1
Demo
👀
Generate adaptive summaries in real-time chat
chansung park PRO
chansung
AI & ML interests
None yet
Recent Activity
updated
a Space
1 day ago
adaptsum/demo
liked
a Space
3 days ago
adaptsum/demo
published
a Space
3 days ago
adaptsum/demo
Organizations
chansung's activity
updated
a
Space
1 day ago
liked
a
Space
3 days ago
published
a
Space
3 days ago
reacted to
their
post with 👍
4 days ago
Post
2648
Simple Paper Review #5
I briefly reviewed the paper "SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes," which compares SFT and RL in post-training of LLM/VLM from HKU, UC Berkeley, Google DeepMind, and New York University
The conclusion suggests SFT excels in memorization, while RL is better for generalization. However, since LLM/VLM should benefit humans beyond just generalization, a mix of SFT and RL is advisable. Typically, some SFT is followed by RL to understand prompt formats and enhance generalization through trial and error.
The study focused on one model, Llama-3.2-Vision-11B, using environments like General Points for arithmetic reasoning and V-IRL for spatial reasoning. Training data was used for both SFT and RL, with evaluations on in-distribution and out-of-distribution data to assess memorization and generalization.
I want to apply RL extensively, but it requires building a similar simulation environment. For domain-specific models, significant investment in creating a "playground" for the model is crucial, as the effort will directly influence the outcomes.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17161
I briefly reviewed the paper "SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes," which compares SFT and RL in post-training of LLM/VLM from HKU, UC Berkeley, Google DeepMind, and New York University
The conclusion suggests SFT excels in memorization, while RL is better for generalization. However, since LLM/VLM should benefit humans beyond just generalization, a mix of SFT and RL is advisable. Typically, some SFT is followed by RL to understand prompt formats and enhance generalization through trial and error.
The study focused on one model, Llama-3.2-Vision-11B, using environments like General Points for arithmetic reasoning and V-IRL for spatial reasoning. Training data was used for both SFT and RL, with evaluations on in-distribution and out-of-distribution data to assess memorization and generalization.
I want to apply RL extensively, but it requires building a similar simulation environment. For domain-specific models, significant investment in creating a "playground" for the model is crucial, as the effort will directly influence the outcomes.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17161
posted
an
update
4 days ago
Post
2648
Simple Paper Review #5
I briefly reviewed the paper "SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes," which compares SFT and RL in post-training of LLM/VLM from HKU, UC Berkeley, Google DeepMind, and New York University
The conclusion suggests SFT excels in memorization, while RL is better for generalization. However, since LLM/VLM should benefit humans beyond just generalization, a mix of SFT and RL is advisable. Typically, some SFT is followed by RL to understand prompt formats and enhance generalization through trial and error.
The study focused on one model, Llama-3.2-Vision-11B, using environments like General Points for arithmetic reasoning and V-IRL for spatial reasoning. Training data was used for both SFT and RL, with evaluations on in-distribution and out-of-distribution data to assess memorization and generalization.
I want to apply RL extensively, but it requires building a similar simulation environment. For domain-specific models, significant investment in creating a "playground" for the model is crucial, as the effort will directly influence the outcomes.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17161
I briefly reviewed the paper "SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes," which compares SFT and RL in post-training of LLM/VLM from HKU, UC Berkeley, Google DeepMind, and New York University
The conclusion suggests SFT excels in memorization, while RL is better for generalization. However, since LLM/VLM should benefit humans beyond just generalization, a mix of SFT and RL is advisable. Typically, some SFT is followed by RL to understand prompt formats and enhance generalization through trial and error.
The study focused on one model, Llama-3.2-Vision-11B, using environments like General Points for arithmetic reasoning and V-IRL for spatial reasoning. Training data was used for both SFT and RL, with evaluations on in-distribution and out-of-distribution data to assess memorization and generalization.
I want to apply RL extensively, but it requires building a similar simulation environment. For domain-specific models, significant investment in creating a "playground" for the model is crucial, as the effort will directly influence the outcomes.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17161
reacted to
their
post with 👍
5 days ago
Post
4011
A brief summary of the o3-mini
The OpenAI o3-mini model is a significant improvement over the o1-mini, reaching o1 performance levels. While generally good, its performance isn't universally better than previous models (o1, o1-prev.) or GPT-4o across all benchmarks. This means workflows should be re-evaluated with each model upgrade.
The o3-mini has "low," "medium," and "high" versions, with "low" being the base model used for benchmarking. It's speculated that the higher versions simply involve more processing. A fair comparison with other models like Gemini 2.0 Thinking or DeepSeek-R1 would likely need to use the "low" version and a similar "think more" mechanism.
