[Frontend] Bad words sampling parameter #5986
Conversation
vllm/sampling_params.py
Outdated
| @@ -28,6 +28,77 @@ class SamplingType(IntEnum): | |||
| to sample from.""" | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| class NoBadWordsLogitsProcessor: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not sure if this is the right file for the class. Still I thought it could be placed here near the LogitsProcessor type (the one just above). But if there is a better place for the processor class, I will be ready to move it)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes I think that if we include this it should go in a different file.
vllm/sampling_params.py
Outdated
| if len(bad_word_ids) == 1: # 1-token words already processed | ||
| continue | ||
|
|
||
| if len(bad_word_ids) > len(past_tokens_ids) + 1: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This differs from the original inequality here: https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/blob/main/src/transformers/generation/logits_process.py#L1131
if len(sequence_ids) > input_ids.shape[1]: # the sequence is longer than the context, ignore
continueI may be wrong, but it seemed we should allow for one token to be generated (so + 1).
|
I'm unsure whether or not it makes sense to support this. I know it's an option in transfomers but it was added very early on and the implementation seems limited/clunky to me. Wouldn't it make more sense for the bad words to be a list of strings rather than token sequences? |
Yes, I absolutely agree that this "list of lists of token ids" structure is not very friendly and easy to use 😅 Sure, list of strings will be more convenient. I believe I can change that. Just wanted to clarify some questions before actually making some changes. If we make bad words as list of strings (and call it, for example, just So, the main and only question is actually the following — should we keep transformers' "clumsy" Oh, and one more point. Currently, SamplingParams has Hmm, just noticed, SamplingParams actually has another parameter — Ok, I agree that introducing |
|
My view on this kind of thing is to collect some concrete requirements / use cases and base on that. I.e. avoid adding things with hypothetical benefit. Would be good to see some explicit examples of how/where this functionality is used, and that should then also inform what kind of thing makes the most sense w.r.t. the various options being discussed. |
Bad words ids -> Bad words
|
Forgot to add, in vLLM, there is already something like bad words ids thing: logit_bias_logits_processor, which is added for the compatibility with OpenAI request params. |
| @@ -293,6 +293,44 @@ async def process_model_inputs_async( | |||
|
|
|||
| return self.input_processor(llm_inputs) | |||
|
|
|||
| async def process_model_params_async( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Currently, async method is not tested. Checked only sync version and made async one based on it.
|
|
||
| def __call__( | ||
| self, | ||
| past_tokens_ids: Union[List[int], Tuple[int]], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Merged main recently. And, surprisingly, past_token_ids appeared as Tuple (previously it was List).
|
@njhill 🥺 👉👈 Since last time, also did:
|
Alvant
changed the title
|
@njhill just reminding to take a look at the PR when you have time. P.S. If you don't mind, I plan to do such reminders once a week for some time. P.P.S. There is a new code conflict now. I am planning to resolve it as part of future work on the PR after it has been reviewed and commented on. |
|
Apologies @Alvant and thanks for the reminder, I miss the GH notifications sometimes because I'm subscribed to so many things. I'll take another look at this in the next day or two. |
|
@njhill, it seems we need one more reminder :) |
from vllm import LLM
model = LLM("openai-community/gpt2")
request_outputs = model.generate(
"Will the 'Bad words' pull request be reviewed anytime soon?.."
)
output = request_outputs[0].outputs[0].text
print(output) # "I don't know, my friend, I don't know..."P.S. The growing number of conflicts over time inspires me with a kind of terror that covers my skin with goosebumps. However, the belief that the request will still be merged after all is still alive in me... |
|
I had an idea in my head. You said that you can sometimes miss GH notifications because you get so many of them from lots of sources. So, maybe if I ping you a little more often, the likelihood of you noticing will be higher. To check this out, now I'm going to ping you not once a week, but.... once a day! I'm announcing a Seven-Day Ping Marathon. And it starts... today! Seven-Day Ping Marathon, Day 1 @njhill, ping |
|
Seven-Day Ping Marathon, Day 3 |
|
Levenshtein says that there are only four steps from "reminder" to "review"... Seven-Day Ping Marathon, Day 4 
|
|
PR's alone, with no review, Seven-Day Ping Marathon, Day 5 |
|
Hi @Alvant . Please remember that vLLM committers are not paid and it is unfair to treat them with these kind of reminders. Regardless of whether this PR is mergable or not, this behavior will not get it merged. Thanks for your understanding. |
|
Hello, @cadedaniel. Of course I understand. I'm sorry. All I needed now was at least a sign that the request was remembered. When you don't get any response, not a word, for a few weeks, it's starting to be a bit worrying. I hope you understand too) And your reply gives me new hope that the request will get some progress in the future (I can wait, I just want to be sure that I don't wait in vain). Thanks! |
|
Better an inglorious end than a miserable existence |
|
I desperately need this feature. @Alvant could you open it again? you are saving the world. I appreciate your diligence and dedication. |
|
@hwang136 Wow, your words are just melting my heart) Thank you! Glad to hear that someone really needs the feature) Sure, I can open the PR again. After all, it's just a matter of a click of a button) I think I'm also going to update the code in this branch (merge all latest vLLM updates). So as to make it somewhat easier to use for everyone who needs it and might want to try. However, I cannot guarantee that this code will ever be merged into the main vLLM repo (in the near or however distant future) 
|
FIX #986
PR Checklist (Click to Expand)
Thank you for your contribution to vLLM! Before submitting the pull request, please ensure the PR meets the following criteria. This helps vLLM maintain the code quality and improve the efficiency of the review process.
PR Title and Classification
Only specific types of PRs will be reviewed. The PR title is prefixed appropriately to indicate the type of change. Please use one of the following:
[Bugfix]for bug fixes.[CI/Build]for build or continuous integration improvements.[Doc]for documentation fixes and improvements.[Model]for adding a new model or improving an existing model. Model name should appear in the title.[Frontend]For changes on the vLLM frontend (e.g., OpenAI API server,LLMclass, etc.)[Kernel]for changes affecting CUDA kernels or other compute kernels.[Core]for changes in the core vLLM logic (e.g.,LLMEngine,AsyncLLMEngine,Scheduler, etc.)[Hardware][Vendor]for hardware-specific changes. Vendor name should appear in the prefix (e.g.,[Hardware][AMD]).[Misc]for PRs that do not fit the above categories. Please use this sparingly.Note: If the PR spans more than one category, please include all relevant prefixes.
Code Quality
The PR need to meet the following code quality standards:
format.shto format your code.docs/source/if the PR modifies the user-facing behaviors of vLLM. It helps vLLM user understand and utilize the new features or changes.Notes for Large Changes
Please keep the changes as concise as possible. For major architectural changes (>500 LOC excluding kernel/data/config/test), we would expect a GitHub issue (RFC) discussing the technical design and justification. Otherwise, we will tag it with
rfc-requiredand might not go through the PR.What to Expect for the Reviews
The goal of the vLLM team is to be a transparent reviewing machine. We would like to make the review process transparent and efficient and make sure no contributor feel confused or frustrated. However, the vLLM team is small, so we need to prioritize some PRs over others. Here is what you can expect from the review process:
action-requiredlabel on the PR if there are changes required. The contributor should address the comments and ping the reviewer to re-review the PR.Thank You
Finally, thank you for taking the time to read these guidelines and for your interest in contributing to vLLM. Your contributions make vLLM a great tool for everyone!