| | --- |
| | tags: |
| | - deberta-v3 |
| | inference: |
| | parameters: |
| | function_to_apply: "none" |
| | widget: |
| | - text: "I cuddled with my dog today." |
| | --- |
| | |
| | # Conditional Utilitarian Deberta 01 |
| |
|
| | ## Model description |
| |
|
| | This is a [Deberta-based](https://huggingface.co/microsoft/deberta-v3-large) model. It was first fine-tuned on for computing utility estimates of experiences (see [utilitarian-deberta-01](https://huggingface.co/pfr/utilitarian-deberta-01). It was then further fine-tuned on 160 examples of pairwise comparisons of conditional utilities. |
| |
|
| | ## Intended use |
| |
|
| | The main use case is the computation of utility estimates of first-person text scenarios, under extra contextual information. |
| |
|
| | ## Limitations |
| |
|
| | The model was fine-tuned on only 160 examples, so it should be expected to have limited performance. |
| |
|
| | Further, while the base model was trained on ~10000 examples, they are still restricted, and only on first-person sentences. It does not have the capability of interpreting highly complex or unusual scenarios, and it does not have hard guarantees on its domain of accuracy. |
| |
|
| | ## How to use |
| |
|
| | Given a scenario S under a context C, and the model U, one computes the estimated conditional utility with `U(f'{C} {S}') - U(C)`. |
| |
|
| | ## Training data |
| |
|
| | The first training data is the train split from the Utilitarianism part of the [ETHICS dataset](https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02275). |
| |
|
| | The second training data consists of 160 crowdsourced examples of triples (S, C0, C1) consisting of one scenario and two possible contexts, where `U(S | C0) > U(S | C1)`. |
| |
|
| | ## Training procedure |
| |
|
| | Starting from [utilitarian-deberta-01](https://huggingface.co/pfr/utilitarian-deberta-01), we fine-tune the model over the training data of 160 examples, with a learning rate of `1e-5`, a batch size of `8`, and for 2 epochs. |
| |
|
| | ## Evaluation results |
| |
|
| | The model achieves ~80% accuracy over 40 crowdsourced examples, from the same distribution as the training data. |