Add evaluation results on the kmfoda--booksum config of kmfoda/booksum
#2
by
autoevaluator
HF staff
- opened
README.md
CHANGED
@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
|
|
1 |
---
|
2 |
-
|
3 |
language:
|
4 |
- en
|
5 |
tags:
|
@@ -16,58 +15,201 @@ datasets:
|
|
16 |
metrics:
|
17 |
- rouge
|
18 |
widget:
|
19 |
-
- text:
|
20 |
-
|
21 |
-
|
22 |
-
|
23 |
-
|
24 |
-
|
25 |
-
|
26 |
-
|
27 |
-
|
28 |
-
|
29 |
-
|
30 |
-
|
31 |
-
|
32 |
-
|
33 |
-
|
34 |
-
|
35 |
-
|
36 |
-
|
37 |
-
|
38 |
-
|
39 |
-
|
40 |
-
|
41 |
-
|
42 |
-
|
43 |
-
|
44 |
-
|
45 |
-
|
46 |
-
|
47 |
-
|
48 |
-
|
49 |
-
|
50 |
-
|
51 |
-
|
52 |
-
|
53 |
-
|
54 |
-
|
55 |
-
|
56 |
-
|
57 |
-
|
58 |
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59 |
inference:
|
60 |
parameters:
|
61 |
max_length: 64
|
62 |
min_length: 8
|
63 |
no_repeat_ngram_size: 3
|
64 |
-
early_stopping:
|
65 |
repetition_penalty: 3.5
|
66 |
length_penalty: 0.3
|
67 |
-
encoder_no_repeat_ngram_size
|
68 |
-
num_beams
|
69 |
-
|
70 |
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
---
|
72 |
|
73 |
# Longformer Encoder-Decoder (LED) fine-tuned on Booksum
|
|
|
1 |
---
|
|
|
2 |
language:
|
3 |
- en
|
4 |
tags:
|
|
|
15 |
metrics:
|
16 |
- rouge
|
17 |
widget:
|
18 |
+
- text: large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals
|
19 |
+
because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates
|
20 |
+
at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are approximately
|
21 |
+
uniform. Therefore, in first approximation, one may expect that large ruptures
|
22 |
+
of the same fault segment will occur at approximately constant time intervals.
|
23 |
+
If subsequent main shocks have different amounts of slip across the fault, then
|
24 |
+
the recurrence time may vary, and the basic idea of periodic mainshocks must be
|
25 |
+
modified. For great plate boundary ruptures the length and slip often vary by
|
26 |
+
a factor of 2. Along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the recurrence
|
27 |
+
interval is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard
|
28 |
+
deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long
|
29 |
+
term prediction of a future mainshock.
|
30 |
+
example_title: earthquakes
|
31 |
+
- text: " A typical feed-forward neural field algorithm. Spatiotemporal coordinates\
|
32 |
+
\ are fed into a neural network that predicts values in the reconstructed domain.\
|
33 |
+
\ Then, this domain is mapped to the sensor domain where sensor measurements are\
|
34 |
+
\ available as supervision. Class and Section Problems Addressed Generalization\
|
35 |
+
\ (Section 2) Inverse problems, ill-posed problems, editability; symmetries. Hybrid\
|
36 |
+
\ Representations (Section 3) Computation & memory efficiency, representation\
|
37 |
+
\ capacity, editability: Forward Maps (Section 4) Inverse problems Network Architecture\
|
38 |
+
\ (Section 5) Spectral bias, integration & derivatives. Manipulating Neural Fields\
|
39 |
+
\ (Section 6) Edit ability, constraints, regularization. Table 2: The five classes\
|
40 |
+
\ of techniques in the neural field toolbox each addresses problems that arise\
|
41 |
+
\ in learning, inference, and control. (Section 3). We can supervise reconstruction\
|
42 |
+
\ via differentiable forward maps that transform Or project our domain (e.g, 3D\
|
43 |
+
\ reconstruction via 2D images; Section 4) With appropriate network architecture\
|
44 |
+
\ choices, we can overcome neural network spectral biases (blurriness) and efficiently\
|
45 |
+
\ compute derivatives and integrals (Section 5). Finally, we can manipulate neural\
|
46 |
+
\ fields to add constraints and regularizations, and to achieve editable representations\
|
47 |
+
\ (Section 6). Collectively, these classes constitute a 'toolbox' of techniques\
|
48 |
+
\ to help solve problems with neural fields There are three components in a conditional\
|
49 |
+
\ neural field: (1) An encoder or inference function \u20AC that outputs the conditioning\
|
50 |
+
\ latent variable 2 given an observation 0 E(0) =2. 2 is typically a low-dimensional\
|
51 |
+
\ vector, and is often referred to aS a latent code Or feature code_ (2) A mapping\
|
52 |
+
\ function 4 between Z and neural field parameters O: Y(z) = O; (3) The neural\
|
53 |
+
\ field itself $. The encoder \u20AC finds the most probable z given the observations\
|
54 |
+
\ O: argmaxz P(2/0). The decoder maximizes the inverse conditional probability\
|
55 |
+
\ to find the most probable 0 given Z: arg- max P(Olz). We discuss different encoding\
