Frozen Factor or Spectral Band? Disentangling Two Choices in Low-Rank LoRA
Abstract
Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
Spectral variants of low-rank adaptation (LoRA) choose both a subspace and which factor to freeze. We separate these choices by freezing the input factor A or output factor B on the top or bottom singular directions of pretrained weights, with learning rates selected separately. At rank 2, the same-band advantage of freezing A is larger than either within-factor band difference on all four task-model pairs with complete comparisons. Freezing B also trails comparable-budget free LoRA by 8-18 percentage points on five pairs spanning a formatting task and OpenBookQA. The A-frozen advantage persists in a single-GPU-model replication and within individual MLP module groups, including controls with equal or greater trainable counts for B frozen, and when A is frozen on a random orthonormal basis. The factor contrast weakens with rank. On OpenBookQA / Qwen2.5-1.5B at rank 16, PEFT's MiCA implementation trails comparable-budget LoRA by 3.08 points under a shared training recipe transferred from the MiCA paper. A trained oracle output subspace largely removes the low-rank deficit; partial warm-up gains recur across three direction seeds. The factor-versus-band ordering is descriptive; an approximate multiplicity audit weakens several earlier significance claims. These results extend known factor asymmetry by showing how its magnitude depends on spectral placement, rank and training conditions.
Results and benchmarks
Spectral variants of low-rank adaptation (LoRA) choose both a subspace and which factor to freeze.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Start from this likely method family: LoRA / Parameter-efficient tuning.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
None detected
Methods
LoRA / Parameter-efficient tuning
Domains
None detected
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.