CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 50Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

AdaLoRA: Adaptive Budget Allocation for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning

Open access
Zhang, Qingru, Chen, Minshuo, Bukharin, Alexander, Karampatziakis, Nikos, He, Pengcheng, Cheng, Yu, Chen, Weizhu, Zhao, Tuo·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2303.10512arXiv 2303.10512
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Fine-tuning large pre-trained language models on downstream tasks has become an important paradigm in NLP. However, common practice fine-tunes all of the parameters in a pre-trained model, which becomes prohibitive when a large number of downstream tasks are present. Therefore, many fine-tuning methods are proposed to learn incremental updates of pre-trained weights in a parameter efficient way, e.g., low-rank increments. These methods often evenly distribute the budget of incremental updates across all pre-trained weight matrices, and overlook the varying importance of different weight parameters. As a consequence, the fine-tuning performance is suboptimal. To bridge this gap, we propose AdaLoRA, which adaptively allocates the parameter budget among weight matrices according to their importance score. In particular, AdaLoRA parameterizes the incremental updates in the form of singular value decomposition. Such a novel approach allows us to effectively prune the singular values of unimportant updates, which is essentially to reduce their parameter budget but circumvent intensive exact SVD computations. We conduct extensive experiments with several pre-trained models on natural language processing, question answering, and natural language generation to validate the effectiveness of AdaLoRA. Results demonstrate that AdaLoRA manifests notable improvement over baselines, especially in the low budget settings. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/QingruZhang/AdaLoRA .

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

AdaLoRA adaptively allocates the parameter budget in low-rank adaptation by parameterizing incremental updates as SVD-like triplets and pruning singular values by importance. It improves over baselines, especially in low-budget settings, across NLU, QA, and NLG tasks.

Key findings

  • On GLUE with DeBERTaV3-base, AdaLoRA reaches 89.31 average score with 1.27M trainable parameters, versus 88.34 for LoRA r=8; at 0.32M it reaches 88.86 average versus 88.15 for LoRA r=2. At 0.3M budget, AdaLoRA gets 87.36% accuracy on RTE, 1.8% higher than the best baseline, and 70.04 Mcc on CoLA, higher than all baselines with larger budgets.
  • On SQuADv2.0, AdaLoRA achieves 88.7% F1 with the smallest budget of 0.08%, 1.2% higher than the best-performing baseline; on SQuADv1.1 it reaches 87.2/93.4 EM/F1 at 0.08%.
  • On BART-large summarization, AdaLoRA is better or on par across budgets; Table 3 lists 21.77 R-2 on XSum at 1.10% budget versus 21.13 for LoRA, and 20.91 R-2 at 0.26% versus 19.89 for LoRA.
  • Ablations show the proposed importance score generally performs best, with other variants degrading performance up to 0.9%; both SVD adaptation and adaptive budget allocation contribute. AdaLoRA incurs 11% additional training time on MNLI and 16% on SQuADv2 versus LoRA, with close memory footprint.

Methods

  • AdaLoRA parameterizes each incremental weight update as Δ = PΛQ, mimicking SVD, with an orthogonality regularizer on P and Q; it prunes singular values by importance while retaining singular vectors for possible recovery.
  • Importance is scored per triplet using a sensitivity-and-uncertainty metric over entries in P, Λ, and Q; a global budget scheduler starts at 1.5× the target budget and decreases it cubically before final fine-tuning.
  • Experiments fine-tune DeBERTaV3-base on GLUE and SQuAD v1.1/v2.0, and BART-large on XSum and CNN/DailyMail, comparing against full fine-tuning, BitFit, Houlsby/Pfeiffer adapters, and LoRA under matched parameter budgets.

Limitations

  • The paper does not include a dedicated limitations section. It reports that AdaLoRA incurs 11% additional training time on MNLI and 16% on SQuADv2 versus LoRA, though memory footprint is close.
  • Evident from the text: evaluation is limited to DeBERTaV3-base and BART-large on selected NLU, QA, and summarization benchmarks; the paper does not discuss scaling to much larger models, other modalities, or broader task families.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2303.10512

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

7 of 16 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    AdaLoRA manifests notable improvement over baselines, especially in low budget settings.

    “Results demonstrate that AdaLoRA manifests notable improvement over baselines, especially in the low budget settings.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · boosted
      “We show AdaLoRA consistently outperforms the baseline, especially under low budget settings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The importance of weight matrices varies significantly across modules and layers when fine-tuning pre-trained models.

