Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Smooth Operators: LLMs Translating Imperfect Hints into Disfluency-Rich Transcripts

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an LLM decoder, given audio embeddings plus imperfect timestamped textual hints, can generate disfluency-annotated transcripts with type and timing in one pass, beating a Whisper-based detector on the VCTK-TTS…

desk verdict The paper's headline claim—LLMs smoothing imperfect text hints—is never actually tested: all inference is audio-only, so Tables 2–4 show a training-time effect, not the advertised behavior. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18510 v1 pith:QWHC4A27 submitted 2025-06-23 cs.SD cs.AIcs.CLeess.AS

Duygu Altinok This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.AIcs.CLeess.AS
keywords speechdisfluencydetectionlargelanguagemodelsLLaMaConformertimestamppredictionrecognitionannotation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a large language model can act as a general transcriptor for disfluent speech: instead of treating disfluency detection as a separate classification or object-detection task, Smooth-LLaMa emits explicit tokens such as [REP] and [PRO] with timestamps directly in the transcript. The input can be audio plus any imperfect textual hint that carries timestamps, such as phoneme or word alignments from an ASR system or a forced aligner. This matters because it points to a single generative model replacing a pipeline of separate detection, classification, and boundary estimation, and because it relaxes the requirement for clean transcripts. On the VCTK-TTS test set the model beats a Whisper-based detector on every reported metric, with disfluency boundary error falling from 23ms to 12ms.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is joint audio-text decoding under a masked-guidance objective. A Conformer encoder (a convolution-augmented transformer for speech) reduces the audio to one 4096-dimensional token per 320ms; the tokenized text is concatenated with these audio tokens, but the cross-entropy loss is computed only on the target transcript tokens, so the textual hints influence the decoder without being required. This lets the same model use clean transcripts, word-level alignments, phoneme-level alignments, or no text at all, while still emitting disfluency tokens and timestamps in a single pass.

What would settle it

Take a naturally disfluent conversational speech dataset with human-annotated disfluency types and boundaries, run the model trained on VCTK-TTS on it, and compare TER, EAcc, CAcc, and Bound Loss against the same Whisper baseline; a large drop from the reported ~99% existence and classification accuracy and 12ms bound loss would invalidate the claim that the method generalizes to real disfluent speech.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LLMs can smooth imperfect inputs into fully disfluency-annotated transcripts. Smooth-LLaMa combines a Conformer audio encoder with a pretrained LLaMa 3 8B decoder; audio is represented as tokens sampled every 320ms, and the textual hints are tokenized and concatenated, with the loss applied only to the generated transcript tokens so the text acts as soft guidance. At inference the textual hints can be dropped, leaving audio-only decoding. The model produces disfluency tokens ([BLOCK], [REP], [MISS], [PRO]) together with timestamps, and the experiments show that any timestamped textual input works, that phoneme-level timestamps give the best boundary precision, that larger LLM capacity is required for the audio-text alignment, and that the approach outperforms the Whisper-based baseline on all metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the VCTK-TTS corpus, whose disfluencies were simulated by scripted edits to phoneme sequences, is a valid stand-in for naturally occurring disfluent speech; if that proxy fails, the reported gains will not transfer to real spontaneous conversation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One generative model can replace separate disfluency detection and timestamping stages, yielding type and duration annotations in a single pass.
  • Imperfect timestamped hints from ASR or aligners are sufficient, so downstream annotation pipelines do not need clean transcripts.
  • Phoneme-level timestamps, not just word-level ones, are needed for fine-grained boundary accuracy; word-level-only hints raise token error by 67% and worsen boundary loss by about 50%.
  • At inference the textual hints can be removed entirely, so the model still works when no aligner or transcript is available.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the reported numbers are measured entirely on TTS-simulated disfluencies, so real spontaneous speech with disfluencies that differ acoustically is likely to produce lower accuracy; the paper does not test this.
  • Inference: the smoothing behavior could generalize to other transcription tasks where weak machine-generated hints such as punctuation, emotion, or code-switch boundaries are available alongside audio, though the paper does not demonstrate this.
  • Inference: the observation of no hallucinations on this test set is tied to the synthetic, short-utterance distribution; out-of-domain or longer audio could reintroduce hallucination and should be checked before deployment.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Smooth-LLaMa, a system that combines a Conformer-based audio encoder with an 8B LLaMa decoder to transcribe speech with explicit disfluency tokens (e.g., [REP], [PRO]) and timestamps. During training the model conditions on both audio embeddings and textual hints of varying quality (clean transcripts, forced alignments, phoneme ASR outputs), while the loss is computed only on transcript tokens. The authors report strong results on the VCTK-TTS synthetic disfluency corpus, outperforming the Whisper-based baseline from [6] on TER, EAcc, CAcc, and Token Distance, and they include ablations on textual input types, LLM size, and timestamp granularity. The central claim is that LLMs can 'smooth' imperfect timestamped hints to produce fully disfluency-annotated transcripts.

