llama-cpp-python: Support for logprobs.
#1039
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jjallaire
approved these changes
Dec 24, 2024
|
Thank you for revieiwng and merging 🙌 And Merry Christmas :) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR contains:
What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
Documentation indicates llama-cpp-python does not support logprobs. We did this because at the time it returned logpobs in the wrong format which broke things.
See previous discussion with jjallaire in #666 (review).
What is the new behavior?
Update the documentation to state that llama-cpp-python supports logprobs.
This is correct, now that abetlen/llama-cpp-python#1788 has been merged and released in llama-cpp-python 0.3.5.
NB: No 'real' code changes are needed, as I already set it up for logprobs previously. Now that llama-cpp-python returns them correctly when set, it's just a docs changed needed effectively.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)
No