    “This ignores the fact that the importance of weight matrices varies significantly across modules and layers when fine-tuning pre-trained models.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    With less than 0.1% trainable parameters of full fine-tuning, AdaLoRA achieves a 1.2% F1 improvement on the SQuAD2.0 dataset compared with state-of-the-art approaches.

    “For example, with less than 0.1% trainable parameters of full fine-tuning, AdaLoRA achieves a 1.2% F1 improvement on the SQuAD2.0dataset compared with state-of-the-art approaches.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Weight matrices in top layers are more important than those in bottom layers.

    “In addition, Figure 1b demonstrates that weight matrices in top layers are more important than those in bottom layers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    AdaLoRA with extreme low budget can often perform better than the baselines with higher budget.

    “Besides, AdaLoRA with extreme low budget can often perform better than the baselines with higher budget.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8
  • May combine two claims. 25
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Diff pruning can increase parameter efficiency substantially by adaptively retaining important updates and pruning unimportant ones.

    “As such, diff pruning can increase the parameter efficiency substantially by adaptively retaining important updates and pruning unimportant ones.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Guo et al., 2020 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Diff pruning relies on low-level implementation to speed up computation of unstructured sparse matrices, which is not well supported by existing deep learning frameworks.

    “First, it relies on low-level implementation to speed up the computation of unstructured sparse matrices, which is not well supported by existing deep learning frameworks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Guo et al., 2020 source

      Section 6.7 (p. 7) reports that diff pruning trained 1.5–2 times more slowly per minibatch than regular finetuning, but does not discuss speeding up sparse-matrix computation. The passages on structured and non-structured pruning (§6.2, p. 6) also do not say that diff pruning relies on low-level implementations or that deep learning frameworks lack support for them; searches for those terms found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Typically α is set as 16 or 32 and never tuned.

    “Typically α is set as 16 or 32 and never tuned (Hu et al., 2022;Yang & Hu, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hu et al., 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Yang & Hu, 2020 source

      The passages from the algorithm section (p. 37) and Table 4 (p. 38) concern α as a hyperparameter of the paper’s own network; the authors explicitly sweep it. Searches for 16, 32, and α tuning found no passage establishing the claimed typical practice, so the paper’s use of α does not verify the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    LoRA scales ∆x by α/r where α is a constant in r, so the magnitude of output can be consistent given different r.

    “LoRA scales ∆x by α/r where α is a constant in r.As a result, the magnitude of output can be consistent given different r.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hu et al., 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Yang & Hu, 2020 source

      Section 3.2 (p. 9) defines r as an exponent governing how feature changes scale with network width, not as a LoRA rank. Searches for LoRA, α/r scaling, and output magnitude across ranks found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Diff pruning needs to update every entry of ∆ with their gradients and then prune them, resulting in similar computational cost as full fine-tuning.

    “Second, it needs to update every entry of ∆ with their gradients and then prune them.This results in similar computational cost as full fine-tuning (Guo et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Guo et al., 2020 source

      Section 3.1 (p. 3) describes gradient-based training with a dense weight vector, and Section 3.2 (p. 3) describes magnitude pruning after training. The computational-cost comparison needs qualification: Section 6.7 (p. 7) reports that diff pruning was approximately 1.5–2 times slower per minibatch than regular fine-tuning, not simply equivalent in cost. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adapter tuning, prefix tuning, and prompt tuning achieve comparable performance to full fine-tuning while updating less than 1% of the original model parameters.

    “These methods have shown to achieve comparable performance to full fine-tuning, while only updating less than 1% of the original model parameters, significantly releasing the memory consumption.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Houlsby et al., 2019 source

      The Introduction (p. 2) and Experiments (p. 3) report that adapter tuning approaches full fine-tuning performance while training far fewer parameters. The reported GLUE result uses 3%, not less than 1%, of the parameters trained by full fine-tuning; the Parameter/Performance trade-off section (p. 5) discusses smaller adapters but does not establish the claim for all three methods. Our copy does not report results for prefix tuning or prompt tuning, or establish the claimed memory-consumption reduction. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Li & Liang, 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Lester et al., 2021 source

      Section 3.1 reports that prompt tuning matches full model tuning at the 11-billion-parameter scale with over 20,000 times fewer task-specific parameters. But Section 4 says the adapter result used 2–4% additional parameters, not less than 1%; the Figure 4 caption says prefix tuning requires 0.1–1% for inference but more for training. The paper therefore does not support the stated parameter threshold for all three methods. (LLM, conf=0.91)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Fine-tuning feed-forward networks (FFN) achieves better performance than self-attention modules with the same number of trainable parameters.