Significance. If the central claim were fully demonstrated, this would be a useful contribution: it is one of the first attempts to use an LLM decoder for joint disfluency type and timestamp generation, and the reported ablation suggests that phoneme-level timestamp supervision helps align audio and text. The authors also release code and use a public dataset, which supports reproducibility. However, the paper's advertised operation—translating imperfect textual hints into disfluency-rich transcripts at inference—is not actually evaluated, because all inferences are performed with audio tokens only. As presented, the paper demonstrates a training-time weak-supervision effect, not an inference-time hint-smoothing capability. The significance is therefore substantially reduced until the claimed behavior is directly tested.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4, Inference] The paper states that 'all inferences were performed using audio tokens only,' but the title, abstract, and introduction claim that the model 'smooths' imperfect textual hints (e.g., aligner outputs or phoneme ASR transcripts) to produce disfluency-annotated transcripts. Equation (1) trains the model to condition on the textual prompt p, yet the evaluation never exercises this conditional distribution at test time. This is a load-bearing mismatch: every number in Tables 2–4 measures an audio-only system, so the central capability advertised in the abstract and Section 1 is unsupported. Please report results for inference with textual hints (at least the best-performing hint type) and compare them against audio-only inference, or explicitly reframe the paper's contribution as 'training with imperfect hints improves audio-only disfluency transcription.' Without such a revision, the central claim is not tested.
  2. [Tables 3 and 4, Ablation Study] In Table 3, four different timestamped textual inputs (wav2vec-word, wav2vec-phon, aligned-word, aligned-phon) yield exactly identical values for TER (0.06), EAcc (99.93), CAcc (99.53), and TD (1.26), differing only in BL (15 vs. 12). In Table 4, the two phoneme-based inputs again give identical values (0.04/99.59/99.48/10) and the two word-based inputs give identical values (0.12/97.00/94.00/18). This is implausible unless the textual input has no effect on the model's predictions or the results are rounded to two decimal places, in which case the differences are not meaningful. The paper claims that phoneme-level timestamps are 'crucial' based on these numbers, but no variance, significance testing, or per-utterance analysis is provided. Please report error bars or statistical tests, and clarify why distinct input sources produce identical metrics.
  3. [Section 4, Comparison with Prior Work] The paper claims to establish 'a state-of-the-art solution for disfluency modeling,' but the only baseline is the Whisper Detector from [6]. The same reference [6] also introduces TimeTokens, and [15] introduces YOLO-stutter; neither is compared against. Since these are the most relevant prior end-to-end disfluency detection systems, the SOTA claim is not established by the current comparison. Additionally, the paper does not report the test split details (number of utterances, speakers, or whether the split is speaker-disjoint from training), which makes it impossible to assess generalization. Please add comparisons with the available baselines and describe the data split.
  4. [Section 2 and Conclusion] All experiments use the VCTK-TTS dataset, which simulates disfluencies by editing IPA phoneme sequences in the text domain before TTS synthesis. The conclusion generalizes to 'handling disfluent speech' and 'speech processing tasks' generally, but the paper provides no evidence that the model transfers to naturally occurring disfluencies, which may have different acoustic and prosodic characteristics. This is a limitation that should be stated explicitly in the abstract and conclusion, or the model should be evaluated on a natural disfluency corpus (e.g., a stuttered speech dataset).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, Table 2] The Token Distance (TD) rows for phoneme-level results are marked as not applicable because the model 'only output[s] disfluent phonemes, not the entire transcript.' This explanation is unclear; please specify how phoneme-level TD is defined for the Whisper baseline and why it is not meaningful for the proposed model.
  2. [Section 3.1, wav2vec-words] The generation of word-level sequences from phoneme outputs is described only as 'rule-based heuristics'; please provide more detail on these heuristics, as they directly affect the quality of the textual hint and the reproducibility of the results.
  3. [Section 3.4, Training] The paper reports 100 training epochs and states that 'all epochs were necessary' because the model struggled with timestamps early on, but no early stopping or validation-based model selection is described. Please clarify how the final model was selected and whether this choice affects the reported numbers.
  4. [Section 4.1.1, Paragraph 3] The text says 'without textual inputs (TER: 0.60, BL: 60)' and 'clean transcripts... (TER: 0.25, BL: 35)', but Table 3 reports the 'None' and 'clean-trans' rows with different values (TER 0.45/0.15, BL 45/25 for word-level). Please reconcile the in-text numbers with the tables.
  5. [Throughout] The paper refers to 'Dysfluency' in Table 1 and elsewhere; the standard spelling is 'disfluency' in the speech processing literature. Consider standardizing the spelling.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; audio-only evaluation is a validity gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's training target is the VCTK-TTS ground-truth JSON annotations, and the textual hints are produced by independent aligners (Wav2VecPhoneme, MFA) plus the dataset's clean transcript; the baseline is the external Whisper detector of [6]. Equation (1) is a standard conditional language-model objective, and no reported metric is algebraically identical to a training input or to a fitted parameter. There is no self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The one serious concern is not circularity: Section 3.4 states 'all inferences were performed using audio tokens only,' so Tables 2-4 evaluate only audio-only decoding, while the abstract concludes that LLMs can 'smooth the input' and translate imperfect hints. This is a mismatch between the advertised operation and the evaluated setup, and the ablations show a training-time conditioning effect rather than inference-time smoothing. That gap undermines the central claim's validity, but it does not make the derivation circular, because the reported numbers are not forced by the hints by construction and the results are compared against an external baseline.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim does not rest on fitted constants, but the empirical results depend on several modeling choices: the 320ms audio token stride, LoRA settings, and the disfluency token vocabulary. More importantly, two domain assumptions carry the generalization: VCTK-TTS synthetic disfluencies represent real speech, and the benchmark protocol from [6] transfers directly. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Audio token stride = 320 ms
    Downsampling of 16x plus one extra block sets the decoder audio token cadence; a design choice that affects timestamp granularity.
  • LoRA rank = 16
    Rank for LoRA adaptation of attention layers; chosen for memory and performance, not fitted scientifically.
  • LoRA scaling factor = 32
    Scaling factor for LoRA updates; selected during tuning.
  • Learning rates and epochs = 2e-5 and 2e-4, 100 epochs
    Optimization schedule; the paper notes all 100 epochs were needed for timestamp generation.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption VCTK-TTS synthetic simulated disfluencies are representative of real disfluent speech.
    All training and evaluation use this simulated corpus; the paper generalizes to speech and language technologies without testing on natural disfluencies. Section 2 and Section 5.
  • domain assumption The benchmark protocol from [6], including TER/EAcc/CAcc/BL/TD and the WhisperD baseline numbers, is directly applicable and comparable.
    The paper adopts metrics from [6] and compares to tabulated WhisperD numbers without describing the test split or reproducing the baseline. Section 3.3, Table 2.
  • domain assumption Masking textual tokens from the loss prevents target leakage, so the text hint does not carry the answer.
    The loss in Eq. 1 is computed only over transcript tokens, but the paper does not empirically verify that removing text at inference preserves identical behavior; the 'None' ablation shows a large drop. Section 3.2, Tables 3 and 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Smooth Operators: LLMs Translating Imperfect Hints into Disfluency-Rich Transcripts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QWHC4A27

