Constrained sampling with DFA

[joelpaulkoch]

WIP PR, including pair programming script.

[joelpaulkoch]

benchee benchmarks

it looks to me like it's not skipping when the token is unambiguous, so there might still be something off

Compiling 1 file (.ex)
Generated bumblebee app
Operating System: macOS
CPU Information: Apple M2 Max
Number of Available Cores: 12
Available memory: 96 GB
Elixir 1.18.3
Erlang 27.3
JIT enabled: true

Benchmark suite executing with the following configuration:
warmup: 2 s
time: 30 s
memory time: 2 s
reduction time: 0 ns
parallel: 1
inputs: none specified
Estimated total run time: 2 min 16 s

Benchmarking dfa: max_new_tokens = 64 ...
Benchmarking dfa: max_new_tokens = 8 ...
Benchmarking no dfa: max_new_tokens = 64 ...
Benchmarking no dfa: max_new_tokens = 8 ...
Calculating statistics...
Formatting results...

Name                                  ips        average  deviation         median         99th %
no dfa: max_new_tokens = 8           2.18         0.46 s     ±3.33%         0.46 s         0.52 s
no dfa: max_new_tokens = 64          0.43         2.33 s    ±43.37%         2.72 s         3.26 s
dfa: max_new_tokens = 8             0.119         8.42 s     ±2.29%         8.37 s         8.68 s
dfa: max_new_tokens = 64           0.0166        60.06 s     ±0.00%        60.06 s        60.06 s

Comparison:
no dfa: max_new_tokens = 8           2.18
no dfa: max_new_tokens = 64          0.43 - 5.09x slower +1.88 s
dfa: max_new_tokens = 8             0.119 - 18.34x slower +7.96 s
dfa: max_new_tokens = 64           0.0166 - 130.82x slower +59.61 s

Memory usage statistics:

Name                                average  deviation         median         99th %
no dfa: max_new_tokens = 8        0.0984 GB     ±0.03%      0.0984 GB      0.0984 GB
no dfa: max_new_tokens = 64         0.24 GB    ±98.72%       0.115 GB        0.51 GB
dfa: max_new_tokens = 8             6.16 GB     ±0.00%        6.16 GB        6.16 GB
dfa: max_new_tokens = 64           10.31 GB     ±0.00%       10.31 GB       10.31 GB

Comparison:
no dfa: max_new_tokens = 8        0.0984 GB
no dfa: max_new_tokens = 64         0.24 GB - 2.42x memory usage +0.140 GB
dfa: max_new_tokens = 8             6.16 GB - 62.56x memory usage +6.06 GB
dfa: max_new_tokens = 64           10.31 GB - 104.75x memory usage +10.21 GB

[joelpaulkoch]

NOTE: branch with benchmark.exs script is here: https://github.com/bitcrowd/bumblebee/tree/task/benchmarking
New benchmarks:

Stateful: we set the current state and can retrieve it in the next sampling step
Stateless: we can't set the state, so we check if the token is ambiguous and if so we replay the complete sequence to find our current state.

Operating System: macOS
CPU Information: Apple M2 Max
Number of Available Cores: 12
Available memory: 96 GB
Elixir 1.18.3
Erlang 27.3
JIT enabled: true

Benchmark suite executing with the following configuration:
warmup: 2 s
time: 1 min
memory time: 0 ns
reduction time: 0 ns
parallel: 1
inputs: max_new_tokens: 64, max_new_tokens: 8
Estimated total run time: 18 min 36 s

Benchmarking Regular Sampling, EMLX with input max_new_tokens: 64 ...
Benchmarking Regular Sampling, EMLX with input max_new_tokens: 8 ...
Benchmarking Regular Sampling, EXLA with Compiler with input max_new_tokens: 64 ...
Benchmarking Regular Sampling, EXLA with Compiler with input max_new_tokens: 8 ...
Benchmarking Regular Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator with input max_new_tokens: 64 ...
Benchmarking Regular Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator with input max_new_tokens: 8 ...
Benchmarking Stateful Constrained Sampling, EMLX with input max_new_tokens: 64 ...
Benchmarking Stateful Constrained Sampling, EMLX with input max_new_tokens: 8 ...
Benchmarking Stateful Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Compiler with input max_new_tokens: 64 ...
Benchmarking Stateful Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Compiler with input max_new_tokens: 8 ...
Benchmarking Stateful Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator with input max_new_tokens: 64 ...
Benchmarking Stateful Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator with input max_new_tokens: 8 ...
Benchmarking Stateless Constrained Sampling, EMLX with input max_new_tokens: 64 ...
Benchmarking Stateless Constrained Sampling, EMLX with input max_new_tokens: 8 ...
Benchmarking Stateless Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Compiler with input max_new_tokens: 64 ...
Benchmarking Stateless Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Compiler with input max_new_tokens: 8 ...
Benchmarking Stateless Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator with input max_new_tokens: 64 ...
Benchmarking Stateless Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator with input max_new_tokens: 8 ...
Calculating statistics...
Formatting results...

