evalscope 0.16.2__py3-none-any.whl → 0.17.0__py3-none-any.whl

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.

Potentially problematic release.


This version of evalscope might be problematic. Click here for more details.

Files changed (117) hide show
  1. evalscope/app/app.py +9 -762
  2. evalscope/app/constants.py +1 -0
  3. evalscope/app/ui/__init__.py +20 -0
  4. evalscope/app/ui/app_ui.py +52 -0
  5. evalscope/app/ui/multi_model.py +323 -0
  6. evalscope/app/ui/sidebar.py +42 -0
  7. evalscope/app/ui/single_model.py +202 -0
  8. evalscope/app/ui/visualization.py +36 -0
  9. evalscope/app/utils/data_utils.py +178 -0
  10. evalscope/app/utils/localization.py +221 -0
  11. evalscope/app/utils/text_utils.py +119 -0
  12. evalscope/app/utils/visualization.py +91 -0
  13. evalscope/backend/opencompass/backend_manager.py +2 -1
  14. evalscope/backend/rag_eval/backend_manager.py +2 -1
  15. evalscope/backend/rag_eval/utils/embedding.py +1 -1
  16. evalscope/backend/vlm_eval_kit/backend_manager.py +4 -1
  17. evalscope/benchmarks/__init__.py +15 -1
  18. evalscope/benchmarks/aime/aime24_adapter.py +2 -1
  19. evalscope/benchmarks/aime/aime25_adapter.py +2 -1
  20. evalscope/benchmarks/alpaca_eval/alpaca_eval_adapter.py +1 -1
  21. evalscope/benchmarks/arc/arc_adapter.py +1 -1
  22. evalscope/benchmarks/arena_hard/arena_hard_adapter.py +1 -1
  23. evalscope/benchmarks/arena_hard/utils.py +0 -12
  24. evalscope/benchmarks/ceval/ceval_adapter.py +5 -16
  25. evalscope/benchmarks/cmmlu/cmmlu_adapter.py +9 -21
  26. evalscope/benchmarks/competition_math/competition_math_adapter.py +2 -1
  27. evalscope/benchmarks/data_adapter.py +20 -5
  28. evalscope/benchmarks/general_arena/__init__.py +0 -0
  29. evalscope/benchmarks/general_arena/general_arena_adapter.py +411 -0
  30. evalscope/benchmarks/general_arena/utils.py +226 -0
  31. evalscope/benchmarks/general_mcq/general_mcq_adapter.py +1 -1
  32. evalscope/benchmarks/general_qa/general_qa_adapter.py +42 -29
  33. evalscope/benchmarks/hellaswag/hellaswag_adapter.py +1 -1
  34. evalscope/benchmarks/ifeval/ifeval_adapter.py +2 -4
  35. evalscope/benchmarks/iquiz/iquiz_adapter.py +1 -1
  36. evalscope/benchmarks/live_code_bench/live_code_bench_adapter.py +0 -6
  37. evalscope/benchmarks/maritime_bench/maritime_bench_adapter.py +1 -1
  38. evalscope/benchmarks/math_500/math_500_adapter.py +2 -1
  39. evalscope/benchmarks/mmlu/mmlu_adapter.py +1 -1
  40. evalscope/benchmarks/mmlu_pro/mmlu_pro_adapter.py +1 -1
  41. evalscope/benchmarks/mmlu_redux/mmlu_redux_adapter.py +1 -1
  42. evalscope/benchmarks/musr/musr_adapter.py +1 -1
  43. evalscope/benchmarks/race/race_adapter.py +1 -1
  44. evalscope/benchmarks/trivia_qa/trivia_qa_adapter.py +9 -4
  45. evalscope/benchmarks/utils.py +1 -2
  46. evalscope/benchmarks/winogrande/winogrande_adapter.py +1 -1
  47. evalscope/config.py +8 -123
  48. evalscope/evaluator/evaluator.py +15 -12
  49. evalscope/metrics/__init__.py +6 -0
  50. evalscope/{utils/utils.py → metrics/completion_parsers.py} +68 -180
  51. evalscope/metrics/llm_judge.py +105 -20
  52. evalscope/metrics/metrics.py +1 -1
  53. evalscope/models/adapters/base_adapter.py +0 -2
  54. evalscope/models/adapters/server_adapter.py +2 -2
  55. evalscope/models/custom/dummy_model.py +3 -3
  56. evalscope/perf/arguments.py +2 -16
  57. evalscope/perf/main.py +1 -1
  58. evalscope/perf/utils/analysis_result.py +24 -23
  59. evalscope/perf/utils/benchmark_util.py +1 -1
  60. evalscope/report/__init__.py +1 -1
  61. evalscope/report/utils.py +34 -15
  62. evalscope/run.py +1 -1
  63. evalscope/summarizer.py +1 -2
  64. evalscope/utils/__init__.py +63 -2
  65. evalscope/utils/argument_utils.py +64 -0
  66. evalscope/utils/import_utils.py +16 -0
