feat(benchmarks) Add LLM evaluation pipeline for general NLP challenge

benchmarks/flowertune-llm/evaluation/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+# FlowerTune LLM Evaluation
+
+This repository provides various evaluation metrics to measure the quality of your pre-trained LLMs.
+As the final steps to participate in [LLM Leaderboard](https://flower.ai/benchmarks/llm-leaderboard#how-to-participate),
+the evaluation scores generated here will be displayed as the definitive values on the LLM Leaderboard.
+
+## How to run
+Please check out the individual directory corresponding to your selected challenge (general NLP, finance, medical, and code) to learn how to execute the evaluations.
+
+> [!NOTE]  
+> If you wish to participate in the LLM Leaderboard, you must not modify the evaluation code and should use the exact command provided in the respective directory to run the evaluation.
+
+
+## Expected results
+The default template generated by `flwr new` for each challenge will produce results as follows, which serve as the lower bound on the LLM Leaderboard.
+
+### General NLP
+
+|          | MT-1 | MT-2 | MT-Avg |  
+|:--------:|:----:|:----:|:------:|
+| MT Score | 5.54 | 5.52 |  5.53  |
+
+### Finance
+
+|         |  FPB  | FIQA  | TFNS  |  Avg  |  
+|:-------:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|:-----:|
+| Acc (%) | 44.55 | 63.64 | 28.77 | 45.65 |
+
+### Medical
+
+|         | PubMedQA | MedMCQA | MedQA |  Avg  |  
+|:-------:|:--------:|:-------:|:-----:|:-----:|
+| Acc (%) |  59.00   |  23.69  | 27.10 | 36.60 |
+
+### Code
+
+|            | MBPP  | HumanEval | Multiple (JS) | Multiple (C++) |  Avg  |  
+|:----------:|:-----:|:---------:|:-------------:|:--------------:|:-----:|
+| Pass@1 (%) | 31.40 |   25.00   |     31.68     |     24.84      | 28.23 |

benchmarks/flowertune-llm/evaluation/general-nlp/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+## Evaluation for General NLP challenge
+
+We leverage MT-bench metric provided by [FastChat](https://github.com/lm-sys/FastChat) to evaluate our trained LLMs.
+MT-bench represents a comprehensive suite of multi-turn, open-ended questions designed to evaluate chat assistants.
+Strong LLMs, such as GPT-4, serve as judges to assess the quality of responses provided by the chat assistants under examination.
+
+### Step 0. Set up Environment
+
+```shell
+git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/adap/flower.git && mv flower/benchmarks/flowertune-llm/evaluation/general-nlp . && rm -rf flower && cd general-nlp
+```
+
+Then, install dependencies with:
+
+```shell
+# From a new python environment, run:
+pip install -e .
+
+# Log in HuggingFace account
+huggingface-cli login
+```
+
+
+### Step 1. Generate model answers to MT-bench questions
+
+```bash
+python gen_model_answer.py --peft-path=/path/to/pre-trained-model-dir/ # e.g., ./peft_1
+```
+The answers will be saved to `data/mt_bench/model_answer/[base_model_name].jsonl` in default.
+
+
+### Step 2. Generate judgments using GPT-4 
+```bash
+export OPENAI_API_KEY=XXXXXX  # set the OpenAI API key
+python gen_judgement.py --model-list Mistral-7B-v0.3
+```
+
+You can specify the base model name via `--model-list`.
+The judgments will be saved to `data/mt_bench/model_judgment/gpt-4_single.jsonl` in default.
+
+### Step 3. Show MT-bench scores
+
+```bash
+python show_result.py --model-list Mistral-7B-v0.3
+```
+GPT-4 will give a score on a scale of 10 to the first-turn (MT-1) and second-turn (MT-2) of the conversations, along with an average value as the third score.
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> Please ensure that you provide all **three scores** when submitting to the LLM Leaderboard.

