Adding models to the list in convert-hf-to-gguf-update.py

[thisisnotthat]

Hi,

This is a pull request to add the functionality to be able to specify the model name and/or tokenizer type and url. The updated code contains a list with no models in convert-hf-to-gguf-update.py. And so avoids performing any unexpected downloads.

07.07.2024_16.57.55_REC.mp4

• I have read the contributing guidelines
• Self-reported review complexity:
  • Low
  • Medium
  • High

[compilade]

The updated code contains a list with no models in convert-hf-to-gguf-update.py. And so avoids performing any unexpected downloads.

This seems to remove a lot of stuff that was recently merged (e.g. Gemma2 #8156, OpenELM #7359, T5 #8141, JAIS #8118, snake_case renaming #8305, and others (sign of a rebase gone wrong)) and it also looks like it would make the conversion unconditionally fail for models which use BPE tokenizers.

The goal of convert_hf_to_gguf_update.py is to automate the updates of the hash list in convert_hf_to_gguf.py. If the string used to make the token hashes changes, having the script to fetch all known tokenizers (note that it only downloads what is not already there) and update the list is useful.

If each (existing!) pre-tokenizer has to be added manually by anyone wanting to convert a model, I think this defeats its purpose. Especially since any new pre-tokenizer name needs to be handled in src/llama.cpp too, so a user would have to guess a valid name, otherwise the produced model will make llama.cpp crash on load.

Although making it simpler to add new pre-tokenizers does seem useful, the (accidental) removal of recent new features needs to be fixed to make this usable.

[thisisnotthat]

I don't normally entertain comments but for the shake of this exercise will make I make an exception.

Let's say you wanted to convert two different models with the same tokenizer name, you'll find that it is not possie. And so I hope you get the point.

[compilade]

I don't normally entertain comments but for the shake of this exercise will make I make an exception.

Sorry if my comment came out as rude, that was not my intention. You obviously want to make this project better (otherwise you would not have opened a PR), so I respect that, and I apologize if my written tone isn't as friendly as it should.

Let's say you wanted to convert two different models with the same tokenizer name, you'll find that it is not possie. And so I hope you get the point.

You're right that the current way this works on master is not ideal.

There are some cases for which it works well, but some cases for which it doesn't.

For example, if different models have exactly the same tokenizer (e.g. Mamba uses the same tokenizer as GPT-NeoX, and so does OLMo), they will get assigned the same pre-tokenizer name, which is convenient.

However, if they have different tokenizers which result in different hashes, yet they still have the same pre-tokenizer (like, Phi-2, GPT-2, and others, all use the GPT-2 pre-tokenizer), then they have to use different pre-tokenizer names, even though they could have used the same name.

https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/blob/7d0e23d72ef4540d0d4409cb63ae682c17d53926/src/llama.cpp#L5396-L5403

But sometimes the differences picked up by the hash are useful, like for some workarounds with those jina models:

https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/blob/7d0e23d72ef4540d0d4409cb63ae682c17d53926/src/llama.cpp#L5712-L5714

To be clear, I think making it easier to add new tokenizers to the pre-tokenizer list is useful, because otherwise it can be a bit of a chore. Doing it interactively like you're proposing can be a nice way to do this.

But the (likely accidental) removal of code in convert_hf_to_gguf.py should be fixed if you want to get this into a merge-able state, because otherwise this removes support for conversion of Gemma 2 and other popular models.