Librarian Bot: Add base_model information to model (#3)

- Librarian Bot: Add base_model information to model (78dd7d4050526c8d36b174beeee9cb772750681c)


Co-authored-by: Librarian Bot (Bot) <[email protected]>

README.md

@@ -1,9 +1,15 @@
 ---
+language:
+- en
 license: apache-2.0
+library_name: transformers
+tags:
+- lay summaries
+- paper summaries
+- biology
+- medical
 datasets:
 - pszemraj/scientific_lay_summarisation-plos-norm
-language:
-- en
 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
@@ -18,39 +24,38 @@ widget:
     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)."
+- 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 € 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 € 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
@@ -102,70 +107,93 @@ widget:
     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."
+- 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 🤗''s recent blog post in case you are unfamiliar with these models.
+
+    BigBird (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.
+
+    BigBird RoBERTa-like model is now available in 🤗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 🤗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 ∞ compute & ∞ time, BERT''s attention
+    would be preferred over block sparse attention (which we are going to discuss
+    in this post).
+
+    If you wonder why we need more compute when working with longer sequences, this
+    blog post is just right for you!
+
+    Some of the main questions one might have when working with standard BERT-like
+    attention include:
+
+    Do 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.
+
+    What 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.
+
+    Let''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.
+
+    >>> # let''s consider following sentence as an example >>> example = [''BigBird'',
+    ''is'', ''now'', ''available'', ''in'', ''HuggingFace'', ''for'', ''extractive'',
+    ''question'', ''answering'']
+
+    >>> # 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"
+- 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.
+    😂
+
+    And 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 😎'
   example_title: Richard & Mortimer
-- text: "The tower is 324 metres (1,063 ft) tall, about the same height as an 81-storey building, and the tallest structure in Paris. Its base is square, measuring 125 metres (410 ft) on each side. During its construction, the Eiffel Tower surpassed the Washington Monument to become the tallest man-made structure in the world, a title it held for 41 years until the Chrysler Building in New York City was finished in 1930. It was the first structure to reach a height of 300 metres. Due to the addition of a broadcasting aerial at the top of the tower in 1957, it is now taller than the Chrysler Building by 5.2 metres (17 ft). Excluding transmitters, the Eiffel Tower is the second tallest free-standing structure in France after the Millau Viaduct."
+- text: The tower is 324 metres (1,063 ft) tall, about the same height as an 81-storey
+    building, and the tallest structure in Paris. Its base is square, measuring 125
+    metres (410 ft) on each side. During its construction, the Eiffel Tower surpassed
+    the Washington Monument to become the tallest man-made structure in the world,
+    a title it held for 41 years until the Chrysler Building in New York City was
+    finished in 1930. It was the first structure to reach a height of 300 metres.
+    Due to the addition of a broadcasting aerial at the top of the tower in 1957,
+    it is now taller than the Chrysler Building by 5.2 metres (17 ft). Excluding transmitters,
+    the Eiffel Tower is the second tallest free-standing structure in France after
+    the Millau Viaduct.
   example_title: eiffel
 parameters:
   max_length: 64
@@ -177,12 +205,7 @@ parameters:
   length_penalty: 0.4
   num_beams: 4
 pipeline_tag: summarization
-tags:
-- lay summaries
-- paper summaries
-- biology
-- medical
-library_name: transformers
+base_model: google/long-t5-tglobal-base
 ---
 
 # long-t5-tglobal-base-sci-simplify