Guide-yakabatana mibvunzo · Pakati Nhanho
Kuramba Sampling Fine-Tuning Quiz
Inovhara chizvarwa chemumiriri uye kusefa, mibairo-yakavakirwa-yeverifier, inotariswa kudzidzisazve, uye njodzi kubva mukugonesa ane akakanganisa.
Mubvunzo 1 ye 8
Which loop best describes how Rejection Sampling Fine-Tuning improves a model?
Tarisa mubvunzo wese8 mibvunzo
Mhinduro uye tsananguro zvinoonekwa paunenge uchitora bvunzo.
- Which loop best describes how Rejection Sampling Fine-Tuning improves a model?
- Gadzira mhinduro dzakawanda dzemumiriri, chengeta dzakanyanya-zvibodzwa, uye dzokorora pazviri
- Dzima yakaipisisa-inoita modhi layers
- Ramba data rese rekudzidziswa uye tanga patsva
- Sample kamwe uye gara uchigamuchira zvakabuda
- Munzvimbo dzinotariswa semasvomhu kana kodhi, chii chinogona kushanda semubairo?
- A akadzidza mubairo modhi chete
- Kuti mhinduro ndeyechokwadi here kana kuti bvunzo dzakapasa
- Hurefu hwemhinduro
- Nhamba yezviratidzo zvakagadzirwa
- Which model family does the cited paper describe using rejection sampling in its alignment pipeline?
- GPT-4o
- BERT Base
- Meta’s Llama 2-Chat
- Whisper Large
- Why might a team choose rejection-sampling fine-tuning over a policy-gradient approach for some tasks?
- It never needs a candidate generator or scoring rule
- It guarantees no reward hacking
- It always requires less compute than every RL method
- It can use supervised learning on selected generations instead of updating through policy-gradient RL
- Kudzidzira pane yakanyanya-mubayiro samples zvinobudirira kunoita chii?
- Distills yakanakisa-ye-N mhando mune imwe modhi-yemuenzaniso zvinobuda
- Inowedzera saizi yemazwi
- Inobvisa kugona kwemuenzaniso kugadzira zvinyorwa
- Inopeta kaviri parameter kuverenga
- What should teams monitor when repeatedly fine-tuning on filtered model-generated outputs?
- Only the number of model parameters
- Output diversity alongside held-out correctness
- Whether every answer uses the same wording
- Only the training loss on selected samples
- What is a limitation of rejection-sampling fine-tuning’s candidate selection?
- It can only be used with image labels
- It always changes the tokenizer
- It cannot train on a high-quality answer that was never generated or retained
- It makes the scoring function unnecessary
- What risk arises if the scoring model used to filter candidates is flawed?
- The policy becomes unable to generate any text
- The tokenizer automatically changes vocabulary
- The reference labels become unnecessary
- The policy may learn to exploit the scorer rather than improve the intended quality