|
--- |
|
tags: |
|
- summarization |
|
- summary |
|
- booksum |
|
- long-document |
|
- long-form |
|
license: |
|
- apache-2.0 |
|
- bsd-3-clause |
|
datasets: |
|
- kmfoda/booksum |
|
- big_patent |
|
metrics: |
|
- rouge |
|
widget: |
|
- text: large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals |
|
because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates |
|
at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are approximately |
|
uniform. Therefore, in first approximation, one may expect that large ruptures |
|
of the same fault segment will occur at approximately constant time intervals. |
|
If subsequent main shocks have different amounts of slip across the fault, then |
|
the recurrence time may vary, and the basic idea of periodic mainshocks must be |
|
modified. For great plate boundary ruptures the length and slip often vary by |
|
a factor of 2. Along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the recurrence |
|
interval is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard |
|
deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long |
|
term prediction of a future mainshock. |
|
example_title: earthquakes |
|
- text: " A typical feed-forward neural field algorithm. Spatiotemporal coordinates\ |
|
\ are fed into a neural network that predicts values in the reconstructed domain.\ |
|
\ Then, this domain is mapped to the sensor domain where sensor measurements are\ |
|
\ available as supervision. Class and Section Problems Addressed Generalization\ |
|
\ (Section 2) Inverse problems, ill-posed problems, editability; symmetries. Hybrid\ |
|
\ Representations (Section 3) Computation & memory efficiency, representation\ |
|
\ capacity, editability: Forward Maps (Section 4) Inverse problems Network Architecture\ |
|
\ (Section 5) Spectral bias, integration & derivatives. Manipulating Neural Fields\ |
|
\ (Section 6) Edit ability, constraints, regularization. Table 2: The five classes\ |
|
\ of techniques in the neural field toolbox each addresses problems that arise\ |
|
\ in learning, inference, and control. (Section 3). We can supervise reconstruction\ |
|
\ via differentiable forward maps that transform Or project our domain (e.g, 3D\ |
|
\ reconstruction via 2D images; Section 4) With appropriate network architecture\ |
|
\ choices, we can overcome neural network spectral biases (blurriness) and efficiently\ |
|
\ compute derivatives and integrals (Section 5). Finally, we can manipulate neural\ |
|
\ fields to add constraints and regularizations, and to achieve editable representations\ |
|
\ (Section 6). Collectively, these classes constitute a 'toolbox' of techniques\ |
|
\ to help solve problems with neural fields There are three components in a conditional\ |
|
\ neural field: (1) An encoder or inference function \u20AC that outputs the conditioning\ |
|
\ latent variable 2 given an observation 0 E(0) =2. 2 is typically a low-dimensional\ |
|
\ vector, and is often referred to aS a latent code Or feature code_ (2) A mapping\ |
|
\ function 4 between Z and neural field parameters O: Y(z) = O; (3) The neural\ |
|
\ field itself $. The encoder \u20AC finds the most probable z given the observations\ |
|
\ O: argmaxz P(2/0). The decoder maximizes the inverse conditional probability\ |
|
\ to find the most probable 0 given Z: arg- max P(Olz). We discuss different encoding\ |
|
\ schemes with different optimality guarantees (Section 2.1.1), both global and\ |
|
\ local conditioning (Section 2.1.2), and different mapping functions Y (Section\ |
|
\ 2.1.3) 2. Generalization Suppose we wish to estimate a plausible 3D surface\ |
|
\ shape given a partial or noisy point cloud. We need a suitable prior over the\ |
|
\ sur- face in its reconstruction domain to generalize to the partial observations.\ |
|
\ A neural network expresses a prior via the function space of its architecture\ |
|
\ and parameters 0, and generalization is influenced by the inductive bias of\ |
|
\ this function space (Section 5)." |
|
example_title: scientific paper |
|
- text: 'Is a else or outside the cob and tree written being of early client rope |
|
and you have is for good reasons. On to the ocean in Orange for time. By''s the |
|
aggregate we can bed it yet. Why this please pick up on a sort is do and also |
|
M Getoi''s nerocos and do rain become you to let so is his brother is made in |
|
use and Mjulia''s''s the lay major is aging Masastup coin present sea only of |
|
Oosii rooms set to you We do er do we easy this private oliiishs lonthen might |
|
be okay. Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to this lecture of Computational Statistics. |
|
As you can see, I''m not socially my name is Michael Zelinger. I''m one of the |
|
task for this class and you might have already seen me in the first lecture where |
|
I made a quick appearance. I''m also going to give the tortillas in the last third |
|
of this course. So to give you a little bit about me, I''m a old student here |
|
with better Bulman and my research centres on casual inference applied to biomedical |
|
disasters, so that could be genomics or that could be hospital data. If any of |
|
you is interested in writing a bachelor thesis, a semester paper may be mastathesis |
