Fine-tuning is a crucial paradigm for adapting pre-trained large language models to downstream tasks. Recently, methods like Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) have been shown to effectively fine-tune LLMs with an extreme reduction in trainable parameters. But, \emph{are their learned solutions really equivalent?} We study how LoRA and full-finetuning change pre-trained models by analyzing the model's weight matrices through the lens of their spectral properties. We find that LoRA and full fine-tuning yield weight matrices whose singular value decompositions exhibit very different structure: weight matrices trained with LoRA have new, high-ranking singular vectors, which we call \emph{intruder dimensions}, while those trained with full fine-tuning do not. Further, we extend the finding that LoRA forgets less than full fine-tuning and find its forgetting is vastly localized to the intruder dimension -- by causally intervening on the intruder dimensions by changing their associated singular values post-fine-tuning, we show that they cause forgetting. Moreover, scaling them down significantly improves modeling of the pre-training distribution with a minimal drop in downstream task performance. Given this, we should expect accumulating intruder dimensions to be harmful and lead to more forgetting. This will be amplified during continual learning because of sequentially fine-tuning, and we show that LoRA models do accumulate intruder dimensions here tend to perform worse in this setting, emphasizing the practicality of our findings.

We present a new dataset for learning to solve, explain, and generate university-level STEM questions from 27 courses across a dozen departments in seven universities. We scale up previous approaches to questions from courses in the departments of Mechanical Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering, Chemistry, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Physics, Earth Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Economics, Mathematics, Biological Engineering, Data Systems, and Society, and Statistics. We visualize similarities and differences between questions across courses. We demonstrate that a large foundation model is able to generate questions that are as appropriate and at the same difficulty level as human-written questions.

A final exam in machine learning at a top institution such as MIT, Harvard, or Cornell typically takes faculty days to write, and students hours to solve. We demonstrate that large language models pass machine learning finals at a human level on finals available online and automatically generate new human-quality final exam questions in seconds. Previous work has developed program synthesis and few-shot learning methods to solve university-level problem set questions in mathematics and STEM courses. In this work, we develop and compare methods that solve final exams, which differ from problem sets in several ways: the questions are longer, have multiple parts, are more complicated, and span a broader set of topics. We curate a dataset and benchmark of questions from machine learning final exams available online and code for answering these questions and generating new questions. We show how to generate new questions from other questions and course notes. For reproducibility and future research on this final exam benchmark, we use automatic checkers for multiple-choice, numeric, and questions with expression answers. A student survey comparing the quality, appropriateness, and difficulty of machine-generated questions with human-written questions shows that across multiple aspects, machine-generated questions are indistinguishable from human-generated questions and are suitable for final exams. We perform ablation studies comparing zero-shot learning with few-shot learning and chain-of-thought prompting using GPT-3, OPT, Codex, and ChatGPT across machine learning topics and find that few-shot learning methods perform best. We highlight the transformative potential of language models to streamline the writing and solution of large-scale assessments, significantly reducing the workload from human days to mere machine seconds. Our results suggest that rather than banning large language models such as ChatGPT in class, instructors should teach students to harness them by asking students meta-questions about correctness, completeness, and originality of the responses generated, encouraging critical thinking in academic studies.