Hello fellow smart people on Reddit, recently I've been thinking about changing my job (I'm a Vision Engineer) and I stumbled upon this position on LinkedIn called Operations Research Scientist. I was wondering after a few years (maybe at most 2) of working in that position, will it be easier for me to transition to a Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence Engineer or maybe a Computer Vision Engineer role? submitted by /u/unsuccessful_boy [link] [comments]

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11131 Abstract: Speculative decoding is a prominent technique to speed up the inference of a large target language model based on predictions of an auxiliary draft model. While effective, in application-specific settings, it often involves fine-tuning both draft and target models to achieve high acceptance rates. As the number of downstream tasks grows, these draft models add significant complexity to inference systems. We propose Speculative Streaming, a single-model speculative decoding method that fuses drafting into the target model by changing the fine-tuning objective from next token prediction to future n-gram prediction. Speculative Streaming speeds up decoding by 1.8 - 3.1X in a diverse set of tasks, such as Summarization, Structured Queries, and Meaning Representation, without sacrificing generation quality. Additionally, Speculative Streaming is parameter-efficient. It achieves on-par/higher speed-ups than Medusa-style architectures while using ~10000X fewer extra parameters, making it well-suited for resource-constrained devices. submitted by /u/SeawaterFlows [link] [comments]

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.08698 Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable abilities, they are hindered by significant resource consumption and considerable latency due to autoregressive processing. In this study, we introduce Adaptive N-gram Parallel Decoding (ANPD), an innovative and lossless approach that accelerates inference by allowing the simultaneous generation of multiple tokens. ANPD incorporates a two-stage approach: it begins with a rapid drafting phase that employs an N-gram module, which adapts based on the current interactive context, followed by a verification phase, during which the original LLM assesses and confirms the proposed tokens. Consequently, ANPD preserves the integrity of the LLM's original output while enhancing processing speed. We further leverage a multi-level architecture for the N-gram module to enhance the precision of the initial draft, consequently reducing inference latency. ANPD eliminates the need for retraining or extra GPU memory, making it an efficient and plug-and-play enhancement. In our experiments, models such as LLaMA and its fine-tuned variants have shown speed improvements up to 3.67x, validating the effectiveness of our proposed ANPD. submitted by /u/SeawaterFlows [link] [comments]

I just wanted to remind or introduce newcomers to this paper. I think this discussion should be re-opened since many people here actually do influence the trends of the field. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.03341 On a personal note (feel free to skip): Specifically, I want to point out the issue of "Mathiness", as it seems like this problem got way out of hand and most best papers of conferences suffer from it (one of the most important ML papers tried to be mathy and introduced a big mistake, I believe other papers have bigger issues but no one bothers to check it). So here are my personal points to academics and researchers: We (I think most will relate), practitioners, do not need equations to know what recall is and clearly don't want to read difficult-to-understand versions of what linear regression is, it just makes your paper unuseful. If you don't want to waste our time, please put it in the appendix or completely remove it. Reviewers, please don't get impressed by unnecessary math, if it's complicated and does nothing useful, who cares? Also, it might be flawed anyway and you will probably not catch it. submitted by /u/pyepyepie [link] [comments]

In this video about Times Series, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zpg9ODE6Ww, does anyone have an idea about the Python package used to create the animated plots showed at the 34th minute of the video ? Thank for your help. submitted by /u/SatieGonzales [link] [comments]

Following the review phase(old post), creating a thread for others like me waiting for the decision. All the best! submitted by /u/PaganPasta [link] [comments]

It seems to me that thanks to the residual path the gradient that flows to each layer is the same regardless of the transformer layer/block. Example: ProjectionAndCost(X + L1(X) + L2(X + L1(X)) + L3(X + L1(X) + L2(X + L1(X))) ...) Since the input to ProjectionAndCost is just sum of outputs from all layers and initial embeddings then the gradient that comes to the layer L1 is the same as the gradient that comes to L2 or L3. So we could: first train only L1: ProjectionAndCost(X + L1(X)) freeze L1, include L2 and train: ProjectionAndCost(X + L1(X) + L2(X + L1(X))) freeze L1 and L2, include L3 and train: ProjectionAndCost(X + L1(X) + L2(X + L1(X)) + L3(X + L1(X) + L2(X + L1(X)))) .. and so on We can't train first L2 then L1, because the input to L2 depends on L1, but we could train lower layers first then gradually add and train deeper layers. Is there any problem with that approach? submitted by /u/kiockete [link] [comments]

So there's this relatively new "BigDL" project" (https://bigdl.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ ), which is for Intel CPUs and Intel GPUs, but there's no mention anywhere of it working for NVIDIA GPUs. Is there any equivalent library for NVIDIA GPUs on a spark cluster? submitted by /u/PepperGrind [link] [comments]