|
about this topic feel for reach out to me. you have my name on models and my email |
|
address you can find in the directory I''d Be very happy to talk about it. you |
|
do not need to be sure about it, we can just have a chat. So with that said, let''s |
|
get on with the lecture. There''s an exciting topic today I''m going to start |
|
by sharing some slides with you and later on during the lecture we''ll move to |
|
the paper. So bear with me for a few seconds. Well, the projector is starting |
|
up. Okay, so let''s get started. Today''s topic is a very important one. It''s |
|
about a technique which really forms one of the fundamentals of data science, |
|
machine learning, and any sort of modern statistics. It''s called cross validation. |
|
I know you really want to understand this topic I Want you to understand this |
|
and frankly, nobody''s gonna leave Professor Mineshousen''s class without understanding |
|
cross validation. So to set the stage for this, I Want to introduce you to the |
|
validation problem in computational statistics. So the problem is the following: |
|
You trained a model on available data. You fitted your model, but you know the |
|
training data you got could always have been different and some data from the |
|
environment. Maybe it''s a random process. You do not really know what it is, |
|
but you know that somebody else who gets a different batch of data from the same |
|
environment they would get slightly different training data and you do not care |
|
that your method performs as well. On this training data. you want to to perform |
|
well on other data that you have not seen other data from the same environment. |
|
So in other words, the validation problem is you want to quantify the performance |
|
of your model on data that you have not seen. So how is this even possible? How |
|
could you possibly measure the performance on data that you do not know The solution |
|
to? This is the following realization is that given that you have a bunch of data, |
|
you were in charge. You get to control how much that your model sees. It works |
|
in the following way: You can hide data firms model. Let''s say you have a training |
|
data set which is a bunch of doubtless so X eyes are the features those are typically |
|
hide and national vector. It''s got more than one dimension for sure. And the |
|
why why eyes. Those are the labels for supervised learning. As you''ve seen before, |
|
it''s the same set up as we have in regression. And so you have this training |
|
data and now you choose that you only use some of those data to fit your model. |
|
You''re not going to use everything, you only use some of it the other part you |
|
hide from your model. And then you can use this hidden data to do validation from |
|
the point of you of your model. This hidden data is complete by unseen. In other |
|
words, we solve our problem of validation.' |
|
example_title: transcribed audio - lecture |
|
- text: "Transformer-based models have shown to be very useful for many NLP tasks.\ |
|
\ However, a major limitation of transformers-based models is its O(n^2)O(n 2)\ |
|
\ time & memory complexity (where nn is sequence length). Hence, it's computationally\ |
|
\ very expensive to apply transformer-based models on long sequences n > 512n>512.\ |
|
\ Several recent papers, e.g. Longformer, Performer, Reformer, Clustered attention\ |
|
\ try to remedy this problem by approximating the full attention matrix. You can\ |
|
\ checkout \U0001F917's recent blog post in case you are unfamiliar with these\ |
|
\ models.\nBigBird (introduced in paper) is one of such recent models to address\ |
|
\ this issue. BigBird relies on block sparse attention instead of normal attention\ |
|
\ (i.e. BERT's attention) and can handle sequences up to a length of 4096 at a\ |
|
\ much lower computational cost compared to BERT. It has achieved SOTA on various\ |
|
\ tasks involving very long sequences such as long documents summarization, question-answering\ |
|
\ with long contexts.\nBigBird RoBERTa-like model is now available in \U0001F917\ |
|
Transformers. The goal of this post is to give the reader an in-depth understanding\ |
|
\ of big bird implementation & ease one's life in using BigBird with \U0001F917\ |
|
Transformers. But, before going into more depth, it is important to remember that\ |
|
\ the BigBird's attention is an approximation of BERT's full attention and therefore\ |
|
\ does not strive to be better than BERT's full attention, but rather to be more\ |
|
\ efficient. It simply allows to apply transformer-based models to much longer\ |
|
\ sequences since BERT's quadratic memory requirement quickly becomes unbearable.\ |
|
\ Simply put, if we would have \u221E compute & \u221E time, BERT's attention\ |
|
\ would be preferred over block sparse attention (which we are going to discuss\ |
|
\ in this post).\nIf you wonder why we need more compute when working with longer\ |
|
\ sequences, this blog post is just right for you!\nSome of the main questions\ |
|
\ one might have when working with standard BERT-like attention include:\nDo all\ |
|
