Safety
What Does the Rank Buy? A Spectral and Distributional Analysis of Low-Rank Adaptation
arXiv:2609.32002v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rank r in LoRA is widely treated as a capacity control: a smaller rank is assumed to yield a simpler model that generalizes better. We show that,
arXiv:2609.32002v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rank r in LoRA is widely treated as a capacity control: a smaller rank is assumed to yield a simpler model that generalizes better. We show that, under hard per-factor norm budgets---the idealization of the weight decay and norm control used in practice---this intuition breaks down. The reason is structural: under such budgets, the updates LoRA can reach are exactly the matrices of rank at most r inside a nuclear-norm ball, and every complexity and displacement functional we analyze is maximized over this set by a rank-one update---so the rank cap never binds. The consequences follow directly. The linear-readout model class we study is identical for every r ge 1, its Rademacher complexity carries no dependence on r, and the distance the adaptation can move the source distribution obeys a rank-independent upper bound that we show is sharp. If rank does not control capacity, where does it act? We identify two places. Statistically, replacing the per-factor budgets with a joint budget on the product restores a data-dependent, rank-sensitive complexity bound---though the gain appears only for well-spread feature distributions, and the worst case remains rank-free. Spectrally, rank sets the price of adaptation: canceling the leading singular directions of the pretrained weight requires both sufficient rank and sufficient budget. We bound the smallest rank achieving a desired source--target alignment, with upper and lower bounds that match under two-sided spectral decay. Together, these results recast rank as governing which updates are reachable and what cancellation costs---not how much capacity the model has.
Source: arXiv cs.LG | 2026-09-29