Update README.md
Browse files
README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -20,6 +20,9 @@ To successfully fine-tune an LLM for this task, I first picked a suitable base m
|
|
| 20 |
**Training Data** <br />
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
**Training Method** <br />
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
**Evaluation** <br />
|
| 25 |
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
**Training Data** <br />
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
**Training Method** <br />
|
| 23 |
+
I chose to use LoRA for my task of creating first-person historical narratives of an era. Based on previous results, few shot prompting sometimes did not capture the improvements I hoped to see from responses. Full fine-tuning would be more computationally intensive than LoRA and does not seem necessary for my task. LoRA is a good balance between the two, only changing some parameters related to my task, and using the data set to update key parameters to help create narratives in a style that better matches the prose of an era and the historical accuracy of it. LoRA can also perform well without a massive training data set because of its low-rank adaptations.
|
| 24 |
+
|
| 25 |
+
For my hyperparameter combinations, I chose to use LORA_R = 128, LORA_ALPHA = 128, and LORA_DROPOUT = .1. These hyperparameters had the best qualitative results out of the options I tried. Despite my smaller data set, this approach gave strong first-person narratives that I enjoyed. They included prose from the era, were historically accurate, and even included imagery and entertaining details that I'd expect from a quality response. The results from these hyperparameters exceeded any expectations I had.
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
**Evaluation** <br />
|
| 28 |
|