  67. evalscope/utils/io_utils.py +45 -4
  68. evalscope/utils/model_utils.py +37 -1
  69. evalscope/version.py +2 -2
  70. {evalscope-0.16.2.dist-info → evalscope-0.17.0.dist-info}/METADATA +55 -26
  71. {evalscope-0.16.2.dist-info → evalscope-0.17.0.dist-info}/RECORD +90 -101
  72. tests/aigc/test_t2i.py +1 -1
  73. tests/cli/test_all.py +50 -2
  74. tests/cli/test_collection.py +1 -1
  75. tests/cli/test_custom.py +261 -0
  76. tests/cli/test_run.py +13 -37
  77. tests/perf/test_perf.py +2 -2
  78. tests/rag/test_clip_benchmark.py +2 -1
  79. tests/rag/test_mteb.py +3 -1
  80. tests/rag/test_ragas.py +3 -1
  81. tests/swift/test_run_swift_eval.py +2 -1
  82. tests/swift/test_run_swift_vlm_eval.py +2 -1
  83. tests/swift/test_run_swift_vlm_jugde_eval.py +2 -1
  84. tests/utils.py +13 -0
  85. tests/vlm/test_vlmeval.py +8 -2
  86. evalscope/evaluator/rating_eval.py +0 -157
  87. evalscope/evaluator/reviewer/__init__.py +0 -1
  88. evalscope/evaluator/reviewer/auto_reviewer.py +0 -391
  89. evalscope/registry/__init__.py +0 -1
  90. evalscope/registry/config/cfg_arena.yaml +0 -77
  91. evalscope/registry/config/cfg_arena_zhihu.yaml +0 -63
  92. evalscope/registry/config/cfg_pairwise_baseline.yaml +0 -83
  93. evalscope/registry/config/cfg_single.yaml +0 -78
  94. evalscope/registry/data/prompt_template/lmsys_v2.jsonl +0 -8
  95. evalscope/registry/data/prompt_template/prompt_templates.jsonl +0 -8
  96. evalscope/registry/data/qa_browser/battle.jsonl +0 -634
  97. evalscope/registry/data/qa_browser/category_mapping.yaml +0 -10
  98. evalscope/registry/data/question.jsonl +0 -80
  99. evalscope/registry/tasks/arc.yaml +0 -28
  100. evalscope/registry/tasks/bbh.yaml +0 -26
  101. evalscope/registry/tasks/bbh_mini.yaml +0 -26
  102. evalscope/registry/tasks/ceval.yaml +0 -27
  103. evalscope/registry/tasks/ceval_mini.yaml +0 -26
  104. evalscope/registry/tasks/cmmlu.yaml +0 -27
  105. evalscope/registry/tasks/eval_qwen-7b-chat_v100.yaml +0 -28
  106. evalscope/registry/tasks/general_qa.yaml +0 -27
  107. evalscope/registry/tasks/gsm8k.yaml +0 -29
  108. evalscope/registry/tasks/mmlu.yaml +0 -29
  109. evalscope/registry/tasks/mmlu_mini.yaml +0 -27
  110. evalscope/run_arena.py +0 -202
  111. evalscope/utils/arena_utils.py +0 -217
  112. evalscope/utils/completion_parsers.py +0 -82
  113. /evalscope/{utils → benchmarks}/filters.py +0 -0
  114. {evalscope-0.16.2.dist-info → evalscope-0.17.0.dist-info}/LICENSE +0 -0
  115. {evalscope-0.16.2.dist-info → evalscope-0.17.0.dist-info}/WHEEL +0 -0
  116. {evalscope-0.16.2.dist-info → evalscope-0.17.0.dist-info}/entry_points.txt +0 -0
  117. {evalscope-0.16.2.dist-info → evalscope-0.17.0.dist-info}/top_level.txt +0 -0
@@ -1,78 +0,0 @@
1
- # input raw data
2
- question_file: registry/data/question.jsonl
3
-
4
- # candidate models to be battled
5
- answers_gen:
6
- chatglm3-6b:
7
- # model_id_or_path could be local absolute path, e.g. /to/path/.cache/modelscope/ZhipuAI/chatglm3-6b
8
- model_id_or_path: ZhipuAI/chatglm3-6b # model_id on modelscope
9
- revision: v1.0.2 # revision of model, default is NULL
10
- precision: torch.float16
11
- enable: true # enable or disable this model
12
- template_type: chatglm3
13
- generation_config:
14
- do_sample: true
15
- max_new_tokens: 256
16
- top_k: 20
17
- top_p: 0.75
18
- temperature: 0.3
19
- # output predicted answer file name
20
- output_file: registry/data/arena/answers/answer_chatglm3-6b.jsonl
21
- Baichuan2-7B-Base:
22
- model_id_or_path: baichuan-inc/Baichuan2-7B-Base
23
- revision: v1.0.2 # revision of model, default is NULL
24
- precision: torch.float16
25
- enable: false # enable or disable this model
26
- template_type: default-generation
27
- generation_config:
28
- do_sample: true
29
- max_new_tokens: 256
30
