Update README.md
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
@@ -1,3 +1,189 @@
|
|
1 |
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
- this README was added because there wasn't one
|
3 |
- created 2022-09-09_20-12-57
|
|
|
1 |
+
---
|
2 |
+
tags:
|
3 |
+
- summarization
|
4 |
+
- summary
|
5 |
+
- booksum
|
6 |
+
- long-document
|
7 |
+
- long-form
|
8 |
+
license:
|
9 |
+
- apache-2.0
|
10 |
+
- bsd-3-clause
|
11 |
+
datasets:
|
12 |
+
- kmfoda/booksum
|
13 |
+
metrics:
|
14 |
+
- rouge
|
15 |
+
widget:
|
16 |
+
- text: large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals
|
17 |
+
because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates
|
18 |
+
at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are approximately
|
19 |
+
uniform. Therefore, in first approximation, one may expect that large ruptures
|
20 |
+
of the same fault segment will occur at approximately constant time intervals.
|
21 |
+
If subsequent main shocks have different amounts of slip across the fault, then
|
22 |
+
the recurrence time may vary, and the basic idea of periodic mainshocks must be
|
23 |
+
modified. For great plate boundary ruptures the length and slip often vary by
|
24 |
+
a factor of 2. Along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the recurrence
|
25 |
+
interval is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard
|
26 |
+
deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long
|
27 |
+
term prediction of a future mainshock.
|
28 |
+
example_title: earthquakes
|
29 |
+
- text: " A typical feed-forward neural field algorithm. Spatiotemporal coordinates\
|
30 |
+
\ are fed into a neural network that predicts values in the reconstructed domain.\
|
31 |
+
\ Then, this domain is mapped to the sensor domain where sensor measurements are\
|
32 |
+
\ available as supervision. Class and Section Problems Addressed Generalization\
|
33 |
+
\ (Section 2) Inverse problems, ill-posed problems, editability; symmetries. Hybrid\
|
34 |
+
\ Representations (Section 3) Computation & memory efficiency, representation\
|
35 |
+
\ capacity, editability: Forward Maps (Section 4) Inverse problems Network Architecture\
|
36 |
+
\ (Section 5) Spectral bias, integration & derivatives. Manipulating Neural Fields\
|
37 |
+
\ (Section 6) Edit ability, constraints, regularization. Table 2: The five classes\
|
38 |
+
\ of techniques in the neural field toolbox each addresses problems that arise\
|
39 |
+
\ in learning, inference, and control. (Section 3). We can supervise reconstruction\
|
40 |
+
\ via differentiable forward maps that transform Or project our domain (e.g, 3D\
|
41 |
+
\ reconstruction via 2D images; Section 4) With appropriate network architecture\
|
42 |
+
\ choices, we can overcome neural network spectral biases (blurriness) and efficiently\
|
43 |
+
\ compute derivatives and integrals (Section 5). Finally, we can manipulate neural\
|
44 |
+
\ fields to add constraints and regularizations, and to achieve editable representations\
|
45 |
+
\ (Section 6). Collectively, these classes constitute a 'toolbox' of techniques\
|
46 |
+
\ to help solve problems with neural fields There are three components in a conditional\
|
47 |
+
\ neural field: (1) An encoder or inference function \u20AC that outputs the conditioning\
|
48 |
+
\ latent variable 2 given an observation 0 E(0) =2. 2 is typically a low-dimensional\
|
49 |
+
\ vector, and is often referred to aS a latent code Or feature code_ (2) A mapping\
|
50 |
+
\ function 4 between Z and neural field parameters O: Y(z) = O; (3) The neural\
|
51 |
+
\ field itself $. The encoder \u20AC finds the most probable z given the observations\
|
52 |
+
\ O: argmaxz P(2/0). The decoder maximizes the inverse conditional probability\
|
53 |
+
\ to find the most probable 0 given Z: arg- max P(Olz). We discuss different encoding\
|
54 |
+
\ schemes with different optimality guarantees (Section 2.1.1), both global and\
|
55 |
+
\ local conditioning (Section 2.1.2), and different mapping functions Y (Section\
|
56 |
+
\ 2.1.3) 2. Generalization Suppose we wish to estimate a plausible 3D surface\
|
57 |
+
\ shape given a partial or noisy point cloud. We need a suitable prior over the\
|
58 |
+
\ sur- face in its reconstruction domain to generalize to the partial observations.\
|
59 |
+
\ A neural network expresses a prior via the function space of its architecture\
|
60 |
+
\ and parameters 0, and generalization is influenced by the inductive bias of\
|
61 |
+
\ this function space (Section 5)."