|
56 |
+
\ schemes with different optimality guarantees (Section 2.1.1), both global and\
|
57 |
+
\ local conditioning (Section 2.1.2), and different mapping functions Y (Section\
|
58 |
+
\ 2.1.3) 2. Generalization Suppose we wish to estimate a plausible 3D surface\
|
59 |
+
\ shape given a partial or noisy point cloud. We need a suitable prior over the\
|
60 |
+
\ sur- face in its reconstruction domain to generalize to the partial observations.\
|
61 |
+
\ A neural network expresses a prior via the function space of its architecture\
|
62 |
+
\ and parameters 0, and generalization is influenced by the inductive bias of\
|
63 |
+
\ this function space (Section 5)."
|
64 |
+
example_title: scientific paper
|
65 |
+
- text: ' the big variety of data coming from diverse sources is one of the key properties
|
66 |
+
of the big data phenomenon. It is, therefore, beneficial to understand how data
|
67 |
+
is generated in various environments and scenarios, before looking at what should
|
68 |
+
be done with this data and how to design the best possible architecture to accomplish
|
69 |
+
this The evolution of IT architectures, described in Chapter 2, means that the
|
70 |
+
data is no longer processed by a few big monolith systems, but rather by a group
|
71 |
+
of services In parallel to the processing layer, the underlying data storage has
|
72 |
+
also changed and became more distributed This, in turn, required a significant
|
73 |
+
paradigm shift as the traditional approach to transactions (ACID) could no longer
|
74 |
+
be supported. On top of this, cloud computing is becoming a major approach with
|
75 |
+
the benefits of reducing costs and providing on-demand scalability but at the
|
76 |
+
same time introducing concerns about privacy, data ownership, etc In the meantime
|
77 |
+
the Internet continues its exponential growth: Every day both structured and unstructured
|
78 |
+
data is published and available for processing: To achieve competitive advantage
|
79 |
+
companies have to relate their corporate resources to external services, e.g.
|
80 |
+
financial markets, weather forecasts, social media, etc While several of the sites
|
81 |
+
provide some sort of API to access the data in a more orderly fashion; countless
|
82 |
+
sources require advanced web mining and Natural Language Processing (NLP) processing
|
83 |
+
techniques: Advances in science push researchers to construct new instruments
|
84 |
+
for observing the universe O conducting experiments to understand even better
|
85 |
+
the laws of physics and other domains. Every year humans have at their disposal
|
86 |
+
new telescopes, space probes, particle accelerators, etc These instruments generate
|
87 |
+
huge streams of data, which need to be stored and analyzed. The constant drive
|
88 |
+
for efficiency in the industry motivates the introduction of new automation techniques
|
89 |
+
and process optimization: This could not be done without analyzing the precise
|
90 |
+
data that describe these processes. As more and more human tasks are automated,
|
91 |
+
machines provide rich data sets, which can be analyzed in real-time to drive efficiency
|
92 |
+
to new levels. Finally, it is now evident that the growth of the Internet of Things
|
93 |
+
is becoming a major source of data. More and more of the devices are equipped
|
94 |
+
with significant computational power and can generate a continuous data stream
|
95 |
+
from their sensors. In the subsequent sections of this chapter, we will look at
|
96 |
+
the domains described above to see what they generate in terms of data sets. We
|
97 |
+
will compare the volumes but will also look at what is characteristic and important
|
98 |
+
from their respective points of view. 3.1 The Internet is undoubtedly the largest
|
99 |
+
database ever created by humans. While several well described; cleaned, and structured
|
100 |
+
data sets have been made available through this medium, most of the resources
|
101 |
+
are of an ambiguous, unstructured, incomplete or even erroneous nature. Still,
|
102 |
+
several examples in the areas such as opinion mining, social media analysis, e-governance,
|
103 |
+
etc, clearly show the potential lying in these resources. Those who can successfully
|
104 |
+
mine and interpret the Internet data can gain unique insight and competitive advantage
|
105 |
+
in their business An important area of data analytics on the edge of corporate
|
106 |
+
IT and the Internet is Web Analytics.'