After having worked on it for many months, I am now excited that my new book, “BUILD GPT: HOW AI WORKS”, is available on Amazon. It goes through the process of building a GPT from scratch and explains how it works. I want to thank everyone who has helped me with this book, they are in the acknowledgment section. Please feel free to share this book with anyone interested in learning about GPTs or interested in building GPTs. https://preview.redd.it/ixhw5wz9mlwc1.png?width=1507&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f9a0eb5d1f49ed936f12e4527950090d161852c submitted by /u/Pure_Nerve_595 [link] [comments]

Hi. Here is the new's question. The biggest concern is the rate of generation. I want to generate about 5 seconds of voice in about 100ms. I want to know which model performs best(SOTA) under those conditions. Which model is best for me? I think "styletts2" is best. If you have any relevant experience or know any other information, I would really appreciate your help. Thank you ! submitted by /u/hwk06023 [link] [comments]

Hi, does anyone know of a French L2 GEC dataset (that was published at a conference)? submitted by /u/R-e-v-e-r-i-e- [link] [comments]

My primary expertise is audio processing, but i believe this task happens in other domains too: running a model on chunks of infinitely long input. while for some architectures it is straightforward, it can get tedious for convolutional nets. I put together a comprehensive tutorial how to build a streaming ML applications: https://balacoon.com/blog/streaming\_inference/. would be curious to learn wether its a common problem and how do people usually deal with it. Because resources on the topic are surprisingly scarce. submitted by /u/clementruhm [link] [comments]

​ https://preview.redd.it/jpiyt4b9yhwc1.png?width=1165&format=png&auto=webp&s=95d80f8f9c9241d722717ad25215be4077d541ca Based on the MSE looks good right? But why is my R^2 starting off so negative and approaching 0? Could it be a bug in how i am calculating it? This happened after i min maxed the labels before training. This is an LSTM that is predicting runs scored for baseball games. submitted by /u/Cloverdover1 [link] [comments]

Hello Everyone, I am trying to do a small fraud detection project and i have so imbalanced dataset. I used randomundersampling because minority class is pretty small and i also tried smote or combining with smote best recall score i got, was with only randomundersampling(0.95). I thought GridsearchCV to increase it but instead of increasing, it is decreasing although i tried to make it to focus on recall score. Why this is happening? submitted by /u/Legal_Hearing555 [link] [comments]

Hello, I am trying to model nitrate concentrations in the streams in Bavaria in Germany using Random Forest model. I am using Python and primarily sklearn for the same. I have data from 490 water quality stations. I am following the methodology in the paper from LongzhuQ.Shen et al which can be found here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0478-7 I want to split my dataset into training and testing set such that the spatial distribution of data in both sets is identical. The idea is that if data splitting ignores the spatial distribution, there is a risk that the training set might end up with a concentration of points from densely populated areas, leaving out sparser areas. This can skew the model's learning process, making it less accurate or generalizable across the entire area of interest. sklearn train_test_split just randomly divides the data into training and testing sets and it does not consider the spatial patterns in the data. The paper I mentioned above follows this methodology: "We split the full dataset into two sub-datasets, training and testing respectively. To consider the heterogeneity of the spatial distribution of the gauge stations, we employed the spatial density estimation technique in the data splitting step by building a density surface using Gaussian kernels with a bandwidth of 50 km (using v.kernel available in GRASS GIS33) for each species and season. The pixel values of the resultant density surface were used as weighting factors to split the data into training and testing subsets that possess identical spatial distributions." I want to follow the same methodology but instead of using grass GIS, I am just building the density surface myself in Python. I have also extracted the probability density values and the weights for the stations. (attached figure) Now the only problem I am facing is how do I use these weights to split the data into training and testing sets? I checked there is no keyword in the sklearn train_test_split function that can consider the weights. I also went back and forth with chat GPT 4 but it is also not able to give me a clear answer. Neither did I find anything concrete on the internet about this. Maybe I am missing something. Is there any other function I can use to do this? Or will I have to write my own algorithm to do the splitting? In case of the latter, can you please suggest me the approach so I can code it myself? In the attached figure you can see the location of the stations and the probability density surface generated using the kernel density estimation method (using Gaussian kernels). Also attaching a screenshot of my dataframe to give you some idea of the data structure. (all columns after longitude ('lon') column are used as features. the NO3 column is used as the target variable.) I will be grateful for any answers. ​ Probability density surface generated using the kernel density estimation method with gaussian kernels. ​ the dataset I am using to model the nitrate concentrations submitted by /u/dr_greg_mouse [link] [comments]

Links: ​ https://www.snowflake.com/blog/arctic-open-efficient-foundation-language-models-snowflake/ ​ https://replicate.com/snowflake/snowflake-arctic-instruct submitted by /u/topcodemangler [link] [comments]

