a98187cf72
Previously FP8 static scaling works if the scales are overestimating the maxima of all activation tensors during computation. However this will not always be the case even if the scales were calibrated very carefully. For example, with the activations in my checkpoint https://huggingface.co/pcmoritz/Mixtral-8x7B-v0.1-fp8-act-scale (which was calibrated on https://huggingface.co/datasets/HuggingFaceH4/ultrachat_200k), I'm getting the following mostly random performance on MMLU: | Groups |Version|Filter|n-shot|Metric|Value | |Stderr| |------------------|-------|------|-----:|------|-----:|---|-----:| |mmlu |N/A |none | 0|acc |0.2295|± |0.0035| | - humanities |N/A |none | 5|acc |0.2421|± |0.0062| | - other |N/A |none | 5|acc |0.2398|± |0.0076| | - social_sciences|N/A |none | 5|acc |0.2171|± |0.0074| | - stem |N/A |none | 5|acc |0.2125|± |0.0073| With the fix in this PR where the scaled activations are clamped between [-std::numeric_limits<c10::Float8_e4m3fn>::max(), std::numeric_limits<c10::Float8_e4m3fn>::max()] to make sure there are no NaNs, the performance is | Groups |Version|Filter|n-shot|Metric|Value | |Stderr| |------------------|-------|------|-----:|------|-----:|---|-----:| |mmlu |N/A |none | 0|acc |0.7008|± |0.0036| | - humanities |N/A |none | 5|acc |0.6453|± |0.0065| | - other |N/A |none | 5|acc |0.7692|± |0.0072| | - social_sciences|N/A |none | 5|acc |0.8083|± |0.0070| | - stem |N/A |none | 5|acc |0.6115|± |0.0083| This is not perfect yet but is getting very close to the FP16 / dynamic activation scale performance. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| aqlm | ||
| awq | ||
| fp8 | ||
| fp8_e5m2_kvcache | ||
| gptq | ||
| gptq_marlin | ||
| marlin | ||
| squeezellm | ||