- top_k: 20
31
- top_p: 0.75
32
- temperature: 0.3
33
- output_file: registry/data/arena/answers/answer_Baichuan2-7B-Base.jsonl
34
- Qwen-7B:
35
- model_id_or_path: qwen/Qwen-7B
36
- revision: v1.1.8 # revision of model, default is NULL
37
- precision: torch.float16
38
- enable: true # enable or disable this model # TODO: tokenizer issue
39
- template_type: default-generation
40
- generation_config:
41
- do_sample: true
42
- max_new_tokens: 256
43
- top_k: 20
44
- top_p: 0.75
45
- temperature: 0.3
46
- output_file: registry/data/arena/answers/answer_Qwen-7B.jsonl
47
-
48
- # model of auto-reviewer
49
- reviews_gen:
50
- enable: true
51
- reviewer:
52
- ref: evalscope.evaluator.reviewer.auto_reviewer:AutoReviewerGpt4
53
- args:
54
- model: gpt-4
55
- max_tokens: 1024
56
- temperature: 0
57
- # pairwise comparison against baseline
58
- mode: single
59
- # completion parser config, default is lmsys_parser
60
- fn_completion_parser: lmsys_parser
61
- # target answers list to be reviewed, could be replaced by your own path: /path/to/answers.jsonl
62
- target_answers: [registry/data/arena/answers/answer_chatglm3-6b.jsonl,
63
- registry/data/arena/answers/answer_Baichuan2-7B-Base.jsonl]
64
- # the path to the reference answers
65
- reference_file:
66
- # prompt templates for auto reviewer(GPT-4)
67
- prompt_file: registry/data/prompt_template/lmsys_v2.jsonl
68
- # output file of auto reviewer
69
- review_file: registry/data/arena/reviews/review_gpt4_single.jsonl
70
- # cache file of auto reviewer
71
- cache_file: registry/data/arena/reviews/review_gpt4_single.jsonl
72
-
73
- # rating results
74
- rating_gen:
75
- enable: true
76
- metrics: ['score']
77
- # elo rating report file
78
- report_file: registry/data/arena/reports/rating_single.csv
@@ -1,8 +0,0 @@
1
- {"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 positional 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]]"}
2
- {"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 positional 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]]"}
3
- {"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 positional 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", "reasoning", "coding"], "output_format": "[[A]]"}
4
- {"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 positional 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": ["math", "reasoning", "coding"], "output_format": "[[A]]"}
5
- {"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]]"}
6
- {"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", "reasoning", "coding"], "output_format": "[[rating]]"}
7
- {"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]]"}
8
- {"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", "reasoning", "coding"], "output_format": "[[rating]]"}
@@ -1,8 +0,0 @@
1
- {"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 positional 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]]"}
2
- {"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 positional 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]]"}
3
- {"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 positional 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", "reasoning", "coding"], "output_format": "[[A]]"}
4
- {"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 positional 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": ["math", "reasoning", "coding"], "output_format": "[[A]]"}
5
- {"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]]"}
6
- {"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", "reasoning", "coding"], "output_format": "[[rating]]"}
7
- {"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]]"}
8
- {"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", "reasoning", "coding"], "output_format": "[[rating]]"}