# `EvalPlus(πŸ“–) => πŸ“š`

πŸ”₯Quick Start β€’ πŸ’»LLM code β€’ πŸ”¨Tools β€’ πŸ“œCitation β€’ πŸ™Acknowledgement

> [!Important] >
> > πŸ“’ Who is the best LLM coder? Take a look at the EvalPlus leaderboard πŸ†! πŸ“’ > >
> > πŸ€— Request for independent model evaluation is open! > >
## About > [!Warning] >
> > 🚨 Evaluating LLM-generated code over datasets with "3 test-cases" is **NOT** enough! 🚨 > >
EvalPlus is a rigorous evaluation framework for LLM4Code, with: * ✨ **HumanEval+**: 80x more tests than the original HumanEval! * ✨ **MBPP+**: 35x more tests than the original MBPP! * ✨ **Evaluation framework**: our packages/images/tools can easily and safely evaluate LLMs on above benchmarks. Why EvalPlus? What does using EvalPlus datasets bring to you? * ✨ **Reliable ranking**: See [our leaderboard](https://evalplus.github.io/leaderboard.html) for the latest LLM ranking before and after rigorous evaluation. * ✨ **Code robustness**: Look at the score differences! esp. before (e.g., HumanEval) and after (e.g., HumanEval+) using EvalPlus! The drop/gap indicates if the LLM can generate more robust code: less drop means more robustness and a larger drop means the code tends to be more fragile. * ✨**Pre-generated samples**: EvalPlus accelerates LLM4Code research by open-sourcing [LLM-generated samples](#-LLM-generated-code) for vairous models -- no need to re-run the expensive benchmarks! Want to know more details? Read our [**NeurIPS'23 paper**](https://openreview.net/forum?id=1qvx610Cu7) [![](https://img.shields.io/badge/Paper-NeurIPS'23-a55fed.svg)](https://openreview.net/forum?id=1qvx610Cu7) as well as our [**Google Slides**](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1eTxzUQG9uHaU13BGhrqm4wH5NmMZiM3nI0ezKlODxKs)! ## πŸ”₯ Quick Start To get started, please first setup the environment: ```bash pip install evalplus --upgrade ```
⏬ Install nightly version :: click to expand ::
```bash pip install "git+https://github.com/evalplus/evalplus.git" --upgrade ```
⏬ Using EvalPlus as a local repo? :: click to expand ::
```bash git clone https://github.com/evalplus/evalplus.git cd evalplus export PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:$(pwd) pip install -r requirements.txt ```
### Code generation Implement the `GEN_SOLUTION` function by calling the LLM to produce the complete solution (include the code) and save the samples to `samples.jsonl`: ```python from evalplus.data import get_[human_eval|mbpp]_plus, write_jsonl samples = [ dict(task_id=task_id, solution=GEN_SOLUTION(problem["prompt"])) for task_id, problem in get_[human_eval|mbpp]_plus().items() ] write_jsonl("samples.jsonl", samples) ```
πŸ€” Structure of `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
> [!Note] > > **Expected Schema of `samples.jsonl`** > > 1. `task_id`: Task ID, which are the keys of `get_[human_eval|mbpp]_plus()` > 2. `solution` (optional): Self-contained solution (usually including the prompt) > * Example: `{"task_id": "HumanEval/?", "solution": "def f():\n return 1"}` > 3. `completion` (optional): Function body without prompt > * Example: `{"task_id": "HumanEval/?", "completion": " return 1"}` > > Only one of `solution` and `completion` is required. If both are provided, `solution` will be used. > We also accept solutions in the form of directory, i.e., `--samples ${SAMPLE_DIR}` where `${SAMPLE_DIR}` is organized as: `${SAMPLE_DIR}/${TASK_ID}/{SAMPLE_ID}.py` (`${TASK_ID} = task_id.replace("/", "_")`). ### Code evaluation You are strongly recommended to use a sandbox such as [docker](https://docs.docker.com/get-docker/): ```bash docker run -v $(pwd):/app ganler/evalplus:latest --dataset [humaneval|mbpp] --samples samples.jsonl ``` ...Or if you want to try it locally regardless of the risks ⚠️: ```bash evalplus.evaluate --dataset [humaneval|mbpp] --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 1s); > - $T_{gt}$ 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...