|
107 |
+
example_title: data science textbook
|
108 |
+
- text: "Transformer-based models have shown to be very useful for many NLP tasks.\
|
109 |
+
\ However, a major limitation of transformers-based models is its O(n^2)O(n 2)\
|
110 |
+
\ time & memory complexity (where nn is sequence length). Hence, it's computationally\
|
111 |
+
\ very expensive to apply transformer-based models on long sequences n > 512n>512.\
|
112 |
+
\ Several recent papers, e.g. Longformer, Performer, Reformer, Clustered attention\
|
113 |
+
\ try to remedy this problem by approximating the full attention matrix. You can\
|
114 |
+
\ checkout \U0001F917's recent blog post in case you are unfamiliar with these\
|
115 |
+
\ models.\nBigBird (introduced in paper) is one of such recent models to address\
|
116 |
+
\ this issue. BigBird relies on block sparse attention instead of normal attention\
|
117 |
+
\ (i.e. BERT's attention) and can handle sequences up to a length of 4096 at a\
|
118 |
+
\ much lower computational cost compared to BERT. It has achieved SOTA on various\
|
119 |
+
\ tasks involving very long sequences such as long documents summarization, question-answering\
|
120 |
+
\ with long contexts.\nBigBird RoBERTa-like model is now available in \U0001F917\
|
121 |
+
Transformers. The goal of this post is to give the reader an in-depth understanding\
|
122 |
+
\ of big bird implementation & ease one's life in using BigBird with \U0001F917\
|
123 |
+
Transformers. But, before going into more depth, it is important to remember that\
|
124 |
+
\ the BigBird's attention is an approximation of BERT's full attention and therefore\
|
125 |
+
\ does not strive to be better than BERT's full attention, but rather to be more\
|
126 |
+
\ efficient. It simply allows to apply transformer-based models to much longer\
|
127 |
+
\ sequences since BERT's quadratic memory requirement quickly becomes unbearable.\
|
128 |
+
\ Simply put, if we would have \u221E compute & \u221E time, BERT's attention\
|
129 |
+
\ would be preferred over block sparse attention (which we are going to discuss\
|
130 |
+
\ in this post).\nIf you wonder why we need more compute when working with longer\
|
131 |
+
\ sequences, this blog post is just right for you!\nSome of the main questions\
|
132 |
+
\ one might have when working with standard BERT-like attention include:\nDo all\
|
133 |
+
\ tokens really have to attend to all other tokens? Why not compute attention\
|
134 |
+
\ only over important tokens? How to decide what tokens are important? How to\
|
135 |
+
\ attend to just a few tokens in a very efficient way? In this blog post, we will\
|
136 |
+
\ try to answer those questions.\nWhat tokens should be attended to? We will give\
|
137 |
+
\ a practical example of how attention works by considering the sentence 'BigBird\
|
138 |
+
\ is now available in HuggingFace for extractive question answering'. In BERT-like\
|
139 |
+
\ attention, every word would simply attend to all other tokens.\nLet's think\
|
140 |
+
\ about a sensible choice of key tokens that a queried token actually only should\
|
141 |
+
\ attend to by writing some pseudo-code. Will will assume that the token available\
|
142 |
+
\ is queried and build a sensible list of key tokens to attend to.\n>>> # let's\
|
143 |
+
\ consider following sentence as an example >>> example = ['BigBird', 'is', 'now',\
|
144 |
+
\ 'available', 'in', 'HuggingFace', 'for', 'extractive', 'question', 'answering']\n\
|
145 |
+
>>> # further let's assume, we're trying to understand the representation of 'available'\
|
146 |
+
\ i.e. >>> query_token = 'available' >>> # We will initialize an empty `set` and\
|
147 |
+
\ fill up the tokens of our interest as we proceed in this section. >>> key_tokens\
|
148 |
+
\ = [] # => currently 'available' token doesn't have anything to attend Nearby\
|
149 |
+
\ tokens should be important because, in a sentence (sequence of words), the current\
|
150 |
+
\ word is highly dependent on neighboring past & future tokens. This intuition\
|
151 |
+
\ is the idea behind the concept of sliding attention."
