Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
Reasoning from scratch, round number 5! This time, talking about log-probability scoring (also a great fundamental concept for loss functions like cross-entropy in pre-training and distillation) and self-refinement. 00:00 Introduction and inference-time scaling recap 05:02 Loading the pretrained LLM 08:00 Comparing and scoring model answers 10:18 Building a rule-based... show more
59,636 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)
27 Kommentare

And a link to the video on YouTube:

Reading this chapter from your book as I type. Its a joy to read it. Also the visuals make it really easy to grasp the topic.

Thanks a lot! Put lots of work went into it, and it really feels good to hear this :)

log probs for numerical stability instead of raw probabilities, that part alone saves people from nan hell

Yup. Also covered that explicitly there :)

The timestamps make this much easier to learn from, Sebastian. For anyone following along, changing one scoring choice and comparing the answers could be a lovely little experiment. It gives those probability calculations something concrete to connect to.

Thanks!

timestamps going past an hour and it's still just round 5, this book is going to be dense

some would say "you get your money's worth" :P

log probabilities are quite useful to understand cuz getting a model to generate an answer and figuring out if its answer is actually better are two very different things.

log-prob scoring pairs well with self-refinement, since the model can rank its own revisions instead of guessing which one improved

Self-refinement is a much kinder name than 'read that back to yourself'.

The average log-probability scoring setup is a nice detail; it also makes the numerical-stability discussion feel directly relevant rather than incidental.

Computing token probabilities in PyTorch was my fav part, very well explained.

想快速验证自精炼到底贡献了多少,可以先做一个 20 分钟测试:① 准备 50 道有标准答案的题先跑一遍,记下基线准确率 ② 打开自精炼再跑一遍,统计修正率和误修率 ③ 把自精炼关掉、只保留 logprob 阈值过滤跑第三遍,看阈值这一步单独贡献了多少。这样就知道收益是来自精炼本身,还是来自筛掉低置信样本。

Log-probability scoring makes sense for evaluating model confidence, but how do you handle cases where the model is confidently wrong? High log-prob on an incorrect answer seems like it would still score well.

Yes, this is confidence, not correctness.I am talking through that issue in this video. You could technically use a second stronger model though that checks the answer. Kind of like speculative decoding works (the more expensive model accepts/rejects cheaply generated suggestions). But yeah, either way, the other motivation to introduce log-probability scoring is that it is essential for the upcoming training chapters (RL and distillations).

Log-prob scoring is the boring fundamental that keeps evals honest — glad R5 drills it from scratch. Stack ↓ #LLM #ML

does log-prob self-scoring hold up when the model's miscalibrated? wondered if self-refinement just reinforces the confident wrong ones

saving the log-prob section for tomorrow morning

Token-level or sequence-level log-probs in the self-refinement loop?

You have been source of learning for millions, thank you very much for creating these videos

thank you for the kind words!

对数概率评分把候选答案压成可比较的序列似然,也是交叉熵与蒸馏损失的共用底座。把规则打分换成平均对数概率后,自我精炼循环才有稳定的排序依据;若评论器与生成器共用同一套偏差,MATH-500 上的增益仍需与独立裁判对照。

I am going to watch the heck out of this Seb

Great point that log-probs measure confidence, not correctness. High confidence on a wrong answer is the dangerous case. How do you calibrate or downweight that in a self-refinement loop?

self-refinement only pays if the scorer already agrees with MATH-500. did average logprob ranking move the score on its own, or only after the critique loop?