\ tokens really have to attend to all other tokens? Why not compute attention\ |
|
\ only over important tokens? How to decide what tokens are important? How to\ |
|
\ attend to just a few tokens in a very efficient way? In this blog post, we will\ |
|
\ try to answer those questions.\nWhat tokens should be attended to? We will give\ |
|
\ a practical example of how attention works by considering the sentence 'BigBird\ |
|
\ is now available in HuggingFace for extractive question answering'. In BERT-like\ |
|
\ attention, every word would simply attend to all other tokens.\nLet's think\ |
|
\ about a sensible choice of key tokens that a queried token actually only should\ |
|
\ attend to by writing some pseudo-code. Will will assume that the token available\ |
|
\ is queried and build a sensible list of key tokens to attend to.\n>>> # let's\ |
|
\ consider following sentence as an example >>> example = ['BigBird', 'is', 'now',\ |
|
\ 'available', 'in', 'HuggingFace', 'for', 'extractive', 'question', 'answering']\n\ |
|
>>> # further let's assume, we're trying to understand the representation of 'available'\ |
|
\ i.e. >>> query_token = 'available' >>> # We will initialize an empty `set` and\ |
|
\ fill up the tokens of our interest as we proceed in this section. >>> key_tokens\ |
|
\ = [] # => currently 'available' token doesn't have anything to attend Nearby\ |
|
\ tokens should be important because, in a sentence (sequence of words), the current\ |
|
\ word is highly dependent on neighboring past & future tokens. This intuition\ |
|
\ is the idea behind the concept of sliding attention." |
|
example_title: bigbird blog intro |
|
- text: "To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty.\ |
|
\ The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics\ |
|
\ most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's\ |
|
\ nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal\ |
|
\ philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The\ |
|
\ fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate\ |
|
\ the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say\ |
|
\ something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty\ |
|
\ truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour\ |
|
\ in Rick's existential catchphrase 'Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,' which itself is a cryptic\ |
|
\ reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now\ |
|
\ just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in\ |
|
\ confusion as Dan Harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens.\ |
|
\ What fools.. how I pity them. \U0001F602\nAnd yes, by the way, i DO have a Rick\ |
|
\ & Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and\ |
|
\ even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own\ |
|
\ (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid \U0001F60E" |
|
example_title: Richard & Mortimer |
|
parameters: |
|
max_length: 64 |
|
min_length: 8 |
|
no_repeat_ngram_size: 3 |
|
early_stopping: true |
|
repetition_penalty: 3.5 |
|
length_penalty: 0.3 |
|
encoder_no_repeat_ngram_size: 3 |
|
num_beams: 4 |
|
model-index: |
|
- name: pszemraj/long-t5-tglobal-base-16384-booksum-V11-big_patent-V2 |
|
results: |
|
- task: |
|
type: summarization |
|
name: Summarization |
|
dataset: |
|
name: kmfoda/booksum |
|
type: kmfoda/booksum |
|
config: kmfoda--booksum |
|
split: test |
|
metrics: |
|
- name: ROUGE-1 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 23.1439 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-2 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 3.2393 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-L |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 12.7038 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-LSUM |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 19.8101 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: loss |
|
type: loss |
|
value: 2.766307830810547 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: gen_len |
|
type: gen_len |
|
value: 63.4493 |
|
verified: true |
|
- task: |
|
type: summarization |
|
name: Summarization |
|
dataset: |
|
name: samsum |
|
type: samsum |
|
config: samsum |
|
split: test |
|
metrics: |
|
- name: ROUGE-1 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 26.8026 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-2 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 6.0656 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-L |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 20.0098 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-LSUM |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 21.9115 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: loss |
|
type: loss |
|
value: 2.317471981048584 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: gen_len |
|
type: gen_len |
|
value: 19.1111 |
|
verified: true |
|
- task: |
|
type: summarization |
|
name: Summarization |
|
dataset: |
|
name: xsum |
|
type: xsum |
|
config: default |
|
split: test |
|
metrics: |
|
