← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Improving LoRA in Privacy-preserving Federated Learning

Youbang Sun, Zitao Li, Yaliang Li, Bolin Ding

general MLFederated LearningParameter-efficient Fine-tuningDifferential PrivacyLarge Language Model
35.00100
Fused
band ≈ ±13 pct pts (from σ = 0.27)
33.60100
Mimo
band ≈ ±18 pct pts (from σ = 0.36)
33.30100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — We proposed a modification to LoRA, FFA-LoRA, in privacy-preserved federated learning with better performance, reliability and efficiency.

Abstract

Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) is one of the most popular task-specific parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods on pre-trained language models for its good performance and computational efficiency. LoRA injects a product of two trainable rank decomposition matrices over the top of each frozen pre-trained model module. However, when applied in the setting of privacy-preserving federated learning (FL), LoRA may become unstable due to the following facts: 1) the effects of data heterogeneity and multi-step local updates are non-negligible, 2) additive noise enforced on updating gradients to guarantee differential privacy (DP) can be amplified and 3) the final performance is susceptible to hyper-parameters. A key factor leading to these phenomena is the discordance between jointly optimizing the two low-rank matrices by local clients and separately aggregating them by the central server. Thus, this paper proposes an efficient and effective version of LoRA, Federated Freeze A LoRA (FFA-LoRA), to alleviate these challenges and further halve the communication cost of federated fine-tuning LLMs. The core idea of FFA-LoRA is to fix the randomly initialized non-zero matrices and only fine-tune the zero-initialized matrices. Compared to LoRA, FFA-LoRA is motivated by practical and theoretical benefits in privacy-preserved FL. Our experiments demonstrate that FFA-LoRA provides more consistent performance with better computational efficiency over vanilla LoRA in various FL tasks.

Author context

Most prolific author: 7 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 42)