@misc{pith2026250618510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Smooth Operators: LLMs Translating Imperfect Hints into Disfluency-Rich Transcripts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QWHC4A27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18510}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate detection of disfluencies in spoken language is crucial for enhancing the performance of automatic speech and language processing systems, as well as fostering the development of more inclusive speech and language technologies. Leveraging the growing trend of large language models (LLMs) as versatile learners capable of processing both lexical and non-lexical inputs (e.g., audio and video), we propose a novel approach to transcribing disfluencies as explicit tokens with timestamps, enabling the generation of fully annotated disfluency-rich transcripts. Our method integrates acoustic representations extracted from an audio encoder with textual inputs of varying quality: clean transcriptions without disfluencies, time-aligned transcriptions from aligners, or outputs from phoneme-based ASR models -- all of which may contain imperfections. Importantly, our experiments demonstrate that textual inputs do not need to be flawless. As long as they include timestamp-related cues, LLMs can effectively smooth the input and produce fully disfluency-annotated transcripts, underscoring their robustness in handling imperfect hints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18510 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Different types of textual data preparation are on the left, and the ground truth preparation process is on the right. 3.3. Evaluation Metrics We adopted metrics from [6] to enable direct comparison with prior work. These metrics evaluate both timing accuracy and disfluency type detection. Token Error Rate (TER) measures transcription accuracy by calculating the percentage of substitutions, deletions, and in￾sertion… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Time and tokens: Benchmarking end- to-end speech dysfluency detection,