The system card is recommended reading due to its comprehensive benchmark data.
https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini/
The OpenAI o3-mini model is a significant improvement over the o1-mini, reaching o1 performance levels. While generally good, its performance isn't universally better than previous models (o1, o1-prev.) or GPT-4o across all benchmarks. This means workflows should be re-evaluated with each model upgrade.
The o3-mini has "low," "medium," and "high" versions, with "low" being the base model used for benchmarking. It's speculated that the higher versions simply involve more processing. A fair comparison with other models like Gemini 2.0 Thinking or DeepSeek-R1 would likely need to use the "low" version and a similar "think more" mechanism.
The system card is recommended reading due to its comprehensive benchmark data.
https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini/
posted
an
update
5 days ago
Post
4011
A brief summary of the o3-mini
The OpenAI o3-mini model is a significant improvement over the o1-mini, reaching o1 performance levels. While generally good, its performance isn't universally better than previous models (o1, o1-prev.) or GPT-4o across all benchmarks. This means workflows should be re-evaluated with each model upgrade.
The o3-mini has "low," "medium," and "high" versions, with "low" being the base model used for benchmarking. It's speculated that the higher versions simply involve more processing. A fair comparison with other models like Gemini 2.0 Thinking or DeepSeek-R1 would likely need to use the "low" version and a similar "think more" mechanism.
The system card is recommended reading due to its comprehensive benchmark data.
https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini/
The OpenAI o3-mini model is a significant improvement over the o1-mini, reaching o1 performance levels. While generally good, its performance isn't universally better than previous models (o1, o1-prev.) or GPT-4o across all benchmarks. This means workflows should be re-evaluated with each model upgrade.
The o3-mini has "low," "medium," and "high" versions, with "low" being the base model used for benchmarking. It's speculated that the higher versions simply involve more processing. A fair comparison with other models like Gemini 2.0 Thinking or DeepSeek-R1 would likely need to use the "low" version and a similar "think more" mechanism.
The system card is recommended reading due to its comprehensive benchmark data.
https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini/
published
a
Space
7 days ago
reacted to
their
post with 👍
9 days ago
Post
1968
Simple summary on DeepSeek AI's Janus-Pro: A fresh take on multimodal AI!
It builds on its predecessor, Janus, by tweaking the training methodology rather than the model architecture. The result? Improved performance in understanding and generating multimodal data.
Janus-Pro uses a three-stage training strategy, similar to Janus, but with key modifications:
✦ Stage 1 & 2: Focus on separate training for specific objectives, rather than mixing data.
✦ Stage 3: Fine-tuning with a careful balance of multimodal data.
Benchmarks show Janus-Pro holds its own against specialized models like TokenFlow XL and MetaMorph, and other multimodal models like SD3 Medium and DALL-E 3.
The main limitation? Low image resolution (384x384). However, this seems like a strategic choice to focus on establishing a solid "recipe" for multimodal models. Future work will likely leverage this recipe and increased computing power to achieve higher resolutions.
It builds on its predecessor, Janus, by tweaking the training methodology rather than the model architecture. The result? Improved performance in understanding and generating multimodal data.
Janus-Pro uses a three-stage training strategy, similar to Janus, but with key modifications:
✦ Stage 1 & 2: Focus on separate training for specific objectives, rather than mixing data.
✦ Stage 3: Fine-tuning with a careful balance of multimodal data.
Benchmarks show Janus-Pro holds its own against specialized models like TokenFlow XL and MetaMorph, and other multimodal models like SD3 Medium and DALL-E 3.
The main limitation? Low image resolution (384x384). However, this seems like a strategic choice to focus on establishing a solid "recipe" for multimodal models. Future work will likely leverage this recipe and increased computing power to achieve higher resolutions.
posted
an
update
9 days ago
Post
1968
Simple summary on DeepSeek AI's Janus-Pro: A fresh take on multimodal AI!
It builds on its predecessor, Janus, by tweaking the training methodology rather than the model architecture. The result? Improved performance in understanding and generating multimodal data.
Janus-Pro uses a three-stage training strategy, similar to Janus, but with key modifications:
✦ Stage 1 & 2: Focus on separate training for specific objectives, rather than mixing data.
✦ Stage 3: Fine-tuning with a careful balance of multimodal data.
Benchmarks show Janus-Pro holds its own against specialized models like TokenFlow XL and MetaMorph, and other multimodal models like SD3 Medium and DALL-E 3.
