# How Small Can You Go? A Controlled Study of LoRA Rank, Target Modules, and Quantization Trade-offs for Text-to-SQL on a 60M-Parameter Model

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25583 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.25583/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 8 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.00751/) (2019)
- [Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.00190/) (2021)
- [QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14314/) (2023)
- [BitFit: Simple Parameter-efficient Fine-tuning for Transformer-based Masked Language-models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.10199/) (2021)
- [LLM.int8(): 8-bit Matrix Multiplication for Transformers at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.07339/) (2022)
- [Seq2SQL: Generating Structured Queries from Natural Language using Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1709.00103/) (2017)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) and low-bit quantization are now standard tools for adapting language models under tight compute budgets, yet their interaction is most often studied on billion-parameter models where the design space is expensive to explore. We ask a complementary question: on a specific, fully reproducible 60M-parameter encoder-decoder model (T5-small) and a single-table text-to-SQL benchmark (WikiSQL), how much task accuracy does each efficiency knob actually cost? We run a controlled, single-variable study over (i) LoRA rank r in {2, 4, 8, 16, 32}, (ii) the set of adapted modules, and (iii) numerical precision. We report task accuracy alongside system-level metrics including trainable parameters, peak training memory, inference latency, and throughput, and frame adaptation as a constrained trade-off rather than an accuracy-only objective. Our results show that LoRA with r=16 recovers within 11.6 percentage points of full fine-tuning accuracy (59.6% vs. 71.2% exact-match) while training fewer than 1% of parameters and consuming 31% less peak GPU memory. Within this setting, rank beyond r=16 yields no measurable accuracy gain. QLoRA with INT8 and NF4 quantization achieves comparable accuracy (52.8% and 53.2%) at dramatically lower memory cost (0.60 GB each), demonstrating a compelling trade-off for memory-constrained deployments. All code, configurations, and logs are released for full reproducibility.