- name: ROUGE-1 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 25.2061 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-2 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 4.7048 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-L |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 17.8593 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-LSUM |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 18.0798 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: loss |
|
type: loss |
|
value: 3.003053665161133 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: gen_len |
|
type: gen_len |
|
value: 27.4815 |
|
verified: true |
|
- task: |
|
type: summarization |
|
name: Summarization |
|
dataset: |
|
name: cnn_dailymail |
|
type: cnn_dailymail |
|
config: 3.0.0 |
|
split: test |
|
metrics: |
|
- name: ROUGE-1 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 27.5692 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-2 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 6.1264 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-L |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 17.1127 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-LSUM |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 23.0066 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: loss |
|
type: loss |
|
value: 2.218526601791382 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: gen_len |
|
type: gen_len |
|
value: 39.1952 |
|
verified: true |
|
- task: |
|
type: summarization |
|
name: Summarization |
|
dataset: |
|
name: billsum |
|
type: billsum |
|
config: default |
|
split: test |
|
metrics: |
|
- name: ROUGE-1 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 28.0632 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-2 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 9.8996 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-L |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 18.25 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-LSUM |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 21.9053 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: loss |
|
type: loss |
|
value: 2.032966375350952 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: gen_len |
|
type: gen_len |
|
value: 48.5987 |
|
verified: true |
|
- task: |
|
type: summarization |
|
name: Summarization |
|
dataset: |
|
name: big_patent |
|
type: big_patent |
|
config: y |
|
split: test |
|
metrics: |
|
- name: ROUGE-1 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 34.7848 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-2 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 9.7549 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-L |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 22.228 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-LSUM |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 28.0389 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: loss |
|
type: loss |
|
value: 1.7787292003631592 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: gen_len |
|
type: gen_len |
|
value: 71.6372 |
|
verified: true |
|
- task: |
|
type: summarization |
|
name: Summarization |
|
dataset: |
|
name: launch/gov_report |
|
type: launch/gov_report |
|
config: plain_text |
|
split: validation |
|
metrics: |
|
- name: ROUGE-1 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 23.5925 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-2 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 5.6762 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-L |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 13.8108 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-LSUM |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 20.2437 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: loss |
|
type: loss |
|
value: 2.6377077102661133 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: gen_len |
|
type: gen_len |
|
value: 64.1807 |
|
verified: true |
|
- task: |
|
type: summarization |
|
name: Summarization |
|
dataset: |
|
name: launch/gov_report |
|
type: launch/gov_report |
|
config: plain_text |
|
split: test |
|
metrics: |
|
- name: ROUGE-1 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 23.7438 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-2 |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 5.501 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-L |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 13.8132 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: ROUGE-LSUM |
|
type: rouge |
|
value: 20.4615 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: loss |
|
type: loss |
|
value: 2.6383883953094482 |
|
verified: true |
|
- name: gen_len |
|
type: gen_len |
|
value: 64.9085 |
|
verified: true |
|
--- |
|
|
|
# README - long-t5-tglobal-base-16384-booksum-V11-big_patent-V2 |
|
- this README was added because there wasn't one |
|
- created 2022-07-31_12-14-50 |
|
|
|
|
|
## about |
|
|
|
An experiment testing some transfer learning with [pszemraj/long-t5-tglobal-base-16384-book-summary](https://huggingface.co/pszemraj/long-t5-tglobal-base-16384-book-summary) to evaluate the ability to learn some technical documentation through the `big_patent` dataset on huggingface. |
|
|
|
This checkpoint has been trained on dataset subsection `y` of `big_patent` for approx 400 steps of functional batch size 128. |
