Benchmarking LLM Evaluators On A Mini MT-Bench (Single Grading) LabelledEvaluatorDataset¶

In this notebook, we'll conduct an evaluation of three different evaluators that will be judging another LLM's response for response against a user query. More specifically, we will run benchmarks using a mini version of the MT-Bench single-grading dataset. In this version, we only consider the answers on the 160 questions (i.e., 80 x 2, since there are 80 two-turn dialogues) provided by llama2-70b. The reference answers used for this benchmark are provided by GPT-4. And so, our benchmarks on these three evaluators will assess closeness to GPT-4 (actually, self-consistency for the case of GPT-4).

1. GPT-3.5 (OpenAI)
2. GPT-4 (OpenAI)
3. Gemini-Pro (Google)

In [ ]:

%pip install llama-index-llms-openai
%pip install llama-index-llms-cohere
%pip install llama-index-llms-gemini

%pip install llama-index-llms-openai %pip install llama-index-llms-cohere %pip install llama-index-llms-gemini

In [ ]:

import nest_asyncio

nest_asyncio.apply()

import nest_asyncio nest_asyncio.apply()

In [ ]:

!pip install "google-generativeai" -q

!pip install "google-generativeai" -q

Load in Evaluator Dataset¶

Let's load in the llama-dataset from llama-hub.

In [ ]:

from llama_index.core.llama_dataset import download_llama_dataset

# download dataset
evaluator_dataset, _ = download_llama_dataset(
    "MiniMtBenchSingleGradingDataset", "./mini_mt_bench_data"
)

from llama_index.core.llama_dataset import download_llama_dataset # download dataset evaluator_dataset, _ = download_llama_dataset( "MiniMtBenchSingleGradingDataset", "./mini_mt_bench_data" )

In [ ]:

evaluator_dataset.to_pandas()[:5]

evaluator_dataset.to_pandas()[:5]

Out[ ]:

	query	answer	contexts	ground_truth_answer	query_by	answer_by	ground_truth_answer_by	reference_feedback	reference_score	reference_evaluation_by
0	Compose an engaging travel blog post about a r...	Title: Discovering the Aloha Spirit: A Recent ...	None	None	None	ai (llama2-70b)	None	The generated answer is highly relevant to the...	5.0	ai (gpt-4)
1	Rewrite your previous response. Start every se...	Absolutely, here's the revised response:\n\nAl...	None	None	None	ai (llama2-70b)	None	The generated answer is highly relevant and co...	5.0	ai (gpt-4)
2	Draft a professional email seeking your superv...	Subject: Seeking Feedback on Quarterly Financi...	None	None	None	ai (llama2-70b)	None	The generated answer is highly relevant to the...	5.0	ai (gpt-4)
3	Take a moment to evaluate and critique your ow...	My response was:\n\n"Subject: Seeking Feedback...	None	None	None	ai (llama2-70b)	None	The generated answer is highly relevant to the...	5.0	ai (gpt-4)
4	Imagine you are writing a blog post comparing ...	Sure, here's an outline for a blog post compar...	None	None	None	ai (llama2-70b)	None	The generated answer is highly relevant to the...	5.0	ai (gpt-4)

Define Our Evaluators¶

In [ ]:

from llama_index.core.evaluation import CorrectnessEvaluator
from llama_index.llms.openai import OpenAI
from llama_index.llms.gemini import Gemini
from llama_index.llms.cohere import Cohere

llm_gpt4 = OpenAI(temperature=0, model="gpt-4")
llm_gpt35 = OpenAI(temperature=0, model="gpt-3.5-turbo")
llm_gemini = Gemini(model="models/gemini-pro", temperature=0)


evaluators = {
    "gpt-4": CorrectnessEvaluator(llm=llm_gpt4),
    "gpt-3.5": CorrectnessEvaluator(llm=llm_gpt35),
    "gemini-pro": CorrectnessEvaluator(llm=llm_gemini),
}

from llama_index.core.evaluation import CorrectnessEvaluator from llama_index.llms.openai import OpenAI from llama_index.llms.gemini import Gemini from llama_index.llms.cohere import Cohere llm_gpt4 = OpenAI(temperature=0, model="gpt-4") llm_gpt35 = OpenAI(temperature=0, model="gpt-3.5-turbo") llm_gemini = Gemini(model="models/gemini-pro", temperature=0) evaluators = { "gpt-4": CorrectnessEvaluator(llm=llm_gpt4), "gpt-3.5": CorrectnessEvaluator(llm=llm_gpt35), "gemini-pro": CorrectnessEvaluator(llm=llm_gemini), }

Benchmark With EvaluatorBenchmarkerPack (llama-pack)¶

When using the EvaluatorBenchmarkerPack with a LabelledEvaluatorDataset, the returned benchmarks will contain values for the following quantites:

• number_examples: The number of examples the dataset consists of.
• invalid_predictions: The number of evaluations that could not yield a final evaluation (e.g., due to inability to parse the evaluation output, or an exception thrown by the LLM evaluator)
• correlation: The correlation between the scores of the provided evaluator and those of the reference evaluator (in this case gpt-4).
• mae: The mean absolute error between the scores of the provided evaluator and those of the reference evaluator.
• hamming: The hamming distance between the scores of the provided evaluator and those of the reference evaluator.

NOTE: correlation, mae, and hamming are all computed without invalid predictions. So, essentially these metrics are conditional ones, conditioned on the prediction being valid.

