lorenzoscottb commited on
Commit
87e6d64
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): 89bcb66

Update README.md

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +37 -10
README.md CHANGED
@@ -14,15 +14,12 @@ model-index:
14
  <!-- This model card has been generated automatically according to the information the Trainer had access to. You
15
  should probably proofread and complete it, then remove this comment. -->
16
 
17
- # PreDA_t5-base
 
 
 
 
18
 
19
- This model is a fine-tuned version of [google-t5/t5-base](https://huggingface.co/google-t5/t5-base) on the None dataset.
20
- It achieves the following results on the evaluation set:
21
- - Loss: 2.4362
22
- - Rouge1: 0.7866
23
- - Rouge2: 0.6744
24
- - Rougel: 0.7633
25
- - Rougelsum: 0.7631
26
 
27
  ## Model description
28
 
@@ -38,7 +35,24 @@ More information needed
38
 
39
  ## Training procedure
40
 
41
- ### Training hyperparameters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
42
 
43
  The following hyperparameters were used during training:
44
  - learning_rate: 0.001
@@ -52,7 +66,7 @@ The following hyperparameters were used during training:
52
  - mixed_precision_training: Native AMP
53
  - label_smoothing_factor: 0.1
54
 
55
- ### Training results
56
 
57
  | Training Loss | Epoch | Step | Validation Loss | Rouge1 | Rouge2 | Rougel | Rougelsum |
58
  |:-------------:|:-----:|:----:|:---------------:|:------:|:------:|:------:|:---------:|
@@ -77,6 +91,19 @@ The following hyperparameters were used during training:
77
  | 2.4518 | 19.0 | 2565 | 2.4362 | 0.7866 | 0.6753 | 0.7635 | 0.7635 |
78
  | 2.4663 | 20.0 | 2700 | 2.4362 | 0.7866 | 0.6744 | 0.7633 | 0.7631 |
79
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
80
 
81
  ### Framework versions
82
 
 
14
  <!-- This model card has been generated automatically according to the information the Trainer had access to. You
15
  should probably proofread and complete it, then remove this comment. -->
16
 
17
+ ![framework](preda_architecture_digram.png)
18
+
19
+ # PreDA-base (Prefix-Based Dream Reports Annotation)
20
+
21
+ This model is a fine-tuned version of [google-t5/t5-base](https://huggingface.co/google-t5/t5-small) on the annotated [Dreambank.net](https://dreambank.net/) dataset.It achieves the following results on the evaluation set:
22
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23
 
24
  ## Model description
25
 
 
35
 
36
  ## Training procedure
37
 
38
+ the overall idea of our approach is to disentangle each dream report from its annotation as a whole and to create an augmented set of (dream report; single
39
+ feature annotation). To make sure that, given the same report, the model would produce a specific HVDC feature, we simply append at
40
+ the beginning of each report a string of the form ``HVDC-Feature :'', in a manner that closely mimics T5 task-specific prefix fine-tuning.
41
+
42
+ After this procedure to the original dataset (\~1.8K) we obtain approximately 6.6K items. %For this work, we focused on six HVDC features, namely Characters,
43
+ Activities, Emotion, Friendliness, Misfortune, and Good Fortune. We did so to exclude features that amounted to less than 10\% of the total instance. Indeed,
44
+ this would have excluded Good Fortune (see Figure \ref{fig:train_set_prefix_dist}). We include either way the feature to control for
45
+ memorisation and counterbalance the Misfortune feature.
46
+ In the present study, we focused on a subset of six HVDC features: Characters, Activities, Emotion, Friendliness, Misfortune, and Good Fortune.
47
+ This selection was made to exclude features that represented less than 10\% of the total instances. Notably, Good Fortune would have been excluded under this
48
+ criterion (refer to Figure \ref{fig:train_set_prefix_dist}), but we intentionally retained this feature to control against potential
49
+ memorisation effects and to provide a counterbalance to the Misfortune feature. After filtering out instances whose annotation
50
+ feature is not one of the six selected features, we are left with \~5.3K %5389
51
+ dream reports. We then generate a random split of 80\%-20\% for the training (i.e., 4,311 reports) and testing (i.e. 1,078 reports) sets.
52
+
53
+ ### Training
54
+
55
+ #### Hyperparameters
56
 
57
  The following hyperparameters were used during training:
58
  - learning_rate: 0.001
 
66
  - mixed_precision_training: Native AMP
67
  - label_smoothing_factor: 0.1
68
 
69
+ #### Metrics
70
 
71
  | Training Loss | Epoch | Step | Validation Loss | Rouge1 | Rouge2 | Rougel | Rougelsum |
72
  |:-------------:|:-----:|:----:|:---------------:|:------:|:------:|:------:|:---------:|
 
91
  | 2.4518 | 19.0 | 2565 | 2.4362 | 0.7866 | 0.6753 | 0.7635 | 0.7635 |
92
  | 2.4663 | 20.0 | 2700 | 2.4362 | 0.7866 | 0.6744 | 0.7633 | 0.7631 |
93
 
94
+ ### Evaluation
95
+
96
+ We selected the best model via validation loss. The table below reposts overall and feature-specific scores.
97
+
98
+ | Feature | rouge1 | rouge2 | rougeL | rougeLsum |
99
+ |:-------------|---------:|---------:|---------:|------------:|
100
+
101
+
102
+ ### Disclaimer
103
+ Dream reports and their annotation have been used in clinical settings and applied for diagnostic purposes.
104
+ This does not apply in any way to our experimental results and output.
105
+ Our work aims to provide experimental evidence of the feasibility of using PLMs to support humans
106
+ in annotating dream reports for research purposes, as well as detailing their strengths and limitations when approaching such a task.
107
 
108
  ### Framework versions
109