    X. Zhou, J. Lian, C. J. Cho, J. Liu, Z. Ye, J. Zhang, B. Morin, D. Baquirin, J. V onk, Z. Ezzes, Z. Miller, M. L. G. Tempini, and G. Anumanchipalli, “Time and tokens: Benchmarking end- to-end speech dysfluency detection,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.13582

    arXiv 2024

  2. [15]

    Large language models for dysfluency detection in stuttered speech,

    D. Wagner, S. P. Bayerl, I. Baumann, E. Noeth, K. Riedhammer, and T. Bocklet, “Large language models for dysfluency detection in stuttered speech,” in Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 5118–5122

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Smooth Operators: LLMs Translating Imperfect Hints into Disfluency-Rich Transcripts

    Introduction Recent advancements in automatic speech recognition (ASR) [1, 2, 3] have achieved human parity in high-resource lan- guages. However, speech involves more than words—it in- cludes phonemes, prosody, and non-word cues like disfluencies, which are crucial for understanding intent. Disfluencies, such as repetitions, hesitations, and replacements...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  4. [2]

    Base sentences were converted into IPA phoneme se- quences, and TTS rules were applied to edit phonemes and sim- ulate disfluencies

    Dataset In our work, we used the VCTK-TTS [15] dataset, which was created using a pipeline that simulates disfluencies in the text domain. Base sentences were converted into IPA phoneme se- quences, and TTS rules were applied to edit phonemes and sim- ulate disfluencies. The dataset includes annotations for both word-level and phoneme-level disfluencies. ...

    work page

  5. [3]

    Preparing Textual Data Preparing the Textual Input: To prompt the LLM effectively, we prepared various types of textual input

    Method 3.1. Preparing Textual Data Preparing the Textual Input: To prompt the LLM effectively, we prepared various types of textual input. Below are the for- mats used in our experiments: • wav2vec-phonemes: To simulate scenarios without a clean transcript, we fed the audio data into a Wav2VecPhoneme model trained with CTC. This model outputs IPA phonemes...

    work page

  6. [4]

    Table 2 summarizes the perfor- mance of our model against this baseline

    Results and Discussion We evaluated our approach using the dataset from [6], enabling direct comparison with their Whisper-based approach, referred to as the Whisper Detector. Table 2 summarizes the perfor- mance of our model against this baseline. Our approach outperforms the Whisper-based method across all metrics, with particularly significant improvem...

    work page

  7. [5]

    Smooth- LLaMa leverages contextual understanding to refine noisy data, achieving precise outputs even with imperfect textual inputs, such as word- or phoneme-level alignments

    Conclusion This work demonstrates how large language models (LLMs) can smooth and integrate imperfect audio and textual inputs for disfluency transcription and timestamp generation. Smooth- LLaMa leverages contextual understanding to refine noisy data, achieving precise outputs even with imperfect textual inputs, such as word- or phoneme-level alignments....

    work page

  8. [7]

    Reverb: Open-source asr and diarization from rev,

    N. Bhandari, D. Chen, M. ´Angel del R´ıo Fern´andez, N. Delworth, J. D. Fox, M. Jett ´e, Q. McNamara, C. Miller, O. Novotn ´y, J. Profant, N. Qin, M. Ratajczak, and J.-P. Robichaud, “Reverb: Open-source asr and diarization from rev,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03930

    arXiv 2025

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, T. Xu, G. Brockman, C. Mcleavey, and I. Sutskever, “Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision,” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, A. Krause, E. Brunsk...

    2023

  2. [9]

    Less is more: Accu- rate speech recognition & translation without web-scale data,

    K. C. Puvvada, P. ˙Zelasko, H. Huang, O. Hrinchuk, N. R. Koluguri, K. Dhawan, S. Majumdar, E. Rastorgueva, Z. Chen, V . Lavrukhin, J. Balam, and B. Ginsburg, “Less is more: Accu- rate speech recognition & translation without web-scale data,” in Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 3964–3968

    2024

  3. [10]

    Unconstrained dysfluency modeling for dysfluent speech transcription and de- tection,

    J. Lian, C. Feng, N. Farooqi, S. Li, A. Kashyap, C. J. Cho, P. Wu, R. Netzorg, T. Li, and G. K. Anumanchipalli, “Unconstrained dysfluency modeling for dysfluent speech transcription and de- tection,” in 2023 IEEE Automatic Speech Recognition and Under- standing Workshop (ASRU)...

