qlora VS fairseq

Marx 3B V3 is StableLM 3B 4E1T instruction tuned on EverythingLM Data V3(ShareGPT Format) for 2 epochs using QLoRA.

https://github.com/artidoro/qlora

The tools and mechanisms to get a model to do what you want is ever so changing, ever so quickly. Build and understand a notebook yourself, and reduce dependencies. You will need to switch them.

My own project right now is still in raw generated form, and this now makes me think about trying qlora's scripts since this gives me some confidence I should be able to get it to turn out now that someone else has carved a path and charted the map. I was going to target llamatune which was mentioned here the other day.

Most papers I did read showed at least a thousand, even 10000 at several cases, so I assumed that to be the trend in the case of Low rank adapter(PEFT) training.(source: [2305.14314] QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs (arxiv.org) , Stanford CRFM (Alpaca) and the minimum being openchat/openchat · Hugging Face ; There are a lot more examples)

4-bit quantization training mainly refers to qlora. Simply put, qlora quantizes the weights of the LLM into 4-bit for storage, while dequantizing them into 16-bit during the training process to ensure training precision. This method significantly reduces GPU memory overhead during training (the training speed should not vary much). This approach is highly suitable to be combined with parameter-efficient methods. However, the original paper was designed for single-modal LLMs and the code has already been wrapped in HuggingFace's library. Therefore, we extracted the core code from HuggingFace's library and migrated it into LaVIN's code. The main principle is to replace all linear layers in LLM with 4-bit quantized layers. Those interested can refer to our implementation in quantization.py and mm_adaptation.py, which is roughly a dozen lines of code.

There have been some new development like QLora which help fine-tune LLMs without updating all the weights.

This might be helpful: https://github.com/artidoro/qlora/issues/10

curious, since qlora paper only reports lora/qlora comparison for full fine-tuning for small 7B models.for 13B/33B/65B, it does not do so (table 4 in paper)it would be helpful if anyone can please provide links where I can read more on efficacy of lora or disadvantages of lora?

This might not be appropriate answer but did you take a look at this repository? https://github.com/artidoro/qlora With artidoro's repository it's pretty easy to train qlora. You just prepare your own dataset and run the following command: python qlora.py --model_name_or_path --dataset="path/to/your/dataset" --dataset_format="self-instruct" This is only available for several dataset formats. But every dataset format has to have input-output pairs. So the dataset json format has to be like this [ { “input”: “something ”, “output”:“something ” }, { “input”: “something ”, “output”:“something ” } ]

> Is there really no way to partition the workload to run with 16gb memory per card?

It really depends and this can get really complicated really fast. I'll give a tldr and then a longer explanation.

TLDR:

Yes, you can easily split networks up. If your main bottleneck is batch size (i.e. training) then there aren't huge differences in spreading across multiple GPUs assuming you have good interconnects (GPU direct is supported). If you're running inference and the model fits on the card you're probably fine too unless you need to do things like fancy inference batching (i.e. you have LOTS of users)

Longer version:

You can always split things up. If we think about networks we recognize some nice properties about how they operate as mathematical groups. Non-residual networks are compositional, meaning each layer can be treated as a sub network (every residual block can be treated this way too). Additionally, we may have associative and distributive properties depending on the architecture (some even have commutative!). So we can use these same rules to break apart networks in many different ways. There are often performance hits for doing this though, as it practically requires you touching the disk more often but in some more rare cases (at least to me, let me know if you know more) they can help.

I mentioned the batching above and this can get kinda complicated. There are actually performance differences when you batch in groups of data (i.e. across GPUs) compared to batching on a single accelerator. This difference isn't talked about a lot. But it is going to come down to how often your algorithm depends on batching and what operations are used, such as batch norm. The batch norm is calculated across the GPU's batch, not the distributed batch (unless you introduce blocking). This is because your gradients AND inference are going to be computed differently. In DDP your whole network is cloned across cards so you basically run inference on multiple networks and then do an all reduce on the loss then calculate the gradient and then recopy the weights to all cards. There is even a bigger difference when you use lazy regularization (don't compute gradients for n-minibatches). GANs are notorious for using this and personally I've seen large benefits to distributed training for these. GANs usually have small batch sizes and aren't getting anywhere near the memory of the card anyways (GANs are typically unstable so large batch sizes can harm them), but also pay attention to this when evaluating papers (of course as well as how much hyper-parameter tuning has been done. This is always tricky when comparing works, especially between academia and big labs. You can easily be fooled by which is a better model. Evaluating models is way tougher than people give credit to and especially in the modern era of LLMs. I could rant a lot about just this alone). Basically in short, we can think of this as an ensembling method, except our models are actually identical (you could parallel reduce lazily too and that will create some periodic divergence between your models but that's not important for conceptually understanding, just worth noting).

There is are also techniques to split a single model up called model sharding and checkpointing. Model sharding is where you split a single model across multiple GPUs. You're taking advantage of the compositional property of networks, meaning that as long as there isn't a residual layer between your split location you can actually treat one network as a series of smaller networks. This has obvious drawbacks as you need to feed one into another and so the operations have to be synchronous, but sometimes this isn't too bad. Checkpointing is very similar but you're just doing the same thing on the same GPU. Your hit here is in I/O, but may or may not be too bad with GPU Direct and highly depends on your model size (were you splitting because batch size or because model size?).

This is all still pretty high level but if you want to dig into it more META developed a toolkit called fairseq that will do a lot of this for you and they optimized it

https://engineering.fb.com/2021/07/15/open-source/fsdp/

https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq

TLDR: really depends on your use case, but it is a good question.

How do they do the text to voice conversion so fast? https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq/tree/main (open source takes sub-minute to do text to voice.

It might be worth checking out Meta's TTS tho, I haven't gotten the chance to fiddle around with it but it looks somewhat promising https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq/tree/main/examples/mms

They have instructions on how to use it in command line and a notebook on how to use it as a python library.

Github - https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq/tree/main/examples/mms Paper - https://research.facebook.com/publications/scaling-speech-technology-to-1000-languages/

Meta released a new open-source model, Massively Multilingual Speech (MMS) that can do both speech-to-text and text-to-speech in 1,107 languages and can also recognize 4,000+ spoken languages. Existing speech recognition models only cover approximately 100 languages out of the 7,000+ known spoken languages. [Details | Research Paper | GitHub].