Datasets:
Update dense guide
Browse files- dense/README.md +16 -1
- dense/TRAINING_PLAN.md +29 -0
dense/README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -11,8 +11,23 @@ family as MoE so architecture changes can be compared cleanly.
|
|
| 11 |
- RoPE positional encoding.
|
| 12 |
- Grouped-query attention for lower KV-cache cost.
|
| 13 |
- SwiGLU feed-forward blocks.
|
| 14 |
-
-
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
- Native support for FIM tokens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
## Evaluation
|
| 18 |
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
- RoPE positional encoding.
|
| 12 |
- Grouped-query attention for lower KV-cache cost.
|
| 13 |
- SwiGLU feed-forward blocks.
|
| 14 |
+
- Untied embedding/head for the first quality run; tie only if validation shows
|
| 15 |
+
no FIM regression.
|
| 16 |
- Native support for FIM tokens.
|
| 17 |
+
- QK norm for attention stability at longer context.
|
| 18 |
+
- Residual branch init scaling so deeper runs do not spike early loss.
|
| 19 |
+
|
| 20 |
+
## Baseline Shape
|
| 21 |
+
|
| 22 |
+
Use Dense as the clean control model, not as the final scaling target.
|
| 23 |
+
|
| 24 |
+
- Small smoke: 12-16 layers, 768-1024 hidden, 8-16 heads, context 2048.
|
| 25 |
+
- H100 baseline: 24-32 layers, 2048-3072 hidden, GQA, context 4096.
|
| 26 |
+
- Keep the tokenizer, file order, validation split, optimizer, and batch-token
|
| 27 |
+
target identical to MoE.
|
| 28 |
+
|
| 29 |
+
The first Dense run should answer one question: does the dataset/tokenizer learn
|
| 30 |
+
cleanly without router complexity? If not, do not scale MoE yet.
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
## Evaluation
|
| 33 |
|
dense/TRAINING_PLAN.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -5,6 +5,15 @@
|
|
| 5 |
Use the same JSONL checkpoint bundle as MoE. Keep random seed, batch token
|
| 6 |
target, learning-rate schedule, and validation split aligned.
|
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
## Curriculum
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
1. Start with short and medium records.
|
|
@@ -12,8 +21,28 @@ target, learning-rate schedule, and validation split aligned.
|
|
| 12 |
3. Add continuation/code generation records.
|
| 13 |
4. Evaluate FIM and next-token loss separately.
|
| 14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
## Stop Conditions
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
- Validation loss diverges twice after LR reduction.
|
| 18 |
- FIM metrics regress while train loss improves.
|
| 19 |
- Tokenizer round-trip or special-token audit fails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
Use the same JSONL checkpoint bundle as MoE. Keep random seed, batch token
|
| 6 |
target, learning-rate schedule, and validation split aligned.
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
+
Primary input:
|
| 9 |
+
|
| 10 |
+
```text
|
| 11 |
+
dataset/<checkpoint>/dataset/*.jsonl
|
| 12 |
+
```
|
| 13 |
+
|
| 14 |
+
Do not train from hidden staging folders unless rebuilding checkpoints. Hidden
|
| 15 |
+
`data/curated_upload` is a staging queue, not the training contract.
|
| 16 |
+
|
| 17 |
## Curriculum
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
1. Start with short and medium records.
|
|
|
|
| 21 |
3. Add continuation/code generation records.
|
| 22 |
4. Evaluate FIM and next-token loss separately.
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
+
## H100 Defaults
|
| 25 |
+
|
| 26 |
+
- Precision: bf16.
|
| 27 |
+
- Context: 2048 smoke, 4096 main run.
|
| 28 |
+
- Optimizer: AdamW or fused AdamW.
|
| 29 |
+
- LR schedule: warmup then cosine decay.
|
| 30 |
+
- Gradient clipping: enabled.
|
| 31 |
+
- Batch target: choose by total tokens, not examples, because FIM lengths vary.
|
| 32 |
+
- Validation: fixed files or fixed checksums from the checkpoint report.
|
| 33 |
+
|
| 34 |
+
## Preprocessing
|
| 35 |
+
|
| 36 |
+
- Preserve whitespace exactly.
|
| 37 |
+
- Append `<|endoftext|>` between records during packing.
|
| 38 |
+
- Keep FIM markers visible; do not strip special tokens.
|
| 39 |
+
- Reject empty `text`, invalid JSONL, and records exceeding context unless
|
| 40 |
+
deterministic chunking is enabled.
|
| 41 |
+
- Bucket by token length to reduce padding waste.
|
| 42 |
+
|
| 43 |
## Stop Conditions
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
- Validation loss diverges twice after LR reduction.
|
| 46 |
- FIM metrics regress while train loss improves.
|
| 47 |
- Tokenizer round-trip or special-token audit fails.
|
| 48 |
+
- Syntax parse rate drops while raw loss improves.
|