72.30 |
| TT16-MLP | 2.545 | 70.93 |
| TT8-Full | 2.784 | 69.61 |
| TT8-MLP | 1.383 | 68.97 |
| TT4-Full | 1.748 | 66.05 |
| Model | Params. (M) | Red. | Comp. | |
| DoRA | CD-TT16 | (%) | ( ) | |
| Qwen2.5-3B | 40.67 | 4.97 | 87.77 | 8.18 |
| Mistral-7B | 57.41 | 5.46 | 90.48 | 10.51 |
| Phi-3-Medium | 100.25 | 6.09 | 93.92 | 16.45 |
| OPT-30B | 178.91 | 12.42 | 93.06 | 14.40 |
| Falcon-40B | 193.72 | 12.12 | 93.74 | 15.98 |
LLM Fine-Tuning
LLM fine-tuning adapts pretrained large language models to tasks, domains, languages, and behaviors through additional training.
See all 754 papers