The main limitation? Low image resolution (384x384). However, this seems like a strategic choice to focus on establishing a solid "recipe" for multimodal models. Future work will likely leverage this recipe and increased computing power to achieve higher resolutions.
It builds on its predecessor, Janus, by tweaking the training methodology rather than the model architecture. The result? Improved performance in understanding and generating multimodal data.
Janus-Pro uses a three-stage training strategy, similar to Janus, but with key modifications:
✦ Stage 1 & 2: Focus on separate training for specific objectives, rather than mixing data.
✦ Stage 3: Fine-tuning with a careful balance of multimodal data.
Benchmarks show Janus-Pro holds its own against specialized models like TokenFlow XL and MetaMorph, and other multimodal models like SD3 Medium and DALL-E 3.
The main limitation? Low image resolution (384x384). However, this seems like a strategic choice to focus on establishing a solid "recipe" for multimodal models. Future work will likely leverage this recipe and increased computing power to achieve higher resolutions.
upvoted
an
article
9 days ago
Article
Open-R1: a fully open reproduction of DeepSeek-R1
•
648
reacted to
their
post with 👍
14 days ago
Post
1704
New look for AI powered paper reviews from the list by Hugging Face Daily Papers ( managed by the
@akhaliq
)
Bookmark the webpage along, check comprehensive reviews by Google DeepMind Gemini 1.5, and listen to audio podcast made by the same tech used in NotebookLM.
Link: https://deep-diver.github.io/ai-paper-reviewer/
This is not an official service by Hugging Face. It is just a service developed by an individual developer using his own money :)
Bookmark the webpage along, check comprehensive reviews by Google DeepMind Gemini 1.5, and listen to audio podcast made by the same tech used in NotebookLM.
Link: https://deep-diver.github.io/ai-paper-reviewer/
This is not an official service by Hugging Face. It is just a service developed by an individual developer using his own money :)
posted
an
update
14 days ago
Post
1704
New look for AI powered paper reviews from the list by Hugging Face Daily Papers ( managed by the
@akhaliq
)
Bookmark the webpage along, check comprehensive reviews by Google DeepMind Gemini 1.5, and listen to audio podcast made by the same tech used in NotebookLM.
Link: https://deep-diver.github.io/ai-paper-reviewer/
This is not an official service by Hugging Face. It is just a service developed by an individual developer using his own money :)
Bookmark the webpage along, check comprehensive reviews by Google DeepMind Gemini 1.5, and listen to audio podcast made by the same tech used in NotebookLM.
Link: https://deep-diver.github.io/ai-paper-reviewer/
This is not an official service by Hugging Face. It is just a service developed by an individual developer using his own money :)
reacted to
their
post with 👍
15 days ago
Post
1994
Simple summarization of Evolving Deeper LLM Thinking (Google DeepMind)
The process starts by posing a question.
1) The LLM generates initial responses.
2) These generated responses are evaluated according to specific criteria (program-based checker).
3) The LLM critiques the evaluated results.
4) The LLM refines the responses based on the evaluation, critique, and original responses.
The refined response is then fed back into step 2). If it meets the criteria, the process ends. Otherwise, the algorithm generates more responses based on the refined ones (with some being discarded, some remaining, and some responses potentially being merged).
Through this process, it demonstrated excellent performance in complex scheduling problems (travel planning, meeting scheduling, etc.). It's a viable method for finding highly effective solutions in specific scenarios.
However, there are two major drawbacks:
🤔 An excessive number of API calls are required. (While the cost might not be very high, it leads to significant latency.)
🤔 The evaluator is program-based. (This limits its use as a general method. It could potentially be modified/implemented using LLM as Judge, but that would introduce additional API costs for evaluation.)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09891
The process starts by posing a question.
1) The LLM generates initial responses.
2) These generated responses are evaluated according to specific criteria (program-based checker).
3) The LLM critiques the evaluated results.
4) The LLM refines the responses based on the evaluation, critique, and original responses.
The refined response is then fed back into step 2). If it meets the criteria, the process ends. Otherwise, the algorithm generates more responses based on the refined ones (with some being discarded, some remaining, and some responses potentially being merged).
Through this process, it demonstrated excellent performance in complex scheduling problems (travel planning, meeting scheduling, etc.). It's a viable method for finding highly effective solutions in specific scenarios.
However, there are two major drawbacks:
🤔 An excessive number of API calls are required. (While the cost might not be very high, it leads to significant latency.)
🤔 The evaluator is program-based. (This limits its use as a general method. It could potentially be modified/implemented using LLM as Judge, but that would introduce additional API costs for evaluation.)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09891
posted
an
update
15 days ago
Post
1994
Simple summarization of Evolving Deeper LLM Thinking (Google DeepMind)
The process starts by posing a question.