|
152 |
+
example_title: bigbird blog intro
|
153 |
+
- text: 'The majority of available text summarization datasets include short-form
|
154 |
+
source documents that lack long-range causal and temporal dependencies, and often
|
155 |
+
contain strong layout and stylistic biases. While relevant, such datasets will
|
156 |
+
offer limited challenges for future generations of text summarization systems.
|
157 |
+
We address these issues by introducing BookSum, a collection of datasets for long-form
|
158 |
+
narrative summarization. Our dataset covers source documents from the literature
|
159 |
+
domain, such as novels, plays and stories, and includes highly abstractive, human
|
160 |
+
written summaries on three levels of granularity of increasing difficulty: paragraph-,
|
161 |
+
chapter-, and book-level. The domain and structure of our dataset poses a unique
|
162 |
+
set of challenges for summarization systems, which include: processing very long
|
163 |
+
documents, non-trivial causal and temporal dependencies, and rich discourse structures.
|
164 |
+
To facilitate future work, we trained and evaluated multiple extractive and abstractive
|
165 |
+
summarization models as baselines for our dataset.'
|
166 |
+
example_title: BookSum Abstract
|
167 |
inference:
|
168 |
parameters:
|
169 |
max_length: 64
|
170 |
min_length: 8
|
171 |
no_repeat_ngram_size: 3
|
172 |
+
early_stopping: true
|
173 |
repetition_penalty: 3.5
|
174 |
length_penalty: 0.3
|
175 |
+
encoder_no_repeat_ngram_size: 3
|
176 |
+
num_beams: 4
|
177 |
+
model-index:
|
178 |
+
- name: pszemraj/led-large-book-summary
|
179 |
+
results:
|
180 |
+
- task:
|
181 |
+
type: summarization
|
182 |
+
name: Summarization
|
183 |
+
dataset:
|
184 |
+
name: kmfoda/booksum
|
185 |
+
type: kmfoda/booksum
|
186 |
+
config: kmfoda--booksum
|
187 |
+
split: test
|
188 |
+
metrics:
|
189 |
+
- name: ROUGE-1
|
190 |
+
type: rouge
|
191 |
+
value: 31.7308
|
192 |
+
verified: true
|
193 |
+
- name: ROUGE-2
|
194 |
+
type: rouge
|
195 |
+
value: 5.3311
|
196 |
+
verified: true
|
197 |
+
- name: ROUGE-L
|
198 |
+
type: rouge
|
199 |
+
value: 16.1465
|
200 |
+
verified: true
|
201 |
+
- name: ROUGE-LSUM
|
202 |
+
type: rouge
|
203 |
+
value: 29.0883
|
204 |
+
verified: true
|
205 |
+
- name: loss
|
206 |
+
type: loss
|
207 |
+
value: 4.815707206726074
|
208 |
+
verified: true
|
209 |
+
- name: gen_len
|
210 |
+
type: gen_len
|
211 |
+
value: 154.9036
|
212 |
+
verified: true
|
213 |
---
|
214 |
|
215 |
# Longformer Encoder-Decoder (LED) fine-tuned on Booksum
|