<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Parameter-Efficient-Fine-Tuning on Omanshu Thapliyal</title><link>https://omanshuthapliyal.github.io/tags/parameter-efficient-fine-tuning/</link><description>Recent content in Parameter-Efficient-Fine-Tuning on Omanshu Thapliyal</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><atom:link href="https://omanshuthapliyal.github.io/tags/parameter-efficient-fine-tuning/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Provable Safety and Efficient Memory for Language Models</title><link>https://omanshuthapliyal.github.io/projects/provable-safety-and-efficient-memory-for-language-models/</link><pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://omanshuthapliyal.github.io/projects/provable-safety-and-efficient-memory-for-language-models/</guid><description>&lt;h2 id="problem">Problem&lt;/h2>
&lt;p>Putting language models into safety-critical operations raises questions that
accuracy benchmarks do not answer. If a safety filter says a prompt is safe,
will it still say so when the prompt is changed slightly? When a model is
adapted to a new task, what has the added component learned to remember, and
can that be bounded?&lt;/p>
&lt;p>Both are questions about dynamics. State space models (SSMs), the recurrent
architecture behind Mamba and S4, are dynamical systems, so the tools used to
certify controllers apply to them directly: reachability, contraction and
model reduction. This project uses those tools to build language-model
components whose behavior can be checked, not just measured.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>