πŸ€” Evaluate with local GitHub repo? :: click to expand ::
```bash 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%|β–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆβ–ˆ| 164/164 [00:03<00:00, 44.75it/s] Base {'pass@1': 0.8841463414634146} Base + Extra {'pass@1': 0.768} ``` - `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
πŸ€” How long it would take? :: click to expand ::
If you do greedy decoding where there is only one sample for each task, the evaluation should take just a few seconds. 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](#-LLM-generated-code)) * Use HumanEval+ Mini
> [!Note] > > πŸš€ **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`). > > ```bash > docker run -v $(pwd):/app ganler/evalplus:latest --dataset humaneval --samples samples.jsonl --mini > # ...Or locally ⚠️ > # evalplus.evaluate --dataset humaneval --samples samples.jsonl --mini > ``` ## πŸ’» LLM-generated code We also share pre-generated code samples from LLMs we have [evaluated](https://evalplus.github.io/leaderboard.html): * **HumanEval+**: See the attachment of our [v0.1.0 release](https://github.com/evalplus/evalplus/releases/tag/v0.1.0). * **MBPP+**: See the attachment of our [v0.2.0 release](https://github.com/evalplus/evalplus/releases/tag/v0.2.0). Each sample file is packaged in a zip file named like `${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: ```bash evalplus.evaluate --dataset humaneval --samples ${model_name}_temp_${temperature} ``` ## πŸ”¨ Useful tools To use these tools, please first install the repository from GitHub: ```bash 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) ```shell # Set PYTHONPATH to run local Python files export PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:$(pwd) python tools/checker.py --samples samples.jsonl --dataset [humaneval|mbpp] # --samples can also be a directory organized as: ${SAMPLE_DIR}/${TASK_ID}/{SAMPLE_ID}.py ``` ### 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. ```shell # Set PYTHONPATH to run local Python files export PYTHONPATH=$PYTHONPATH:$(pwd) # πŸ’‘ If you are storing codes in directories: python tools/sanitize.py --samples samples.jsonl --dataset [humaneval|mbpp] # Sanitized code will be produced to `samples-sanitized.jsonl` # πŸ’‘ If you are storing codes in directories: python tools/sanitize.py --samples /path/to/vicuna-[??]b_temp_[??] --dataset [humaneval|mbpp] # Sanitized code will be produced to `/path/to/vicuna-[??]b_temp_[??]-sanitized` ``` You should now further check the validity of sanitized code with `tools/checker.py`. Sometimes (e.g., Chat models) there might be some natural language lines that impact the compilation. You might use `--rm-prefix-lines` to cut those NL lines with a prefix (e.g., `--rm-prefix-lines "Here's"`). ### Render `pass@k` results to `rich` and LaTeX tables ```shell python tools/render.py --type /path/to/[model]-[??]b # NOTE: no `_temp_[??]` ``` ![](./gallary/render.gif) ### Perform test input generation from scratch (TBD) ### Name convention - `evalplus` is the package name. - `${DATASET}_plus` is the name of dataset applied with `evalplus`. ## πŸ“œ Citation ```bibtex @inproceedings{evalplus, title = {Is Your Code Generated by Chat{GPT} Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation}, author = {Liu, Jiawei and Xia, Chunqiu Steven and Wang, Yuyao and Zhang, Lingming}, booktitle = {Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems}, year = {2023}, url = {https://openreview.net/forum?id=1qvx610Cu7}, } ``` ## πŸ™ Acknowledgement - [HumanEval](https://github.com/openai/human-eval) - [MBPP](https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/master/mbpp)