This is a prompt I entered into MS Copilot (GPT4 Turbo). It's in german but it just means "Would there be any disadvantages if I took the full bath first?"), so this can't be another SolidGoldMagikarp or similar, because the words clearly were in both tokenizer and training vocab. Why would such a simple sentence cause this? Any guesses? (also tried with Claude Opus and LLama 3 70b, which worked fine) ​ https://preview.redd.it/9x6mva7b6gwc1.png?width=1129&format=png&auto=webp&s=bb6ac52d1c52d981161e8a864c5d1dd3794ca392 submitted by /u/michael-relleum [link] [comments]

Hi All, I am working on a project where I want to create speaker-aware transcripts from audios/videos, preferably using open-source solutions. I have tried so many approaches but nothing seems to work good enough out of the box. I have tried: ​ whisperX: https://github.com/m-bain/whisperX (uses pyannote) whisper-diarization: https://github.com/MahmoudAshraf97/whisper-diarization (uses Nemo) AWS Transcribe AssemblyAI API Picovoice API I'll need to dig deeper and understand what's causing the incorrect diarization but I am looking for suggestions to improve speaker diarization. Please reach out if you have worked in this area and have had any success. Thanks! submitted by /u/anuragrawall [link] [comments]

https://www.norange.io/projects/paper_scorer/ A couple of years ago, u/programmerChilli analyzed ICLR 2019 reviews data and trained a model that rather accurately predicted acceptance results for NeurIPS. I've decided to continue this analysis and trained a model (total ~6000 parameters) on newer NeurIPS reviews, which has twice as many reviews compared to ICLR 2019. Additionally, review scores system for NeurIPS has changed since 2019, and here is what I've learned: 1) Both conferences consistently reject nearly all submissions scoring <5 and accept those scoring >6. The most common score among accepted papers is 6. An average rating around 5.3 typically results in decisions that could go either way for both ICML and NeurIPS, suggesting that ~5.3 might be considered a soft threshold for acceptance. 2) Confidence scores are less impactful for borderline ratings such as 4 (borderline reject), 5 (borderline accept), and 6 (weak accept), but they can significantly affect the outcome for stronger reject or accept cases. For instance, with ratings of [3, 5, 6] and confidences of [*, 4, 4], changing the "Reject" confidence from 5 to 1 shifts the probabilities from 26.2% - 31.3% - 52.4% - 54.5% - 60.4%, indicating that lower confidence in this case increases your chances. Conversely, for ratings [3, 5, 7] with confidences [4, 4, 4], the acceptance probability is 31.3%, but it drops to 28.1% when the confidence changes to [4, 4, 5]. Although it might seem counterintuitive, a confidence score of 5 actually decreases your chances. One possible explanation is that many low-quality reviews rated 5 are often discounted by the Area Chairs (ACs). Hope this will be useful, and thanks to u/programmerChilli for the inspiration! I also discussed this topic in a series of tweets. submitted by /u/Lavishness-Mission [link] [comments]

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14408 Github: https://github.com/kjslag/spacebyte Abstract: Tokenization is widely used in large language models because it significantly improves performance. However, tokenization imposes several disadvantages, such as performance biases, increased adversarial vulnerability, decreased character-level modeling performance, and increased modeling complexity. To address these disadvantages without sacrificing performance, we propose SpaceByte, a novel byte-level decoder architecture that closes the performance gap between byte-level and subword autoregressive language modeling. SpaceByte consists of a byte-level Transformer model, but with extra larger transformer blocks inserted in the middle of the layers. We find that performance is significantly improved by applying these larger blocks only after certain bytes, such as space characters, which typically denote word boundaries. Our experiments show that for a fixed training and inference compute budget, SpaceByte outperforms other byte-level architectures and roughly matches the performance of tokenized Transformer architectures.Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14408Github: https://github.com/kjslag/spacebyteAbstract:Tokenization is widely used in large language models because it significantly improves performance. However, tokenization imposes several disadvantages, such as performance biases, increased adversarial vulnerability, decreased character-level modeling performance, and increased modeling complexity. To address these disadvantages without sacrificing performance, we propose SpaceByte, a novel byte-level decoder architecture that closes the performance gap between byte-level and subword autoregressive language modeling. SpaceByte consists of a byte-level Transformer model, but with extra larger transformer blocks inserted in the middle of the layers. We find that performance is significantly improved by applying these larger blocks only after certain bytes, such as space characters, which typically denote word boundaries. Our experiments show that for a fixed training and inference compute budget, SpaceByte outperforms other byte-level architectures and roughly matches the performance of tokenized Transformer architectures. https://preview.redd.it/v1xo6g1gzewc1.jpg?width=1507&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f9d415307b60639fa67e8a54c8769fa5a6c10f04 https://preview.redd.it/edvqos1gzewc1.jpg?width=1654&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f91c8727017e1a1bc7b80bb77a8627ff99182607 https://preview.redd.it/fe6z6i1gzewc1.jpg?width=1181&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=24d955f30b8ca3eaa7c527f3f40545ed493f789c submitted by /u/Singularian2501 [link] [comments]