Towards Semantic Versioning of Open Pre-trained Language Model Releases on Hugging Face

Adekunle Ajibode, Abdul Ali Bangash, Filipe Roseiro Cogo, Bram Adams, Ahmed E. Hassan
{"title":"Towards Semantic Versioning of Open Pre-trained Language Model Releases on Hugging Face","authors":"Adekunle Ajibode, Abdul Ali Bangash, Filipe Roseiro Cogo, Bram Adams, Ahmed E. Hassan","doi":"arxiv-2409.10472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The proliferation of open Pre-trained Language Models (PTLMs) on model\nregistry platforms like Hugging Face (HF) presents both opportunities and\nchallenges for companies building products around them. Similar to traditional\nsoftware dependencies, PTLMs continue to evolve after a release. However, the\ncurrent state of release practices of PTLMs on model registry platforms are\nplagued by a variety of inconsistencies, such as ambiguous naming conventions\nand inaccessible model training documentation. Given the knowledge gap on\ncurrent PTLM release practices, our empirical study uses a mixed-methods\napproach to analyze the releases of 52,227 PTLMs on the most well-known model\nregistry, HF. Our results reveal 148 different naming practices for PTLM\nreleases, with 40.87% of changes to model weight files not represented in the\nadopted name-based versioning practice or their documentation. In addition, we\nidentified that the 52,227 PTLMs are derived from only 299 different base\nmodels (the modified original models used to create 52,227 PTLMs), with\nFine-tuning and Quantization being the most prevalent modification methods\napplied to these base models. Significant gaps in release transparency, in\nterms of training dataset specifications and model card availability, still\nexist, highlighting the need for standardized documentation. While we\nidentified a model naming practice explicitly differentiating between major and\nminor PTLM releases, we did not find any significant difference in the types of\nchanges that went into either type of releases, suggesting that major/minor\nversion numbers for PTLMs often are chosen arbitrarily. Our findings provide\nvaluable insights to improve PTLM release practices, nudging the field towards\nmore formal semantic versioning practices.","PeriodicalId":501278,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - CS - Software Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - CS - Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.10472","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The proliferation of open Pre-trained Language Models (PTLMs) on model registry platforms like Hugging Face (HF) presents both opportunities and challenges for companies building products around them. Similar to traditional software dependencies, PTLMs continue to evolve after a release. However, the current state of release practices of PTLMs on model registry platforms are plagued by a variety of inconsistencies, such as ambiguous naming conventions and inaccessible model training documentation. Given the knowledge gap on current PTLM release practices, our empirical study uses a mixed-methods approach to analyze the releases of 52,227 PTLMs on the most well-known model registry, HF. Our results reveal 148 different naming practices for PTLM releases, with 40.87% of changes to model weight files not represented in the adopted name-based versioning practice or their documentation. In addition, we identified that the 52,227 PTLMs are derived from only 299 different base models (the modified original models used to create 52,227 PTLMs), with Fine-tuning and Quantization being the most prevalent modification methods applied to these base models. Significant gaps in release transparency, in terms of training dataset specifications and model card availability, still exist, highlighting the need for standardized documentation. While we identified a model naming practice explicitly differentiating between major and minor PTLM releases, we did not find any significant difference in the types of changes that went into either type of releases, suggesting that major/minor version numbers for PTLMs often are chosen arbitrarily. Our findings provide valuable insights to improve PTLM release practices, nudging the field towards more formal semantic versioning practices.
基于拥抱表情的开放式预训练语言模型的语义版本发布
Hugging Face(HF)等模型注册平台上的开放式预训练语言模型(PTLM)的激增,为围绕这些模型开发产品的公司带来了机遇和挑战。与传统的软件依赖关系类似,PTLM 在发布后也会继续发展。然而,目前模型注册平台上 PTLM 的发布实践却存在各种不一致,例如命名规则不明确和模型培训文档难以获取。鉴于当前 PTLM 发布实践方面的知识空白,我们的实证研究采用混合方法分析了最著名的模型注册平台 HF 上 52,227 个 PTLM 的发布情况。我们的研究结果表明,在 PTLM 的发布过程中,有 148 种不同的命名方法,其中 40.87% 的模型权重文件变更没有体现在所采用的基于名称的版本控制方法或其文档中。此外,我们还发现 52 227 个 PTLM 仅来自 299 个不同的基础模型(用于创建 52 227 个 PTLM 的修改过的原始模型),微调和量化是应用于这些基础模型的最普遍的修改方法。在训练数据集规格和模型卡可用性方面,发布透明度仍存在很大差距,这突出表明了标准化文档的必要性。虽然我们发现了一种明确区分 PTLM 主版本和次版本的模型命名方法,但我们并没有发现这两种版本的修改类型有任何显著差异,这表明 PTLM 的主/次版本号往往是随意选择的。我们的发现为改进 PTLM 的发布实践提供了宝贵的见解,推动了该领域向更正式的语义版本实践迈进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信