|
62 |
+
example_title: scientific paper
|
63 |
+
- text: 'Is a else or outside the cob and tree written being of early client rope
|
64 |
+
and you have is for good reasons. On to the ocean in Orange for time. By''s the
|
65 |
+
aggregate we can bed it yet. Why this please pick up on a sort is do and also
|
66 |
+
M Getoi''s nerocos and do rain become you to let so is his brother is made in
|
67 |
+
use and Mjulia''s''s the lay major is aging Masastup coin present sea only of
|
68 |
+
Oosii rooms set to you We do er do we easy this private oliiishs lonthen might
|
69 |
+
be okay. Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to this lecture of Computational Statistics.
|
70 |
+
As you can see, I''m not socially my name is Michael Zelinger. I''m one of the
|
71 |
+
task for this class and you might have already seen me in the first lecture where
|
72 |
+
I made a quick appearance. I''m also going to give the tortillas in the last third
|
73 |
+
of this course. So to give you a little bit about me, I''m a old student here
|
74 |
+
with better Bulman and my research centres on casual inference applied to biomedical
|
75 |
+
disasters, so that could be genomics or that could be hospital data. If any of
|
76 |
+
you is interested in writing a bachelor thesis, a semester paper may be mastathesis
|
77 |
+
about this topic feel for reach out to me. you have my name on models and my email
|
78 |
+
address you can find in the directory I''d Be very happy to talk about it. you
|
79 |
+
do not need to be sure about it, we can just have a chat. So with that said, let''s
|
80 |
+
get on with the lecture. There''s an exciting topic today I''m going to start
|
81 |
+
by sharing some slides with you and later on during the lecture we''ll move to
|
82 |
+
the paper. So bear with me for a few seconds. Well, the projector is starting
|
83 |
+
up. Okay, so let''s get started. Today''s topic is a very important one. It''s
|
84 |
+
about a technique which really forms one of the fundamentals of data science,
|
85 |
+
machine learning, and any sort of modern statistics. It''s called cross validation.
|
86 |
+
I know you really want to understand this topic I Want you to understand this
|
87 |
+
and frankly, nobody''s gonna leave Professor Mineshousen''s class without understanding
|
88 |
+
cross validation. So to set the stage for this, I Want to introduce you to the
|
89 |
+
validation problem in computational statistics. So the problem is the following:
|
90 |
+
You trained a model on available data. You fitted your model, but you know the
|
91 |
+
training data you got could always have been different and some data from the
|
92 |
+
environment. Maybe it''s a random process. You do not really know what it is,
|
93 |
+
but you know that somebody else who gets a different batch of data from the same
|
94 |
+
environment they would get slightly different training data and you do not care
|
95 |
+
that your method performs as well. On this training data. you want to to perform
|
96 |
+
well on other data that you have not seen other data from the same environment.
|
97 |
+
So in other words, the validation problem is you want to quantify the performance
|
98 |
+
of your model on data that you have not seen. So how is this even possible? How
|
99 |
+
could you possibly measure the performance on data that you do not know The solution
|
100 |
+
to? This is the following realization is that given that you have a bunch of data,
|
101 |
+
you were in charge. You get to control how much that your model sees. It works
|
102 |
+
in the following way: You can hide data firms model. Let''s say you have a training
|
103 |
+
data set which is a bunch of doubtless so X eyes are the features those are typically
|
104 |
+
hide and national vector. It''s got more than one dimension for sure. And the
|
105 |
+
why why eyes. Those are the labels for supervised learning. As you''ve seen before,
|
106 |
+
it''s the same set up as we have in regression. And so you have this training
|
107 |
+
data and now you choose that you only use some of those data to fit your model.
|
108 |
+
You''re not going to use everything, you only use some of it the other part you
|
109 |
+
hide from your model. And then you can use this hidden data to do validation from
|
110 |
+
the point of you of your model. This hidden data is complete by unseen. In other
|
111 |
+
words, we solve our problem of validation.'
