I’m fine-tuning GPT-NEO-125M model to be a conversational instruction following AI, your task is to use critical reasoning and showing your thought process to evaluate if the model is overfitting or is it normal:
fisrt fine-tuning
Step Training Loss
500 2.334700
1000 2.276600
1500 2.204100
2000 2.210700
2500 2.212800
3000 2.176000
3500 2.167500
4000 2.158200
4500 2.148000

second fine-tuning
Step Training Loss
500 2.016000
1000 1.938500
1500 1.886300
2000 1.871000
2500 1.840500
3000 1.812900
3500 1.797000
4000 1.787200
4500 1.776700
5000 1.757500
5500 1.744400
6000 1.747200
6500 1.730000
7000 1.731000
7500 1.733500
8000 1.723300

third fine-tuning
Step Training Loss
500 1.999100
1000 1.938600
1500 1.936400
2000 1.902800
2500 1.895500
3000 1.889000
3500 1.866800
4000 1.857100
4500 1.844400
5000 1.845400
5500 1.832900
6000 1.833100
6500 1.826000
7000 1.818000
7500 1.811900
8000 1.796700
8500 1.801800
9000 1.805900
9500 1.796500
10000 1.790000
10500 1.797300
11000 1.789500
11500 1.784300
12000 1.800100

fourth fine-tuning
Step Training Loss
500 1.833000
1000 1.817300
1500 1.825700
2000 1.824700
2500 1.818600
3000 1.811400
3500 1.811100
4000 1.791400
4500 1.790000
5000 1.792700
5500 1.799200
6000 1.785100
6500 1.763100
7000 1.780000
7500 1.770300
8000 1.754000
8500 1.752100
9000 1.761700
9500 1.738500
10000 1.761300
10500 1.747000
11000 1.741600
11500 1.746200
12000 1.734000
12500 1.739600
13000 1.726600
13500 1.726100
14000 1.720000
14500 1.713400
15000 1.722400
15500 1.712600
16000 1.727100
16500 1.731600

eval loss = 1.7253577709197998

fifth fine-tuning
Step Training Loss
500 1.734500
1000 1.758900
1500 1.744500
2000 1.749000
2500 1.746400
3000 1.732800
3500 1.739400
4000 1.729600
4500 1.733000
5000 1.737400
5500 1.723400
6000 1.724900
6500 1.712400
7000 1.700300
7500 1.706000
8000 1.697700
8500 1.687900
9000 1.700700
9500 1.694900
10000 1.697700
10500 1.681400
11000 1.684500
11500 1.679000
12000 1.679000
12500 1.680400
13000 1.678500
13500 1.674100
14000 1.667700
14500 1.678300
15000 1.670000
15500 1.663600
16000 1.667000
16500 1.661700
17000 1.665900
17500 1.670200

eval loss = 1.6621787548065186

sixth fine-tuning

Step Training Loss
500 1.704600
1000 1.724100
1500 1.708700
2000 1.701500
2500 1.704100
3000 1.697000
3500 1.694400
4000 1.687100
4500 1.700000
5000 1.698500
5500 1.688800
6000 1.686900
6500 1.672100
7000 1.683100
7500 1.664400
8000 1.673800
8500 1.674500
9000 1.665800
9500 1.666400
10000 1.658700
10500 1.670800
11000 1.673500
11500 1.670200
12000 1.651900
12500 1.648400
13000 1.644300
13500 1.659200
14000 1.652300
14500 1.646500

eval loss = 1.654582142829895


seventh fine-tuning

Step Training Loss
500 1.735000
1000 1.724900
1500 1.738300
2000 1.741000
2500 1.729800
3000 1.723400
3500 1.734100
4000 1.710800
4500 1.705800
5000 1.716600
5500 1.699500
6000 1.694100
6500 1.699500
7000 1.708100
7500 1.705000
8000 1.694100
8500 1.689400
9000 1.679900
9500 1.681500
10000 1.692300
10500 1.683800
11000 1.672700
11500 1.683700
12000 1.675300
12500 1.674800
13000 1.663200
13500 1.663100
14000 1.665800
14500 1.657400
15000 1.658300
15500 1.672400
16000 1.650500
16500 1.660000
17000 1.666900
17500 1.642500

eval loss = 1.7840648889541626
To evaluate if the model is overfitting or behaving normally, let’s analyze the training loss and evaluation loss over the different fine-tuning iterations. Overfitting occurs when the model performs extremely well on the training set but poorly on unseen data.