##### With input max_new_tokens: 64 #####
Name                                                          ips        average  deviation         median         99th %
Regular Sampling, EXLA with Compiler                         0.39         2.55 s     ±0.84%         2.55 s         2.61 s
Stateful Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Compiler            0.34         2.97 s     ±0.50%         2.97 s         3.01 s
Stateless Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Compiler           0.33         3.05 s     ±1.13%         3.05 s         3.12 s
Regular Sampling, EMLX                                       0.26         3.82 s     ±1.39%         3.80 s         3.97 s
Regular Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator                      0.0651        15.36 s     ±0.26%        15.36 s        15.40 s
Stateful Constrained Sampling, EMLX                        0.0175        57.07 s     ±0.26%        57.07 s        57.17 s
Stateless Constrained Sampling, EMLX                       0.0161        62.10 s     ±5.54%        62.10 s        64.53 s
Stateless Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator       0.00195       512.18 s     ±0.00%       512.18 s       512.18 s
Stateful Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator        0.00191       524.26 s     ±0.00%       524.26 s       524.26 s

Comparison: 
Regular Sampling, EXLA with Compiler                         0.39
Stateful Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Compiler            0.34 - 1.17x slower +0.42 s
Stateless Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Compiler           0.33 - 1.19x slower +0.50 s
Regular Sampling, EMLX                                       0.26 - 1.50x slower +1.27 s
Regular Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator                      0.0651 - 6.02x slower +12.81 s
Stateful Constrained Sampling, EMLX                        0.0175 - 22.38x slower +54.52 s
Stateless Constrained Sampling, EMLX                       0.0161 - 24.35x slower +59.55 s
Stateless Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator       0.00195 - 200.84x slower +509.63 s
Stateful Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator        0.00191 - 205.57x slower +521.71 s

##### With input max_new_tokens: 8 #####
Name                                                          ips        average  deviation         median         99th %
Regular Sampling, EXLA with Compiler                         1.65      606.45 ms     ±2.92%      607.87 ms      647.76 ms
Stateful Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Compiler            1.45      688.57 ms     ±3.22%      686.92 ms      779.55 ms
Stateless Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Compiler           1.41      707.04 ms     ±3.17%      705.90 ms      784.08 ms
Regular Sampling, EMLX                                       1.22      822.46 ms     ±1.91%      818.97 ms      885.29 ms
Regular Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator                        0.33     3039.25 ms     ±0.97%     3037.99 ms     3083.03 ms
Stateful Constrained Sampling, EMLX                         0.117     8571.16 ms     ±4.66%     8485.44 ms     9428.34 ms
Stateless Constrained Sampling, EMLX                        0.103     9730.53 ms     ±2.25%     9822.82 ms     9999.25 ms
Stateless Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator        0.0148    67775.81 ms     ±0.00%    67775.81 ms    67775.81 ms
Stateful Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator         0.0147    68181.27 ms     ±0.00%    68181.27 ms    68181.27 ms

Comparison: 
Regular Sampling, EXLA with Compiler                         1.65
Stateful Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Compiler            1.45 - 1.14x slower +82.13 ms
Stateless Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Compiler           1.41 - 1.17x slower +100.60 ms
Regular Sampling, EMLX                                       1.22 - 1.36x slower +216.02 ms
Regular Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator                        0.33 - 5.01x slower +2432.81 ms
Stateful Constrained Sampling, EMLX                         0.117 - 14.13x slower +7964.72 ms
Stateless Constrained Sampling, EMLX                        0.103 - 16.05x slower +9124.08 ms
Stateless Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator        0.0148 - 111.76x slower +67169.36 ms
Stateful Constrained Sampling, EXLA with Evaluator         0.0147 - 112.43x slower +67574.82 ms

[joelpaulkoch]

also closing this, the updated version is here #6