Harrison Kinsley PRO

Sentdex

AI & ML interests

None yet

Organizations

Posts 4

view post
Post
8244
Okay, first pass over KAN: Kolmogorov–Arnold Networks, it looks very interesting!

Interpretability of KAN model:
May be considered mostly as a safety issue these days, but it can also be used as a form of interaction between the user and a model, as this paper argues and I think they make a valid point here. With MLP, we only interact with the outputs, but KAN is an entirely different paradigm and I find it compelling.

Scalability:
KAN shows better parameter efficiency than MLP. This likely translates also to needing less data. We're already at the point with the frontier LLMs where all the data available from the internet is used + more is made synthetically...so we kind of need something better.

Continual learning:
KAN can handle new input information w/o catastrophic forgetting, which helps to keep a model up to date without relying on some database or retraining.

Sequential data:
This is probably what most people are curious about right now, and KANs are not shown to work with sequential data yet and it's unclear what the best approach might be to make it work well both in training and regarding the interpretability aspect. That said, there's a rich long history of achieving sequential data in variety of ways, so I don't think getting the ball rolling here would be too challenging.

Mostly, I just love a new paradigm and I want to see more!

KAN: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (2404.19756)
view post
Post
5605
Benchmarks!

I have lately been diving deep into the main benchmarks we all use to evaluate and compare models.

If you've never actually looked under the hood for how benchmarks work, check out the LM eval harness from EleutherAI: https://github.com/EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness

+ check out the benchmark datasets, you can find the ones for the LLM leaderboard on the about tab here: https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderboard, then click the dataset and actually peak at the data that comprises these benchmarks.

It feels to me like benchmarks only represent a tiny portion of what we actually use and want LLMs for, and I doubt I'm alone in that sentiment.

Beyond this, the actual evaluations of responses from models are extremely strict and often use even rudimentary NLP techniques when, at this point, we have LLMs themselves that are more than capable at evaluating and scoring responses.

It feels like we've made great strides in the quality of LLMs themselves, but almost no change in the quality of how we benchmark.

If you have any ideas for how benchmarks could be a better assessment of an LLM, or know of good research papers that tackle this challenge, please share!