In [ ]:

from llama_index.core.llama_pack import download_llama_pack

EvaluatorBenchmarkerPack = download_llama_pack(
    "EvaluatorBenchmarkerPack", "./pack"
)

from llama_index.core.llama_pack import download_llama_pack EvaluatorBenchmarkerPack = download_llama_pack( "EvaluatorBenchmarkerPack", "./pack" )

GPT 3.5¶

In [ ]:

evaluator_benchmarker = EvaluatorBenchmarkerPack(
    evaluator=evaluators["gpt-3.5"],
    eval_dataset=evaluator_dataset,
    show_progress=True,
)

evaluator_benchmarker = EvaluatorBenchmarkerPack( evaluator=evaluators["gpt-3.5"], eval_dataset=evaluator_dataset, show_progress=True, )

In [ ]:

gpt_3p5_benchmark_df = await evaluator_benchmarker.arun(
    batch_size=100, sleep_time_in_seconds=0
)

gpt_3p5_benchmark_df = await evaluator_benchmarker.arun( batch_size=100, sleep_time_in_seconds=0 )

/Users/nerdai/Projects/llama_index/docs/examples/evaluation/pack/base.py:142: UserWarning: You've set a large batch_size (>10). If using OpenAI GPT-4 as  `judge_llm` (which is the default judge_llm), you may experience a RateLimitError. Previous successful eval  responses are cached per batch. So hitting a RateLimitError would mean you'd lose all of the current batches successful  GPT-4 calls.
  warnings.warn(
Batch processing of predictions: 100%|████████████████████| 100/100 [00:05<00:00, 18.88it/s]
Batch processing of predictions: 100%|██████████████████████| 60/60 [00:04<00:00, 12.26it/s]

In [ ]:

gpt_3p5_benchmark_df.index = ["gpt-3.5"]
gpt_3p5_benchmark_df

gpt_3p5_benchmark_df.index = ["gpt-3.5"] gpt_3p5_benchmark_df

Out[ ]:

	number_examples	invalid_predictions	correlation	mae	hamming
gpt-3.5	160	0	0.317047	1.11875	27

GPT-4¶

In [ ]:

evaluator_benchmarker = EvaluatorBenchmarkerPack(
    evaluator=evaluators["gpt-4"],
    eval_dataset=evaluator_dataset,
    show_progress=True,
)

evaluator_benchmarker = EvaluatorBenchmarkerPack( evaluator=evaluators["gpt-4"], eval_dataset=evaluator_dataset, show_progress=True, )

In [ ]:

gpt_4_benchmark_df = await evaluator_benchmarker.arun(
    batch_size=100, sleep_time_in_seconds=0
)

gpt_4_benchmark_df = await evaluator_benchmarker.arun( batch_size=100, sleep_time_in_seconds=0 )

/Users/nerdai/Projects/llama_index/docs/examples/evaluation/pack/base.py:142: UserWarning: You've set a large batch_size (>10). If using OpenAI GPT-4 as  `judge_llm` (which is the default judge_llm), you may experience a RateLimitError. Previous successful eval  responses are cached per batch. So hitting a RateLimitError would mean you'd lose all of the current batches successful  GPT-4 calls.
  warnings.warn(
Batch processing of predictions: 100%|████████████████████| 100/100 [00:13<00:00,  7.26it/s]
Batch processing of predictions: 100%|██████████████████████| 60/60 [00:10<00:00,  5.92it/s]

In [ ]:

gpt_4_benchmark_df.index = ["gpt-4"]
gpt_4_benchmark_df

gpt_4_benchmark_df.index = ["gpt-4"] gpt_4_benchmark_df

Out[ ]:

	number_examples	invalid_predictions	correlation	mae	hamming
gpt-4	160	0	0.966126	0.09375	143

Gemini Pro¶

In [ ]:

evaluator_benchmarker = EvaluatorBenchmarkerPack(
    evaluator=evaluators["gemini-pro"],
    eval_dataset=evaluator_dataset,
    show_progress=True,
)

evaluator_benchmarker = EvaluatorBenchmarkerPack( evaluator=evaluators["gemini-pro"], eval_dataset=evaluator_dataset, show_progress=True, )

In [ ]:

gemini_pro_benchmark_df = await evaluator_benchmarker.arun(
    batch_size=5, sleep_time_in_seconds=0.5
)

gemini_pro_benchmark_df = await evaluator_benchmarker.arun( batch_size=5, sleep_time_in_seconds=0.5 )

In [ ]:

gemini_pro_benchmark_df.index = ["gemini-pro"]
gemini_pro_benchmark_df

gemini_pro_benchmark_df.index = ["gemini-pro"] gemini_pro_benchmark_df

Out[ ]:

	number_examples	invalid_predictions	correlation	mae	hamming
gemini-pro	160	1	0.295121	1.220126	12

In [ ]:

evaluator_benchmarker.prediction_dataset.save_json(
    "mt_sg_gemini_predictions.json"
)

evaluator_benchmarker.prediction_dataset.save_json( "mt_sg_gemini_predictions.json" )

In Summary¶

Putting all baselines together.

In [ ]:

import pandas as pd

final_benchmark = pd.concat(
    [
        gpt_3p5_benchmark_df,
        gpt_4_benchmark_df,
        gemini_pro_benchmark_df,
    ],
    axis=0,
)
final_benchmark

import pandas as pd final_benchmark = pd.concat( [ gpt_3p5_benchmark_df, gpt_4_benchmark_df, gemini_pro_benchmark_df, ], axis=0, ) final_benchmark

Out[ ]:

	number_examples	invalid_predictions	correlation	mae	hamming
gpt-3.5	160	0	0.317047	1.118750	27
gpt-4	160	0	0.966126	0.093750	143
gemini-pro	160	1	0.295121	1.220126	12

From the results above, we make the following observations:

• GPT-3.5 and Gemini-Pro seem to have similar results, with perhaps the slightes edge to GPT-3.5 in terms of closeness to GPT-4.
• Though, both don't seem to be too close to GPT-4.
• GPT-4 seems to be pretty consistent with itself in this benchmark.