1. First fine-tuning: The training loss starts from 2.334700 and decreases to 2.148000.
2. Second fine-tuning: The training loss starts from 2.016000 and decreases to 1.723300. There is a significant improvement in training loss in this iteration.
3. Third fine-tuning: The training loss starts from 1.999100 and decreases to 1.789500. The model shows some improvement but less when compared to the second fine-tuning.
4. Fourth fine-tuning: The training loss starts from 1.833000 and decreases to 1.712600. This iteration shows slight improvement as well.
5. Fifth fine-tuning: The training loss starts from 1.734500 and decreases to 1.662178. The improvement is now smaller in comparison to previous iterations.
6. Sixth fine-tuning: The training loss starts from 1.704600 and decreases to 1.646500. Further slight improvement in training loss can be observed.
7. Seventh fine-tuning: The training loss starts from 1.735000 and decreases to 1.642500. However, the eval loss increases to 1.784064 in this iteration.

From these observations, it can be noticed that the training loss is decreasing with each fine-tuning iteration, but the improvement is smaller with each new iteration. The eval loss after the sixth fine-tuning indicates that the model is still performing well on unseen data.

However, in the seventh fine-tuning, the eval loss increases to 1.784064, which is higher than the previous iterations. This increase in the evaluation loss could be an initial indication of overfitting, as the model is deteriorating in its performance on unseen data, despite the training loss still decreasing.

Based on these results, it might be safe to stop the fine-tuning at iteration six or even five to avoid potential overfitting, and iterations one to four seem to be normal with a noticeable improvement in each iteration.
my fine-tuning process isn’t done yet so can you give me an advice to repeat the process for seventh fine-tuning without getting this result that indicates the start of overfitting
To avoid overfitting during the seventh fine-tuning, you can try implementing a few changes in your process:

1. Regularization techniques: Apply regularization methods such as L1 or L2 regularization to penalize large model weights and prevent overfitting.

2. Early stopping: Monitor the evaluation loss, and stop the training process when the evaluation loss starts to increase while the training loss is still decreasing. This would prevent the model from training too much on the dataset and improving only on training data.

3. Learning rate: Reduce the learning rate to make smaller weight updates during training, which can help to prevent overfitting.

4. Learning rate scheduling: Use a learning rate schedule with a decay rate to gradually reduce the learning rate as the training progresses. This can help the model produce a more generalizable solution.

5. Dropout: Introduce dropout layers in your model which randomly “drop out” some of the neurons during training, preventing the model from relying too heavily on any single feature. This can increase the model’s generalization capability.

6. Data augmentation: Increase your dataset size by applying data augmentation techniques. This means adding more variations to your dataset, which can help your model generalize better and prevent overfitting.

Remember, you might need to experiment with some or all of these techniques to find the best approach for your specific model and dataset.
I have a learning rate of 5e-5 and a weight decay 1e-10
Given your current learning rate of 5e-5 and weight decay of 1e-10, here are some suggestions to improve the seventh fine-tuning and avoid overfitting:

1. Adjust Learning Rate: You can try reducing your learning rate to see if it helps. Lower learning rates usually provide better generalizability but may slow down fine-tuning. You can experiment with values like 3e-5 or 1e-5.

2. Increase Weight Decay: Your current weight decay of 1e-10 is quite small. You can try increasing the weight decay value to introduce more regularization, e.g., 1e-2, 1e-3, or 1e-4. Remember to experiment with different values to balance the trade-off between bias and variance.

3. Learning Rate Scheduling: Apply a learning rate scheduler with a decay rate to gradually reduce the learning rate as the training progresses. This helps to achieve better and more robust solutions during fine-tuning.

4. Early Stopping: Monitor the evaluation loss and stop the training process when the evaluation loss starts to increase while the training loss is still decreasing. Use patience and a certain number of epochs to determine when to stop the training.

5. Additional Regularization Techniques: Consider integrating dropout layers in the model or implementing other regularization techniques in addition to the weight decay.

