Exploring parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) of billion-parameter vision models with QLoRA and DoRA: insights into generalization for limited-data image classification under a 98:1 test-to-train regime
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automated behavior classification is essential for precision livestock farming but faces challenges of high computational costs and limited labeled data. This study systematically compared three approaches: training from scratch (ResNet-18, ViT-Small), frozen feature extraction, and parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) of the DINOv3 foundation model (6.7 billion parameters). We evaluated QLoRA and DoRA across multiple configurations varying rank (8, 16, 64) and target modules (q_proj versus all-linear layers). With 2,160 verified training images, we assessed generalization of our model on 211,800 test samples, which is essentially a 98:1 test-to-train ratio. Results demonstrated that PEFT substantially outperformed alternatives, where the best QLoRA configuration (all-linear layers and rank=64) achieved 83.16% test accuracy with only 2.72% parameters (183.0M) in 5.8 hours, compared to 72.87% for ResNet-18 (16.8 hours), 61.91% for ViT-Small (18.7 hours), and 76.56% for frozen DINOv3 (17.5 hours). DoRA achieved comparable accuracy (83.14%) but with longer training time (11.0 hours). Notably, increasing adapter capacity consistently improved generalization while simultaneously not causing overfitting: reducing rank from 16 to 8 decreased test accuracy from 78.38% to 77.17%, while expanding from q_proj-only to all-linear layers with rank=64 improved accuracy from 78.38% to 83.16%. This suggests underfitting, instead of overfitting, is the primary challenge when adapting foundation models to agricultural imagery. Our findings provide guidelines for deploying billion-parameter vision models with PEFT in agricultural livestock applications.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Mar 2026.
Builds on
13 of 35 references.
References · 13
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 29,915
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,764
- 2021Emerging Properties in Self-Supervised Vision Transformerscited by 6,893
- 2019Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLPcited by 4,195
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 3,961
- 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,355
- 2021Robust fine-tuning of zero-shot modelscited by 785
- 2022Fine-Tuning can Distort Pretrained Features and Underperform Out-of-Distributioncited by 722
- 2018Albumentations: fast and flexible image augmentationscited by 558
- 2023Application of deep learning for livestock behaviour recognition: A systematic literature reviewcited by 5
- 2025A Computer Vision Pipeline for Individual-Level Behavior Analysis: Benchmarking on the Edinburgh Pig Datasetcited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.