stanford_alpaca VS trl

Alpaca is an instruction-oriented LLM derived from LLaMA, enhanced by Stanford researchers with a dataset of 52,000 examples of following instructions, sourced from OpenAI’s InstructGPT through the self-instruct method. The extensive self-instruct dataset, details of data generation, and the model refinement code were publicly disclosed. This model complies with the licensing requirements of its base model. Due to the utilization of InstructGPT for data generation, it also adheres to OpenAI’s usage terms, which prohibit the creation of models competing with OpenAI. This illustrates how dataset restrictions can indirectly affect the resulting fine-tuned model.

In this article, we're going to experiment with LoRA and fine-tune Llama Alpaca using commercial hardware.

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)

I'm not talking about OpenAI ChatGPT I'm talking about things ALPACA, and where did they train these models? Off the existing models for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the cost: https://crfm.stanford.edu/2023/03/13/alpaca.html

I think there's a new approach for “How do you get the data?” that wasn't available when this article was written in 2015. The new text and image generative models can now be used to synthesize training datasets.

I was working on an typing autocorrect project and needed a corpus of "text messages". Most of the traditional NLP corpuses like those available through NLTK [0] aren't suitable. But it was easy to script ChatGPT to generate thousands of believable text messages by throwing random topics at it.

Similarly, you can synthesize a training dataset by giving GPT the outputs/labels and asking it to generate a variety of inputs. For sentiment analysis... "Give me 1000 negative movie reviews" and "Now give me 1000 positive movie reviews".

The Alpaca folks used GPT-3 to generate high-quality instruction-following datasets [1] based on a small set of human samples.

Etc.

[0] https://www.nltk.org/nltk_data/

[1] https://crfm.stanford.edu/2023/03/13/alpaca.html

AFAIK, the original alpaca repo was a full finetune. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca

I am using TRL for RLHF fine-tuning the Llama-2-7B model and getting an OOM error (even with batch_size=1). If anyone used TRL for RLHF can please tell me what I am doing wrong? Code details can be found in the GitHub issue.

SFTtrainer from huggingface

For lora - PEFT seems to work. I don't have patience to wait 5 hours, but modifying this example seems to work. You don't even need to modify that much, as their model just as neo-x uses query_key_value name for self-attention.

They have examples of making GPT output more positive (code) by using a sentiment model as reward. There are other examples about reducing toxicity, summarization here: https://github.com/lvwerra/trl/tree/main/examples . Should be fairly simple to modify the sentiment example and try the calculator reward you mentioned above.

You can use this -> https://github.com/lvwerra/trl/blob/main/examples/sentiment/scripts/gpt-neox-20b_peft/merge_peft_adapter.py

Just the hh directly. From the results it seems like it might possibly be enough but I might also try instruction tuning then running the whole process from that base. I will also be running the reinforcement learning by using a Lora using this as an example https://github.com/lvwerra/trl/tree/main/examples/sentiment/scripts/gpt-neox-20b_peft

This package is pretty simple to use! https://github.com/lvwerra/trl