benchmarks/flowertune-llm/evaluation/general-nlp/data/judge_prompts.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+{"name": "pair-v2", "type": "pairwise", "system_prompt": "Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the quality of the responses provided by two AI assistants to the user question displayed below. You should choose the assistant that follows the user's instructions and answers the user's question better. Your evaluation should consider factors such as the helpfulness, relevance, accuracy, depth, creativity, and level of detail of their responses. Begin your evaluation by comparing the two responses and provide a short explanation. Avoid any position biases and ensure that the order in which the responses were presented does not influence your decision. Do not allow the length of the responses to influence your evaluation. Do not favor certain names of the assistants. Be as objective as possible. After providing your explanation, output your final verdict by strictly following this format: \"[[A]]\" if assistant A is better, \"[[B]]\" if assistant B is better, and \"[[C]]\" for a tie.", "prompt_template": "[User Question]\n{question}\n\n[The Start of Assistant A's Answer]\n{answer_a}\n[The End of Assistant A's Answer]\n\n[The Start of Assistant B's Answer]\n{answer_b}\n[The End of Assistant B's Answer]", "description": "Prompt for general questions", "category": "general", "output_format": "[[A]]"}
+{"name": "pair-v2-multi-turn", "type": "pairwise", "system_prompt": "Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the quality of the responses provided by two AI assistants to the user questions. You should choose the assistant that follows the user's instructions and answers the user's questions better. Your evaluation should consider factors such as the helpfulness, relevance, accuracy, depth, creativity, and level of detail of their responses. You should focus on who provides a better answer to the second user question. Begin your evaluation by comparing the responses of the two assistants and provide a short explanation. Avoid any position biases and ensure that the order in which the responses were presented does not influence your decision. Do not allow the length of the responses to influence your evaluation. Do not favor certain names of the assistants. Be as objective as possible. After providing your explanation, output your final verdict by strictly following this format: \"[[A]]\" if assistant A is better, \"[[B]]\" if assistant B is better, and \"[[C]]\" for a tie.", "prompt_template": "<|The Start of Assistant A's Conversation with User|>\n\n### User:\n{question_1}\n\n### Assistant A:\n{answer_a_1}\n\n### User:\n{question_2}\n\n### Assistant A:\n{answer_a_2}\n\n<|The End of Assistant A's Conversation with User|>\n\n\n<|The Start of Assistant B's Conversation with User|>\n\n### User:\n{question_1}\n\n### Assistant B:\n{answer_b_1}\n\n### User:\n{question_2}\n\n### Assistant B:\n{answer_b_2}\n\n<|The End of Assistant B's Conversation with User|>", "description": "Prompt for multi-turn general questions", "category": "general", "output_format": "[[A]]"}
+{"name": "pair-math-v1", "type": "pairwise", "system_prompt": "Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the quality of the responses provided by two AI assistants to the user question displayed below. Your evaluation should consider correctness and helpfulness. You will be given a reference answer, assistant A's answer, and assistant B's answer. Your job is to evaluate which assistant's answer is better. Begin your evaluation by comparing both assistants' answers with the reference answer. Identify and correct any mistakes. Avoid any position biases and ensure that the order in which the responses were presented does not influence your decision. Do not allow the length of the responses to influence your evaluation. Do not favor certain names of the assistants. Be as objective as possible. After providing your explanation, output your final verdict by strictly following this format: \"[[A]]\" if assistant A is better, \"[[B]]\" if assistant B is better, and \"[[C]]\" for a tie.", "prompt_template": "[User Question]\n{question}\n\n[The Start of Reference Answer]\n{ref_answer_1}\n[The End of Reference Answer]\n\n[The Start of Assistant A's Answer]\n{answer_a}\n[The End of Assistant A's Answer]\n\n[The Start of Assistant B's Answer]\n{answer_b}\n[The End of Assistant B's Answer]", "description": "Prompt for math questions", "category": "math", "output_format": "[[A]]"}
