You’re assuming a lot more intercompany coordination than would exist. Even though it’s research by Microsoft labs, the researchers themselves are to a large extent autonomous and also narrow experts in their fields.
This process involves low rank approximations -> Lora is a namey sounding term that uses characters from low and rank -> call it LoRA in the paper. That’s all there was to it. Probably didn’t even know the other lora existed.
It’s still a currently-in-use acronym/term that a sufficiently large tech company could conceivably be using both meanings concurrently. This causes confusion and muddies the water of a general web search experience.
Not the same situation, but I remember when “Electron” was called “Atom Shell” because it was built for the (now defunct) text editor by the same name. For the longest time, I had an unsubstantiated thought that it was a new Unix shell that was based around a text editor somehow (yes, dumb). In hindsight, they just had named this cleverly to reference the various layers or shells of electrons orbiting atomic nuclei, thus the eventual name of Electron.
On the other hand, a wireless technology standard is very different than a known mathematical technique that likely predates the wireless meaning anyway.
In all seriousness there should be ML project naming approaches (I should try ChatGPT). Naming a project or a company is very difficult so I can’t blame anyone here.
That said some of these ML project names are especially horrendous (kind of ironic for the current emphasis on generative AI). Transformers? A good chunk of the time I get results about the toys and cartoons from my childhood. Don’t get me wrong, I still think Optimus Prime is cool and the name “transformers” make sense given the function but it’s somehow simultaneously generic AND the name of a decades long multi-billion dollar media franchise…
LoRA is another example, name makes sense but the collision with LoRa is problematic. I, for one, am interested in and have/would apply both. Queue google searches for “Lora radio…” vs “Lora ml…”.
Project naming is hard and I’m just glad to see the activity and releases. BUT project naming is essentially a base usability condition and should be considered as such: just like creating a README, getting started, providing code examples, etc.
It reminds me of trademarks: if you’re looking for trademark protection it won’t be issued if it is overly generic or likely to “cause confusion in the marketplace” with an existing trademark (basically same or similar name in a somewhat similar/adjacent field) - you can even reuse names but only if it’s obvious to people from basic context that they refer to different things. I’m not a trademark attorney but I think LoRa vs LoRA would get refused because it’s “computer stuff”, while a shampoo named Lora would be fine (as an example). If you’re curious there are official categories/areas from the USPTO that break these down.
Both of these examples wouldn’t have a chance at trademark protection. Note I’m not saying they should have trademark protection, just that it’s an example of a reasonable standard that should be considered/compared to for good open source project naming.
Good question! I came up with the name because the idea is best described as low-rank adaptation. I know very little about radio communication and didn't anticipate the visibility my repo has today :)
Edit: Microsoft is even a member of the LoRa alliance: https://lora-alliance.org/lora-alliance-press-release/micros...