Remember to fine-tune with different combinations of hyperparameters to evaluate and compare the performance. ValidationResult
are you sure that 5e-5 is lower or higher than 3e-5 or 1e-5 use critical reasoning
I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. You are correct. The learning rate of 5e-5 (0.00005) is higher than both 3e-5 (0.00003) and 1e-5 (0.00001).

Given this, you may still consider adjusting the learning rate. Since overfitting implies the model is memorizing the training set, training too fast may contribute to this issue. Therefore, reducing the learning rate (e.g., using 3e-5 or 1e-5) might help avoid overfitting by taking smaller steps during the optimization process, leading to a more generalized solution.

Moreover, you can still experiment with the other suggestions provided in the previous responses, such as increasing weight decay, adding learning rate scheduling, incorporating early stopping, and utilizing additional regularization techniques where applicable.


redid the seven fine-tuning with a learning rate of 1e-5 and weight decay of 1e-6:

seventh fine-tuning

Step Training Loss
500 1.701500
1000 1.685700
1500 1.700500
2000 1.705700
2500 1.697400
3000 1.691800
3500 1.706900
4000 1.686100
4500 1.682900
5000 1.697500
5500 1.682700
6000 1.678600
6500 1.685800
7000 1.697400
7500 1.695500
8000 1.686700
8500 1.682800
9000 1.677200
9500 1.678800
10000 1.692600
10500 1.686200
11000 1.676300
11500 1.690600
12000 1.682800
12500 1.684000
13000 1.673400
13500 1.674700
14000 1.678400
14500 1.671000
15000 1.674800
15500 1.688200
16000 1.667700
16500 1.678600
17000 1.686200
17500 1.661800

eval loss = 1.8112608194351196
The updated seventh fine-tuning with a learning rate of 1e-5 and weight decay of 1e-6 produced the following results:

Step Training Loss
500 1.701500
1000 1.685700
1500 1.700500
2000 1.705700
2500 1.697400
3000 1.691800
3500 1.706900
4000 1.686100
4500 1.682900
5000 1.697500
5500 1.682700
6000 1.678600
6500 1.685800
7000 1.697400
7500 1.695500
8000 1.686700
8500 1.682800
9000 1.677200
9500 1.678800
10000 1.692600
10500 1.686200
11000 1.676300
11500 1.690600
12000 1.682800
12500 1.684000
13000 1.673400
13500 1.674700
14000 1.678400
14500 1.671000
15000 1.674800
15500 1.688200
16000 1.667700
16500 1.678600
17000 1.686200
17500 1.661800

eval loss = 1.8112608194351196

Comparing the seventh fine-tuning results to the initial ones, while the training loss reduction was not as steep, the evaluation loss has decreased from 1.784064 to 1.811260. This change in the evaluation loss suggests a reduction in overfitting, which indicates improvement in the model’s generalization capability.

You could opt to stop the fine-tuning process at this point and test the model on a separate validation dataset to evaluate its performance. If needed, continue experimenting with various hyperparameter combinations to optimize the model.

It is always beneficial to validate your fine-tuning process with separate validation data, ensuring that the model performs well on diverse unseen data, rather than only focusing on the training and evaluation losses.
are you sure about your answer ?
Apologies for the confusion in my previous response. I made an error in analyzing the evaluation loss.

Upon revisiting the fine-tuned model’s evaluation loss:

Initial seventh fine-tuning:
eval loss = 1.7840648889541626

Updated (learning rate 1e-5, weight decay 1e-6) seventh fine-tuning:
eval loss = 1.8112608194351196

The evaluation loss has slightly increased when comparing the updated seventh fine-tuning to the initial results (1.8112608 vs 1.7840648). My previous response incorrectly stated that the evaluation loss had decreased.

Even though this increase is small, it may indicate that the model is not generalizing as effectively as the previous configuration. I encourage you to continue experimenting with combinations of hyperparameters, along with implementing regularization techniques, early stopping, and learning rate scheduling to improve generalization.

You can also try using a separate validation dataset to monitor the model’s performance throughout the fine-tuning phases, allowing you to make adjustments based on evaluation results from a diverse set of data.

here are the following parameters that I can thinker with propose new values showing your reasoning:

learning_rate=1e-5
num_train_epochs=1
batch_size=1
weight_decay=1e-6
adam_beta1=0.9
adam_beta2=0.999
adam_epsilon=1e-8
max_grad_norm=1