Chapter DFine-tuning labPage 5 of 8

Fine-tuning lab

Debug fact memorization and format regression

Page 5 advances one concrete LoRA adapter for support-tone behavior: explain the decision, run the code, inspect failure, measure evidence, and keep only what is ready to ship.

~15 minDebugging

Before you start

Why this matters

Predict the exact failure class you will see when you inject adapter memorizes shifting facts or regresses general quality into the smallest fixture. What incorrect fix would hide the bug without restoring the invariant?

1Learn the idea

Read

Build focus

Break the artifact on purpose. The most important failure family is adapter memorizes shifting facts or regresses general quality. Reproduce one failure with the smallest possible input, inspect the intermediate values, and fix the boundary or algorithm rather than catching every exception. Retrying deterministic bad input only repeats the same mistake; a retry is justified only for a transient dependency.

Memorization shows up as confident wrong prices after policies change. If the adapter encodes facts, remove those targets and restore RAG. Format regression means your train set is noisy or overfit.

The artifact's user-facing goal is specific: stabilize response format and tone with LoRA while leaving facts to retrieval. Its accepted input is curated instruction examples split by intent into train, validation, and held-out test. Those statements are intentionally narrower than “build an AI system.” Narrow scope lets us inspect every input and expected result, and it prevents a toy result from being presented as a production claim. System shape for this chapter: a curated dataset is split by intent and source into train, validation, and untouched test sets; a pinned instruct model receives a low-rank adapter; evaluation compares base, prompt-only, and adapted outputs; serving loads the adapter as a versioned artifact beside retrieval. Keep model calls behind adapters, keep authorization and validation in deterministic code, and carry stable IDs and versions through every response. That separation lets you decide whether a bad result came from input handling, retrieval, inference, validation, or deployment. This page's job is the debugging step: break the artifact on purpose. Setup baseline for the chapter (run once per machine, not secrets in git):

python -m venv .venv && source .venv/bin/activate
# Training stack varies by GPU; pin versions in requirements.
pip install pyyaml
mkdir -p data/train data/val data/test adapters

If hardware or a hosted provider differs, preserve the interface and expected behavior. Do not present provider syntax as universal—when a vendor adapter is unavoidable, keep it behind a thin boundary and test with a fake first. The deliverable is not “it ran once”; it is a reproducible artifact another developer can inspect, including expected output and one deliberate failure related to adapter memorizes shifting facts or regresses general quality. Operationally, write down the owner of this stage, the command you ran, the observed output, and the next page's dependency on that output. If you cannot point to a file, fixture, metric, or config key, the stage is not done. Prefer small, reviewable increments: one contract, one path, one metric, one failure, one gate. When tradeoffs appear—latency versus quality, hit rate versus false hits, local privacy versus cloud quality—record both numbers instead of moving the threshold until the report looks green. The chapter ships only when evidence for format adherence and tone scores improve vs base without factual holdout regression and a rehearsed recovery path exist beside versioned LoRA adapter loaded at serve time with ADAPTER_ID rollback.

Read

Run the example

Save this as lesson.py and run python3 lesson.py. Prefer the standard library or the pinned packages from the setup block so the example stays reproducible.

def should_ship(format_lift, fact_delta):
    return format_lift>=0.1 and fact_delta>=-0.02
print(should_ship(0.13, -0.01))

Expected output: True when format lift and fact delta pass. Exact floating-point formatting may vary slightly, but the asserted behavior must not. Read the output as evidence about this stage, not merely proof that the interpreter started.

Read

Debug the stage

Reproduce adapter memorizes shifting facts or regresses general quality as a fixture. Fix one cause at a time. Do not catch broad exceptions and return an apparently successful answer. At the debugging stage, save the smallest failing fixture beside the expected result. Change one cause at a time and rerun the exact command printed above; that makes the repair reviewable and keeps this chapter's progressive artifact reproducible.

Read

Evaluate before continuing

Record latency and failure class for each injected fault. Clear degradation beats a wrong success. For this debugging page, preserve the fixture and result as evidence for the next page. Label observations separately from conclusions: a passing assertion establishes the behavior it names, while broader usefulness requires the chapter's full evaluation set and stated operating limits. Primary metrics for the chapter remain format adherence and tone scores improve vs base without factual holdout regression.

Checking tutor…

Continue learning · glossary & guides
  • [ ] Can I reproduce the failure with one minimal input?
  • [ ] Did I fix the first broken invariant instead of masking the exception?
  • [ ] Does a neighboring valid case still pass?
  • [ ] Do I recognize adapter memorizes shifting facts or regresses general quality in logs?

Glossary: LoRA · How-to: train LoRA adapter · Cheatsheet: LoRA vs RAG · Snippet: LoRA config

Previous · Next