1) The LLM generates initial responses.
2) These generated responses are evaluated according to specific criteria (program-based checker).
3) The LLM critiques the evaluated results.
4) The LLM refines the responses based on the evaluation, critique, and original responses.
The refined response is then fed back into step 2). If it meets the criteria, the process ends. Otherwise, the algorithm generates more responses based on the refined ones (with some being discarded, some remaining, and some responses potentially being merged).
Through this process, it demonstrated excellent performance in complex scheduling problems (travel planning, meeting scheduling, etc.). It's a viable method for finding highly effective solutions in specific scenarios.
However, there are two major drawbacks:
🤔 An excessive number of API calls are required. (While the cost might not be very high, it leads to significant latency.)
🤔 The evaluator is program-based. (This limits its use as a general method. It could potentially be modified/implemented using LLM as Judge, but that would introduce additional API costs for evaluation.)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09891
The process starts by posing a question.
1) The LLM generates initial responses.
2) These generated responses are evaluated according to specific criteria (program-based checker).
3) The LLM critiques the evaluated results.
4) The LLM refines the responses based on the evaluation, critique, and original responses.
The refined response is then fed back into step 2). If it meets the criteria, the process ends. Otherwise, the algorithm generates more responses based on the refined ones (with some being discarded, some remaining, and some responses potentially being merged).
Through this process, it demonstrated excellent performance in complex scheduling problems (travel planning, meeting scheduling, etc.). It's a viable method for finding highly effective solutions in specific scenarios.
However, there are two major drawbacks:
🤔 An excessive number of API calls are required. (While the cost might not be very high, it leads to significant latency.)
🤔 The evaluator is program-based. (This limits its use as a general method. It could potentially be modified/implemented using LLM as Judge, but that would introduce additional API costs for evaluation.)
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09891
reacted to
their
post with 👍
17 days ago
Post
2008
Simple Summarization on DeepSeek-R1 from DeepSeek AI
The RL stage is very important.
↳ However, it is difficult to create a truly helpful AI for people solely through RL.
↳ So, we applied a learning pipeline consisting of four stages: providing a good starting point, reasoning RL, SFT, and safety RL, and achieved performance comparable to o1.
↳ Simply fine-tuning other open models with the data generated by R1-Zero (distillation) resulted in performance comparable to o1-mini.
Of course, this is just a brief overview and may not be of much help. All models are accessible on Hugging Face, and the paper can be read through the GitHub repository.
Model: https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai
Paper: https://github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1
The RL stage is very important.
↳ However, it is difficult to create a truly helpful AI for people solely through RL.
↳ So, we applied a learning pipeline consisting of four stages: providing a good starting point, reasoning RL, SFT, and safety RL, and achieved performance comparable to o1.
↳ Simply fine-tuning other open models with the data generated by R1-Zero (distillation) resulted in performance comparable to o1-mini.
Of course, this is just a brief overview and may not be of much help. All models are accessible on Hugging Face, and the paper can be read through the GitHub repository.
Model: https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai
Paper: https://github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1
- 1 reply
posted
an
update
17 days ago
Post
2008
Simple Summarization on DeepSeek-R1 from DeepSeek AI
The RL stage is very important.
↳ However, it is difficult to create a truly helpful AI for people solely through RL.
↳ So, we applied a learning pipeline consisting of four stages: providing a good starting point, reasoning RL, SFT, and safety RL, and achieved performance comparable to o1.
↳ Simply fine-tuning other open models with the data generated by R1-Zero (distillation) resulted in performance comparable to o1-mini.
Of course, this is just a brief overview and may not be of much help. All models are accessible on Hugging Face, and the paper can be read through the GitHub repository.
Model: https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai
Paper: https://github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1
The RL stage is very important.
↳ However, it is difficult to create a truly helpful AI for people solely through RL.
↳ So, we applied a learning pipeline consisting of four stages: providing a good starting point, reasoning RL, SFT, and safety RL, and achieved performance comparable to o1.
↳ Simply fine-tuning other open models with the data generated by R1-Zero (distillation) resulted in performance comparable to o1-mini.
Of course, this is just a brief overview and may not be of much help. All models are accessible on Hugging Face, and the paper can be read through the GitHub repository.
Model: https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai
Paper: https://github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1
-
- 1 reply
upvoted
an
article
17 days ago
Article
Introducing multi-backends (TRT-LLM, vLLM) support for Text Generation Inference
•
63
authored
a
paper
about 2 months ago
upvoted
a
paper
about 2 months ago