+{"name": "pair-math-v1-multi-turn", "type": "pairwise", "system_prompt": "Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the quality of the responses provided by two AI assistants to the user questions. Your evaluation should consider correctness and helpfulness. You will be given reference answers, the assistant A's answers, the assistant B's answers. Your job is to determine which assistant provides correct and helpful answers to the second user question. Begin your evaluation by comparing both assistants' answers with the reference answers. Identify and correct any mistakes. Avoid any position biases and ensure that the order in which the responses were presented does not influence your decision. Do not allow the length of the responses to influence your evaluation. Do not favor certain names of the assistants. Be as objective as possible. After providing your explanation, output your final verdict by strictly following this format: \"[[A]]\" if assistant A is better, \"[[B]]\" if assistant B is better, and \"[[C]]\" for a tie.", "prompt_template": "<|The Start of Reference Answer|>\n\n### User:\n{question_1}\n\n### Reference answer:\n{ref_answer_1}\n\n### User:\n{question_2}\n\n### Reference answer:\n{ref_answer_2}\n\n<|The End of Reference Answer|>\n\n\n<|The Start of Assistant A's Conversation with User|>\n\n### User:\n{question_1}\n\n### Assistant A:\n{answer_a_1}\n\n### User:\n{question_2}\n\n### Assistant A:\n{answer_a_2}\n\n<|The End of Assistant A's Conversation with User|>\n\n\n<|The Start of Assistant B's Conversation with User|>\n\n### User:\n{question_1}\n\n### Assistant B:\n{answer_b_1}\n\n### User:\n{question_2}\n\n### Assistant B:\n{answer_b_2}\n\n<|The End of Assistant B's Conversation with User|>", "description": "Prompt for multi-turn general questions", "category": "general", "output_format": "[[A]]"}
+{"name": "single-v1", "type": "single", "system_prompt": "You are a helpful assistant.", "prompt_template": "[Instruction]\nPlease act as an impartial judge and evaluate the quality of the response provided by an AI assistant to the user question displayed below. Your evaluation should consider factors such as the helpfulness, relevance, accuracy, depth, creativity, and level of detail of the response. Begin your evaluation by providing a short explanation. Be as objective as possible. After providing your explanation, you must rate the response on a scale of 1 to 10 by strictly following this format: \"[[rating]]\", for example: \"Rating: [[5]]\".\n\n[Question]\n{question}\n\n[The Start of Assistant's Answer]\n{answer}\n[The End of Assistant's Answer]", "description": "Prompt for general questions", "category": "general", "output_format": "[[rating]]"}
+{"name": "single-math-v1", "type": "single", "system_prompt": "You are a helpful assistant.", "prompt_template": "[Instruction]\nPlease act as an impartial judge and evaluate the quality of the response provided by an AI assistant to the user question displayed below. Your evaluation should consider correctness and helpfulness. You will be given a reference answer and the assistant's answer. Begin your evaluation by comparing the assistant's answer with the reference answer. Identify and correct any mistakes. Be as objective as possible. After providing your explanation, you must rate the response on a scale of 1 to 10 by strictly following this format: \"[[rating]]\", for example: \"Rating: [[5]]\".\n\n[Question]\n{question}\n\n[The Start of Reference Answer]\n{ref_answer_1}\n[The End of Reference Answer]\n\n[The Start of Assistant's Answer]\n{answer}\n[The End of Assistant's Answer]", "description": "Prompt for general questions", "category": "math", "output_format": "[[rating]]"}
+{"name": "single-v1-multi-turn", "type": "single", "system_prompt": "Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the quality of the response provided by an AI assistant to the user question displayed below. Your evaluation should consider factors such as the helpfulness, relevance, accuracy, depth, creativity, and level of detail of the response. You evaluation should focus on the assistant's answer to the second user question. Begin your evaluation by providing a short explanation. Be as objective as possible. After providing your explanation, you must rate the response on a scale of 1 to 10 by strictly following this format: \"[[rating]]\", for example: \"Rating: [[5]]\".\n\n", "prompt_template": "<|The Start of Assistant A's Conversation with User|>\n\n### User:\n{question_1}\n\n### Assistant A:\n{answer_1}\n\n### User:\n{question_2}\n\n### Assistant A:\n{answer_2}\n\n<|The End of Assistant A's Conversation with User|>", "description": "Prompt for general questions", "category": "general", "output_format": "[[rating]]"}
+{"name": "single-math-v1-multi-turn", "type": "single", "system_prompt": "Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the quality of the response provided by an AI assistant to the user question. Your evaluation should consider correctness and helpfulness. You will be given a reference answer and the assistant's answer. You evaluation should focus on the assistant's answer to the second question. Begin your evaluation by comparing the assistant's answer with the reference answer. Identify and correct any mistakes. Be as objective as possible. After providing your explanation, you must rate the response on a scale of 1 to 10 by strictly following this format: \"[[rating]]\", for example: \"Rating: [[5]]\".\n\n", "prompt_template": "<|The Start of Reference Answer|>\n\n### User:\n{question_1}\n\n### Reference answer:\n{ref_answer_1}\n\n### User:\n{question_2}\n\n### Reference answer:\n{ref_answer_2}\n\n<|The End of Reference Answer|>\n\n\n<|The Start of Assistant A's Conversation with User|>\n\n### User:\n{question_1}\n\n### Assistant A:\n{answer_1}\n\n### User:\n{question_2}\n\n### Assistant A:\n{answer_2}\n\n<|The End of Assistant A's Conversation with User|>", "description": "Prompt for general questions", "category": "math", "output_format": "[[rating]]"}