    “Figure 1a shows that fine-tuning feed-forward networks (FFN) achieves better performance than self-attention modules.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AdaLoRA achieves 70.04% Mcc.score on CoLA with 0.3M fine-tuning parameters, which is higher than all baseline methods with larger budget (e.g., 0.6M and 1.2M).

    “For example, AdaLoRA achieve 70.04% Mcc.score on CoLA with 0.3M fine-tuning parameters, which is higher than all baseline methods with lager budget (e.g., 0.6M and 1.2M).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The proposed importance score generally performs best compared to the two variants (sensitivity-only and |λ_i|).

    “From the results, we can see that the proposed importance score generally performs best.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fine-tuning only with SVD adaptation shows an improvement over LoRA but cannot match the performance of AdaLoRA.

    “We can see that fine-tuning only with SVD adaptation shows an improvement over LoRA but cannot match the performance of AdaLoRA.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AdaLoRA achieves 88.78% F1 on SQuADv2.0 when the budget is 0.16%, close to the performance (88.89% F1) of the highest budget (4.65%) with a more significant gain over the baseline.

    “For example, AdaLoRA achieves 88.78% F1 on SQuADv2.0 when the budget is 0.16%.It is close to the performance (88.89%F1) of the highest budget (4.65%) with a more significant gain over the baseline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When the parameter budget is 0.3M, AdaLoRA achieves 87.36% accuracy on RTE, which is 1.8% higher than the best-performing baseline.

    “For example, when the parameter budget is 0.3M, AdaLoRA achieves 87.36% accuracy on RTE, which is 1.8% higher than the best-performing baseline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AdaLoRA incurs 11% additional training time on MNLI and 16% on SQuADv2 under different budgets.

    “Table 15 shows that AdaLoRA incurs 11% additional training time on MNLI and 16% on SQuADv2 under different budgets.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AdaLoRA achieves 21.13 R-2 score when budget level is 1.10%, compared with 19.89 for LoRA.

    “For example, AdaLoRA achieves 21.13 R-2 score when budget level is 1.10%, compared with 19.89 for LoRA.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AdaLoRA achieves better or on par performance compared with the baseline on both XSum and CNN/DailyMail under all budget levels (0.13%, 0.26%, 1.10%, and 2.20% of total pre-trained parameters).

    “We see that AdaLoRA achieves better or on par performance compared with the baseline on both datasets (XSum and CNN/DailyMail) under all the budget levels.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    AdaLoRA consistently outperforms existing approaches under all budget levels in terms of exact match (EM) and F1 on SQuAD v1.1 and SQuADv2.0.

    “From the result, we see that AdaLoRA consistently outperforms existing approaches under all the budget levels in term of two evaluation metrics: exact match (EM) and F1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    AdaLoRA achieves 88.7% F1 on SQuADv2.0 with the smallest budget 0.08%, which is close to its performance under the high budget and 1.2% higher than the best-performing baseline.

    “For example, AdaLoRA achieves 88.7% F1 on SQuADv2.0 with the smallest budget 0.08%.It is close to its performance under the high budget and it is also 1.2% higher than the best-performing baseline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    AdaLoRA's SVD parameterization allows pruning the singular values of unimportant updates to reduce their parameter budget while avoiding intensive exact SVD computations.

    “Such a novel approach allows us to effectively prune the singular values of unimportant updates, which is essentially to reduce their parameter budget but circumvent intensive exact SVD computations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The global budget scheduler can improve training stability and model performance.

    “Such a scheduler can improve the training stability and model performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Existing parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods often evenly distribute the budget of incremental updates across all pre-trained weight matrices and overlook the varying importance of different weight parameters.

    “These methods often evenly distribute the budget of incremental updates across all pre-trained weight matrices, and overlook the varying importance of different weight parameters.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Less important incremental matrices are pruned to have lower rank to prevent overfitting and save computational budget.

    “Less importance ones are pruned to have lower rank to prevent overfitting and save the computational budget.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    LoRA prespecifies the rank r of each incremental matrix ∆ identical, ignoring the varying importance of weight matrices across modules and layers.

    “LoRA still has limitations as it prespecifies the rank r of each incremental matrix ∆ identical.This ignores the fact that the importance of weight matrices varies significantly across modules and layers when fine-tuning pre-trained models.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hu et al., 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    AdaLoRA's parameterization allows dropping unimportant singular values while maintaining singular vectors, which preserves the possibility of future recovery and stabilizes training.

