Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: add repetition_penalty and top_k to openai #288

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 29, 2024
Merged

feat: add repetition_penalty and top_k to openai #288

merged 1 commit into from
Feb 29, 2024

Conversation

huytuong010101
Copy link
Contributor

@huytuong010101 huytuong010101 commented Feb 28, 2024

Fixes #287.

Copy link
Contributor

@tgaddair tgaddair left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for this PR! Just a couple suggestions to better align with OpenAI's format.

@@ -455,6 +455,8 @@ struct ChatCompletionRequest {
// Additional parameters
// TODO(travis): add other LoRAX params here
response_format: Option<ResponseFormat>,
repetition_penalty: Option<f32>,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks like the OpenAI spec defines this as presence_penalty: https://platform.openai.com/docs/api-reference/chat/create

Since there is no top_k equivalent in OpenAI, adding it as a new param is fine.

@@ -587,8 +591,8 @@ impl From<CompletionRequest> for CompatGenerateRequest {
api_token: None,
best_of: req.best_of.map(|x| x as usize),
temperature: req.temperature,
repetition_penalty: None,
top_k: None,
repetition_penalty: req.repetition_penalty,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we map repetition_penalty to the OpenAI presence_penalty, we need to shift the range from (-2, 2) (OpenAI) to (0, 4) ours, so something like:

repetition_penalty: req.presence_penalty.map(|x| x + 2.0)

Same for lin 629.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@huytuong010101 huytuong010101 Feb 29, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @tgaddair As I known, presence_penalty and repetition_penalty both have the same effect. But

  • presence_penalty - Between -2.0 and 2. value 0 means no penalty. Default to 0.0
  • repetition_penalty – Between 1.0 and infinity. 1.0 means no penalty. Default to 1.0.
    So it not have same range, and presence_penalty=0 (no penalty) not have same effect with repetition_penalty=2 (much penalty)
    Do you think we need keep it seprately or any better method to shift it ?

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I recommend keep both params presence_penalty and repetition_penalty.
Or if you still want to reuse presence_penalty, I think repetition_penalty: req.presence_penalty.map(|x| x + 1.0) is better.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm, maybe it's fine to keep both for now. We can think about how best to map presence_penalty to repition_penalty in a follow-up. Thanks for the PR!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@tgaddair thank u

@tgaddair tgaddair merged commit f915df7 into predibase:main Feb 29, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Support repetition_penalty in OpenAI API
3 participants