|
112 |
+
example_title: transcribed audio - lecture
|
113 |
+
- text: "Transformer-based models have shown to be very useful for many NLP tasks.\
|
114 |
+
\ However, a major limitation of transformers-based models is its O(n^2)O(n 2)\
|
115 |
+
\ time & memory complexity (where nn is sequence length). Hence, it's computationally\
|
116 |
+
\ very expensive to apply transformer-based models on long sequences n > 512n>512.\
|
117 |
+
\ Several recent papers, e.g. Longformer, Performer, Reformer, Clustered attention\
|
118 |
+
\ try to remedy this problem by approximating the full attention matrix. You can\
|
119 |
+
\ checkout \U0001F917's recent blog post in case you are unfamiliar with these\
|
120 |
+
\ models.\nBigBird (introduced in paper) is one of such recent models to address\
|
121 |
+
\ this issue. BigBird relies on block sparse attention instead of normal attention\
|
122 |
+
\ (i.e. BERT's attention) and can handle sequences up to a length of 4096 at a\
|
123 |
+
\ much lower computational cost compared to BERT. It has achieved SOTA on various\
|
124 |
+
\ tasks involving very long sequences such as long documents summarization, question-answering\
|
125 |
+
\ with long contexts.\nBigBird RoBERTa-like model is now available in \U0001F917\
|
126 |
+
Transformers. The goal of this post is to give the reader an in-depth understanding\
|
127 |
+
\ of big bird implementation & ease one's life in using BigBird with \U0001F917\
|
128 |
+
Transformers. But, before going into more depth, it is important to remember that\
|
129 |
+
\ the BigBird's attention is an approximation of BERT's full attention and therefore\
|
130 |
+
\ does not strive to be better than BERT's full attention, but rather to be more\
|
131 |
+
\ efficient. It simply allows to apply transformer-based models to much longer\
|
132 |
+
\ sequences since BERT's quadratic memory requirement quickly becomes unbearable.\
|
133 |
+
\ Simply put, if we would have \u221E compute & \u221E time, BERT's attention\
|
134 |
+
\ would be preferred over block sparse attention (which we are going to discuss\
|
135 |
+
\ in this post).\nIf you wonder why we need more compute when working with longer\
|
136 |
+
\ sequences, this blog post is just right for you!\nSome of the main questions\
|
137 |
+
\ one might have when working with standard BERT-like attention include:\nDo all\
|
138 |
+
\ tokens really have to attend to all other tokens? Why not compute attention\
|
139 |
+
\ only over important tokens? How to decide what tokens are important? How to\
|
140 |
+
\ attend to just a few tokens in a very efficient way? In this blog post, we will\
|
141 |
+
\ try to answer those questions.\nWhat tokens should be attended to? We will give\
|
142 |
+
\ a practical example of how attention works by considering the sentence 'BigBird\
|
143 |
+
\ is now available in HuggingFace for extractive question answering'. In BERT-like\
|
144 |
+
\ attention, every word would simply attend to all other tokens.\nLet's think\
|
145 |
+
\ about a sensible choice of key tokens that a queried token actually only should\
|
146 |
+
\ attend to by writing some pseudo-code. Will will assume that the token available\
|
147 |
+
\ is queried and build a sensible list of key tokens to attend to.\n>>> # let's\
|
148 |
+
\ consider following sentence as an example >>> example = ['BigBird', 'is', 'now',\
|
149 |
+
\ 'available', 'in', 'HuggingFace', 'for', 'extractive', 'question', 'answering']\n\
|
150 |
+
>>> # further let's assume, we're trying to understand the representation of 'available'\
|
151 |
+
\ i.e. >>> query_token = 'available' >>> # We will initialize an empty `set` and\
|
152 |
+
\ fill up the tokens of our interest as we proceed in this section. >>> key_tokens\
|
153 |
+
\ = [] # => currently 'available' token doesn't have anything to attend Nearby\
|
154 |
+
\ tokens should be important because, in a sentence (sequence of words), the current\
|
155 |
+
\ word is highly dependent on neighboring past & future tokens. This intuition\
|
156 |
+
\ is the idea behind the concept of sliding attention."
|
157 |
+
example_title: bigbird blog intro
|
158 |
+
- text: "To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty.\
|
159 |
+
\ The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics\
|
160 |
+
\ most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's\
|
161 |
+
\ nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal\
|
162 |
+
\ philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The\
|
163 |
+
\ fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate\
|
164 |
+
\ the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say\
|
165 |
+
\ something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick & Morty\
|
166 |
+
\ truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour\
|
167 |
+
\ in Rick's existential catchphrase 'Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,' which itself is a cryptic\
|
168 |
+
\ reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now\
|
169 |
+
\ just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in\
|
170 |
+
\ confusion as Dan Harmon's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens.\
|
171 |
+
\ What fools.. how I pity them. \U0001F602\nAnd yes, by the way, i DO have a Rick\
|
172 |
+
\ & Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and\
|
173 |
+
\ even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own\
|
174 |
+
\ (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid \U0001F60E"
|
175 |
+
example_title: Richard & Mortimer
|
176 |
+
parameters:
|
177 |
+
max_length: 64
|
178 |
+
min_length: 8
|
179 |
+
no_repeat_ngram_size: 3
|
180 |
+
early_stopping: true
|
181 |
+
repetition_penalty: 3.5
|
182 |
+
length_penalty: 0.3
|
183 |
+
encoder_no_repeat_ngram_size: 3
|
184 |
+
num_beams: 4
|
185 |
+
---
|
186 |
+
# long-t5-tglobal-base-16384-booksum-V12
|
187 |
+
|
188 |
- this README was added because there wasn't one
|
189 |
- created 2022-09-09_20-12-57
|