    2023

  4. [11]

    Towards hierarchical spoken language disfluency modeling,

    J. Lian and G. Anumanchipalli, “Towards hierarchical spoken language disfluency modeling,” in Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , Y . Graham and M. Purver, Eds. St. Julian’s, Malt...

    2024

  5. [12]

    Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recognition,

    A. Gulati, J. Qin, C.-C. Chiu, N. Parmar, Y . Zhang, J. Yu, W. Han, S. Wang, Z. Zhang, Y . Wu, and R. Pang, “Conformer: Convolution-augmented transformer for speech recognition,” in Interspeech 2020, 2020, pp. 5036–5040

    2020

  6. [13]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    O. et al., “Gpt-4 technical report,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozi `ere, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar, A. Rodriguez, A. Joulin, E. Grave, and G. Lample, “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,

    A. Baevski, Y . Zhou, A. Mohamed, and M. Auli, “wav2vec 2.0: A framework for self-supervised learning of speech representations,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, and H. Lin, Eds., vol. 33. Curran Associate...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Crisperwhisper: Accurate timestamps on verbatim speech transcriptions,

    L. Wagner, B. Thallinger, and M. Zusag, “Crisperwhisper: Accurate timestamps on verbatim speech transcriptions,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.16589

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Lib- rispeech: An asr corpus based on public domain audio books,

    V . Panayotov, G. Chen, D. Povey, and S. Khudanpur, “Lib- rispeech: An asr corpus based on public domain audio books,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2015, pp. 5206–5210

    2015

  11. [19]

    Simple and effective zero-shot cross-lingual phoneme recognition,

    Q. Xu, A. Baevski, and M. Auli, “Simple and effective zero-shot cross-lingual phoneme recognition,” in Interspeech 2022, 2022, pp. 2113–2117

    2022

  12. [20]

    Montreal forced aligner: Trainable text-speech align- ment using kaldi,

    M. McAuliffe, M. Socolof, S. Mihuc, M. Wagner, and M. Son- deregger, “Montreal forced aligner: Trainable text-speech align- ment using kaldi,” in Proceedings of Interspeech 2017, 2017, pp. 498–502

    2017

  13. [21]

    Yolo-stutter: End-to-end region-wise speech dys- fluency detection,

    X. Zhou, A. Kashyap, S. Li, A. Sharma, B. Morin, D. Baquirin, J. V onk, Z. Ezzes, Z. Miller, M. Tempini, J. Lian, and G. Anu- manchipalli, “Yolo-stutter: End-to-end region-wise speech dys- fluency detection,” in Interspeech 2024, 2024, pp. 937–941

    2024

  14. [22]

    Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding,

    J. Su, Y . Lu, S. Pan, A. Murtadha, B. Wen, and Y . Liu, “Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.09864

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    All epochs were necessary, as LLaMa struggled to generate timestamps early on

    (learning rate = 2e − 4, weight decay = 0.01). All epochs were necessary, as LLaMa struggled to generate timestamps early on. Inference: During training, both textual and audio tokens were used; however, all inferences were performed using audio to- kens only. All experiments ...

  16. [24]

    You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 779–788

    2016

  17. [25]

    Huggingface’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing,

    T. Wolf, L. Debut, V . Sanh, J. Chaumond, C. Delangue, A. Moi, P. Cistac, T. Rault, R. Louf, M. Funtowicz, J. Davison, S. Shleifer, P. von Platen, C. Ma, Y . Jernite, J. Plu, C. Xu, T. L. Scao, S. Gugger, M. Drame, Q. Lhoest, and A. M. Rush, “Huggingface’s transformers: State-...

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms,

    T. Dettmers, A. Pagnoni, A. Holtzman, and L. Zettlemoyer, “Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine, Eds., vol. 36. Curran Associates, Inc., 2023, ...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Using bfloat16 with tensorflow models,

    G. Cloud, “Using bfloat16 with tensorflow models,” 2025, accessed: 2025-01-16. [Online]. Available: https://cloud.google.c om/tpu/docs/bfloat16

    2025

  20. [28]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, Y . Shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,” in The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022 . OpenReview.net, 2022. [Onl...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Decoupled weight decay regulariza- tion,

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter, “Decoupled weight decay regulariza- tion,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.