    “Besides, another advantage is that we only need to drop the unimportant singular values while the singular vectors are maintained.This preserves the possibility of future recovery and stabilizes the training.”
    • Also stated in: § 3.1 SVD-BASED ADAPTATION · plain
      “In contrast, AdaLoRA only masks out the singular values based on (3) while the singular vectors are always maintained.It preserves the potential of future recovery for the triplets dropped by mistake.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    LoRA achieves comparable or even better performance than full fine-tuning.

    “However, LoRA achieves comparable or even better performance than full fine-tuning (Hu et al., 2022).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hu et al., 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The number of remaining parameters is linearly scaled with b(T) and hence we can tune b(T) to control the remaining parameters.

    “It means the number of remaining parameters is linearly scaled with b (T ) and hence we can tune b (T ) to control the remaining parameters.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    DeBERTaV3-base consists of 183 million parameters.

    “DeBERTaV3-base consists of 183 millions parameters.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites He et al., 2021a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    AdaLoRA effectively improves the model performance and parameter efficiency.

    “Such an a pproach effectively improves the model performance and parameter efficiency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Both SVD adaptation and adaptive budget allocation play vital roles for the performance gain.

    “We remark that both two components of our method -SVD adaptation and adaptive budget allocation, play vital roles for the performance gain.”
    • Also stated in: § 4.4 ANALYSIS · plain
      “These results validate that both components contribute to the model performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The sensitivity in (8) is not yet a reliable importance indicator because it is estimated on the sampled mini batch and stochastic sampling and complicated training dynamics incur high variability and large uncertainty.

    “However, Zhang et al. (2022) point out that the sensitivity in (8) is not yet a reliable importance indicator.Such a score is estimated on the sampled mini batch.The stochastic sampling and complicated training dynamics incur high variability and large uncertainty for estimating the sensitivity with (8).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zhang et al., 2022 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Therefore, incremental matrices are often altered dramatically after each step of rank allocation, which causes training instability and even hurts generalization.

    “Therefore, the incremental matrices are often altered dramatically after each step of rank allocation, which causes training instability and even hurts generalization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    A and B of LoRA are not orthogonal, meaning the doublets can be dependent with each other.

    “Second, A and B of LoRA are not orthogonal, meaning the doublets can be dependent with each other.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The reported results are the mean of 5 runs using different random seeds.

    “We report mean of 5 runs using different random seeds.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
32 of 32

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • GLUE learning rates fall outside the stated search range

    Minor

    Section 4.1 says the learning rate was selected from values no higher than 2 × 10−4, but Table 8 lists 5 × 10−4 for MNLI and still higher values for other GLUE tasks.

  • XSum training epochs disagree with the configuration table

    Minor

    The natural-language-generation implementation details specify 15 training epochs, whereas Table 13 gives XSum 25 epochs.

  • Training-cost discussion names a dataset absent from Table 15

    Minor

    The discussion attributes a 16% training-time increase on SQuADv2 to Table 15, but that table reports MNLI and SST-2, not SQuADv2.

  • Table 14 names different projection pairs

    Minor

    Table 14's caption says the restricted LoRA variant adapts query and value projections, but its row labels that variant as adapting query and key projections.

  • Summarization budget configurations use different budget levels

    Minor

    Section 4.3 specifies summarization experiments at 0.13%, 0.26%, 1.10%, and 2.20%, but Table 12's summarization budget setup lists 0.08%, 0.16%, 0.32%, and 0.65%.

5 of 5

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Junxian He, Chunting Zhou, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. Towards a unified view of parameter-efficient transfer learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=0RDcd5Axok.
  2. Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021b.
  3. Edward J Hu, yelong shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=nZeVKeeFYf9.
  4. Chin-Yew Lin. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pp. 74-81, 2004.
  5. Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019.
  6. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019.
  7. Kim-Chuan Toh and Sangwoon Yun. An accelerated proximal gradient algorithm for nuclear norm regularized linear least squares problems. Pacific Journal of optimization, 6(615-640):15, 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Zhang, Q., Chen, M., Bukharin, A., Karampatziakis, N., He, P., Cheng, Y., Chen, W., & Zhao, T.
Affiliations
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2303.10512
arXiv
2303.10512
OpenAlex
W4330338093
Semantic Scholar
b612fc6af23cccf2133c2ea40597453ab40dc2c3
Cited by
47
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
parameter-efficient fine-tuning, LoRa, singular value decomposition, low-rank updates, large language models, question answering, natural language generation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review