Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Possibly wrong checkpoints for M2 and L #2

Open
jglaser opened this issue Jun 6, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Possibly wrong checkpoints for M2 and L #2

jglaser opened this issue Jun 6, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@jglaser
Copy link

jglaser commented Jun 6, 2024

I am trying to reproduce the SCIQ results from the SC'23 paper using Eleuther's LM evaluation harness.

These are my results

Model SciQ PIQA
forge-bio 0.788  
forge-che 0.821  
forge-eng 0.793  
forge-mat 0.777  
forge-phy 0.761  
forge-soc 0.82  
forge-s1 0.787  
forge-s2 0.783  
forge-s3 0.805  
forge-s4 0.86  
forge-m1 0.82  
forge-m2 0.574 0.5577
forge-l 0.242  

The highlighted scores are much lower than the others, and than what is expected from Table 8 of the paper. A quick check of the evaluation logs (data/eval/forge-m2) suggests that these are roughly the scores of the m2 checkpoint at iteration 1000, and probably of some very early checkpoint of forge-l.

I downloaded the checkpoints from the links in the README.md. I suspect that the dropbox versions were somehow mixed up.

Command line

 lm_eval --model hf --model_args pretrained=forge-bio,parallelize=True --tasks sciq --device cuda
@jqyin
Copy link
Collaborator

jqyin commented Nov 3, 2024

This is likely due to the version mismatch of lm_eval. In the original evaluation, we used the eval_adapter of the gpt-neox#e48b0c45

To directly evaluate with lm_eval (v0.3.0), we also released an instructed version of Forge-m2, and you can find more details at https://github.com/jqyin/chatHPC if interested.

@AlpinDale
Copy link

AlpinDale commented Nov 10, 2024

I attempted to use the large model for one of my projects and tested it with version 0.3.0 of lm_eval but observed significant discrepancies in the results. Could you provide context on why these differences might occur? Could it be due to corrupted checkpoints or variations in the model versions? Also, is the instruct version 22.4B available? I'd like to use the instruct version for the larger model.

Tasks Version Filter n-shot Metric Value Stderr
arc_challenge Yaml none 0 acc 0.2227 ± 0.0122
none 0 acc_norm 0.2662 ± 0.0129
arc_easy Yaml none 0 acc 0.2689 ± 0.0091
none 0 acc_norm 0.2795 ± 0.0092
hellaswag Yaml none 0 acc 0.2587 ± 0.0044
none 0 acc_norm 0.2560 ± 0.0044
lambada_openai Yaml none 0 perplexity 23236265.9191 ± 2223918.5377
none 0 acc 0.0000 ± 0.0000
openbookqa Yaml none 0 acc 0.1200 ± 0.0145
none 0 acc_norm 0.2800 ± 0.0201
piqa Yaml none 0 acc 0.5169 ± 0.0117
none 0 acc_norm 0.5027 ± 0.0117
sciq Yaml none 0 acc 0.2420 ± 0.0136
none 0 acc_norm 0.2400 ± 0.0135

cc @jqyin

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants