Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
265 lines (192 loc) · 9.06 KB

README.md

File metadata and controls

265 lines (192 loc) · 9.06 KB
Raw

EvalPlus(📖) => 📚

🔥Quick Start • 💻LLM code • 📜Papers • 🔨Tools • 🙏Acknowledgement

Warning

🚨 Evaluating LLM-generated code over datasets with "3 test-cases" is **NOT** enough! 🚨

To address this, we started the EvalPlus project -- a rigourous evaluation framework for LLM4Code that:

  • ✨ improves code benchmarks by adding up to thousands of new tests! (81x new tests for HumanEval!)
  • ✨ crafts a set utility tools to sanitize, visualize and inspect LLM-generated code and evaluation results!
  • ✨ accelerates LLM4Code research by open-sourcing LLM-generated samples for 14+ models -- no need to re-run the expensive benchmarks!

🔥 Quick Start

To get started, please first setup the environment:

pip install evalplus --upgrade

...Or you can try out the latest developing version:

pip install "git+https://github.com/evalplus/evalplus.git" --upgrade
🤔 Want to use local GitHub repo? :: click to expand :: 
git clone https://github.com/evalplus/evalplus.git
cd evalplus
export PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:$(pwd)
pip install -r requirements.txt

HumanEval+

Generate Code Samples

The usage is just like the original HumanEval where you just need to implement the generate_one_completion function!

from evalplus.data import get_human_eval_plus, write_jsonl

problems = get_human_eval_plus()

num_samples_per_task = 200
samples = [
    dict(task_id=task_id, completion=generate_one_completion(problems[task_id]["prompt"]))
    for task_id in problems
    for _ in range(num_samples_per_task)
]
write_jsonl("samples.jsonl", samples)
🤔 What is in a `problem`? :: click to expand ::
  • task_id is the identifier string for the task
  • entry_point is name of the function
  • prompt is the function signature with docstring
  • canonical_solution is the ground-truth implementation (re-implemented to fix bugs in HumanEval)
  • base_input is the test inputs in original HumanEval
  • plus_input is the test inputs brought by EvalPlus

Evaluate Code Samples with HumanEval+

You are strongly recommended to use a sandbox such as docker:

docker run -v $(pwd):/app ganler/evalplus:latest --dataset humaneval --samples samples.jsonl

...Or if you want to try it locally regardless of the risks ⚠️:

evalplus.evaluate --dataset humaneval --samples samples.jsonl

  • [!Warning] Do you use a very slow machine?

    LLM solutions are regarded as failed on timeout (and OOM etc.). Specifically, we set the timeout $T=\max(T_{base}, T_{gt}\times k)$, where:

    • $T_{base}$ is the minimal timeout (configurable by --min-time-limit; default to 0.2s);
    • $T_{gt}$ is the runtime of the ground-truth solutions (achieved via profiling);
    • $k$ is a configurable factor --gt-time-limit-factor (default to 4);

    If your machine is too slow and you are getting high-variance results, try to use larger $k$ and $T_{base}$.

    Additionally, you are NOT encouraged to make your test-bed over stressed while running evaluation. For example, using --parallel 64 on a 4-core machine or doing something else during evaluation are bad ideas...

🤔 Evaluate with local GitHub repo? :: click to expand :: 
export PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:$(pwd)
python evalplus/evaluate.py --dataset humaneval --samples samples.jsonl
⌨️ More command-line flags :: click to expand ::
  • --parallel: by default half of the cores
  • --base-only (store_ture): only run base HumanEval tests
  • --i-just-wanna-run: force a re-run

The output should be like (below is GPT-4 greedy decoding example):

Computing expected output...
Expected outputs computed in 15.18s
Reading samples...
164it [00:04, 37.79it/s]
Evaluating samples...
100%|██████████████████████████████████████████| 164/164 [00:03<00:00, 44.75it/s]
Base
{'pass@1': 0.8841463414634146}
Base + Extra
{'pass@1': 0.75}
  • Base is the pass@k for the original HumanEval
  • Base + Extra is the pass@k for the our HumanEval+ (with extra tests)
  • The "k" includes [1, 10, 100] where k values <= the sample size will be used
  • A cache file named like samples_eval_results.jsonl will be cached. Remove it to re-run the evaluation
🤔 How long it would take? :: click to expand ::

When running 200 samples x 164 tasks x ~700+ tests, it can take around 2-10 minute by using --parallel 64 and --test-details. Here are some tips to speed up the evaluation:

  • Use --parallel $(nproc)
  • Do NOT use --test-details if you just want to quickly get pass@k as --test-details will run all tests (700+ on average for each task), while without --test-details the testing for a sample stops immediately when it fails the first test.
  • Use our pre-evaluated results (see LLM-generated code)
  • Use HumanEval+ Mini

🚀 Try out HumanEvalPlus-Mini! which selects a minimal set of additional tests with the highest quality, achieving almost the same effectiveness of the full version. Just add a --mini flag, it can run 23+% faster! (even faster if you evaluate all tests without fail-stop with --test-details).

docker run -v $(pwd):/app ganler/evalplus:latest --dataset humaneval --samples samples.jsonl --mini
# ...Or locally ⚠️
# evalplus.evaluate --dataset humaneval --samples samples.jsonl --mini

MBPP+ (TBD)

💻 LLM-generated code

Please kindly find the LLM-pre-generated code samples in the attachment of our v0.1.0 release. Each sample file is packaged in a zip file named like ${model_name}_temp_${temperature}.zip. You can unzip them to a folder named like ${model_name}_temp_${temperature} and run the evaluation from scratch with:

evalplus.evaluate --dataset humaneval --samples ${model_name}_temp_${temperature}

📜 Papers

Read our paper for more detailed findings!

@article{evalplus,
  title={Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation},
  author={Jiawei Liu and Chunqiu Steven Xia and Yuyao Wang and Lingming Zhang},
  journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01210},
  year={2023},
}

🔨 Useful tools

To use these tools, please first install the repository from GitHub:

git clone https://github.com/evalplus/evalplus.git
cd evalplus
pip install -r requirements-tools.txt

Syntax checker for LLM-generated code

Check LLM-produced code and answer the following questions:

  1. Is the generation entirely done for all samples / all problems in the dataset?
  2. Are LLM-generated code compilable? (if no, something could be wrong and you'd better check)
python tools/checker.py --folder /path/to/[model]-[??]b_temp_[??] --dataset humaneval

Post code sanitizer

LLM-generated code may contain some syntax errors. But some of them can be easily fixable by doing simple post-processing. This tool will make the LLM-generated code more clean/compilable by doing certain post-processing such as trimming with more magical EOFs and some garbage non-code tokens.

python tools/sanitize.py --eof --folder /path/to/vicuna-[??]b_temp_[??]
# Sanitized code will be produced to `/path/to/vicuna-[??]b_temp_[??]-sanitized`

Render pass@k results to rich and LaTeX tables

python tools/render.py --type /path/to/[model]-[??]b # NOTE: no `_temp_[??]`

Perform test input generation from scratch (TBD)

Name convention

  • evalplus is the package name.
  • ${DATASET}_plus is the name of dataset applied with evalplus.

🙏 Acknowledgement