Post
🔎 DPO hyperparameter search update!
In my previous post (https://huggingface.co/posts/BramVanroy/633544255876795), I indicated how despite high reward accuracies and low losses, my model would sometimes just output repeating random tokens (
So, I ran a hyperparameter search for learning rate (1e-7 v 5e-7), batch size (32, 64, 96, 128) and most importantly, beta (0.01, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5). You can have a look at the results for yourself here: https://wandb.ai/bramvanroy/dpo-geitje-ultra-hyperparams
Interpreting the result, I'd think that the beta=0.5 is the better choice for this dataset. Reasons:
- markedly higher rewards margins compared to all other betas
- better balance between positive chosen and negative rejected rewards
- log probabilities are not as superbly low as for beta=0.01, which seems too low for this dataset
Of course, that is just purely looking at numbers without running any benchmarks. However, I am hesitant to evaluate all the models on benchmarks and, therefore, literally optimising my hyperparameters on a test set (which is very bad!). So I will just play with some of the most promising models and see which one feels "best" qualitatively.
If you have other insights, thoughts, or opinions, let me know!
In my previous post (https://huggingface.co/posts/BramVanroy/633544255876795), I indicated how despite high reward accuracies and low losses, my model would sometimes just output repeating random tokens (
/*****/). There were some useful brainstorms in that thread. I think the dataset is relatively easy for the model, leading it to quickly overfit when the beta is very small, which allows the model to step away further from its initially outputs.So, I ran a hyperparameter search for learning rate (1e-7 v 5e-7), batch size (32, 64, 96, 128) and most importantly, beta (0.01, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5). You can have a look at the results for yourself here: https://wandb.ai/bramvanroy/dpo-geitje-ultra-hyperparams
Interpreting the result, I'd think that the beta=0.5 is the better choice for this dataset. Reasons:
- markedly higher rewards margins compared to all other betas
- better balance between positive chosen and negative rejected rewards
- log probabilities are not as superbly low as for beta=0.01, which seems too low for this dataset
Of course, that is just purely looking at numbers without running any benchmarks. However, I am hesitant to evaluate all the models on benchmarks and, therefore, literally optimising my hyperparameters on a test set (which is very bad!). So I will just play with some of the most promising models and see which one feels "best" qualitatively.
If you have other insights, thoughts, or opinions, let me know!
