open-llms VS code-eval

Everyone knows about ChatGPT by now, but did you know there are other models like "Mistral" or "Falcon" - you can view a full list of open-source models here or on huggingface.

This is the most well-maintained list of commercially usable open LLMs: https://github.com/eugeneyan/open-llms

MPT, OpenLLaMA, and Falcon are probably the most generally useful.

For code, Replit Code (specifically replit-code-instruct-glaive) and StarCoder (WizardCoder-15B) are the current top open models and both can be used commercially.

There's also MPT, which has a 7B, and Falcon, with a 7B and 40B although they have not had the inference tuning in community projects that the llamas have had. This is a good repo for reviewing what's available atm: https://github.com/eugeneyan/open-llms

If I was going to do the same I would at least build off of something, check out https://github.com/eugeneyan/open-llms, you should at least have a decent understanding of artificial neural networks (ANNs) and this link is pretty good on the basic concepts you need inc classification and learning types, good luck friend.

This list might help: https://github.com/eugeneyan/open-llms

You're looking for "HumanEval" tests. Not saying this is the best way to test it, but it's the only standard test I know of that code models are compared with and are commonly benchmarked for

The current best models you'd want to try that I'm aware of is WizardCoder(15B), Starcoder(15B), and replit's code model(3B). Replit's instruct model is interesting because of it's competitive performance while only being a 3B model so it's the easiest/fastest to use.

https://github.com/abacaj/code-eval - This is a large mostly up to date list of benchmarks

https://huggingface.co/WizardLM/WizardCoder-15B-V1.0 - has a chart with a mostly up to date comparison

You will want to look at HumanEval (https://github.com/abacaj/code-eval) and Eval+ (https://github.com/my-other-github-account/llm-humaneval-ben...) results for coding.

While Llama2 is an improvement over LLaMA v1, it's still nowhere near even the best open models (currently, sans test contamination, WizardCoder-15B, a StarCoder fine tune is at top). It's really not a competition atm though, ChatGPT-4 wipes the floor for coding atm.

Since I've been on a AI code-helper kick recently. According to the post, Claude 2 now 71.2%, a significant upgrade from 1.3 (56.0%). It isn't specified whether this is pass@1 or pass@10.

For comparison:

* GPT-4 claims 85.4 on HumanEval, in a recent paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.11366.pdf GPT-4 was tested at 80.1 pass@1 and 91 pass@1 using their Reflexion technique. They also include MBPP and Leetcode Hard benchmark comparisons

* WizardCoder, a StarCoder fine-tune is one of the top open models, scoring a 57.3 pass@1, model card here: https://huggingface.co/WizardLM/WizardCoder-15B-V1.0

* The best open model I know of atm is replit-code-instruct-glaive, a replit-code-3b fine tune, which scores a 63.5% pass@1. An independent developer abacaj has reproduced that announcement as part of code-eval, a repo for getting human-eval results: https://github.com/abacaj/code-eval

Those interested in this area may also want to take a look at this repo https://github.com/my-other-github-account/llm-humaneval-ben... that also ranks with Eval+, the CanAiCode Leaderboard https://huggingface.co/spaces/mike-ravkine/can-ai-code-resul... and airate https://github.com/catid/supercharger/tree/main/airate

Also, as with all LLM evals, to be taken with a grain of salt...

Liu, Jiawei, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuyao Wang, and Lingming Zhang. “Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation.” arXiv, June 12, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.01210.

To get an idea of programming performance, my can-ai-code Leaderboard is freshly updated this morning, but also check out the excellent llm-eval and code-eval leaderboards.

In terms of speed, we're talking about 140t/s for 7B models, and 40t/s for 33B models on a 3090/4090 now.[1] (1 token ~= 0.75 word) It's quite zippy. llama.cpp performs close on Nvidia GPUs now (but they don't have a handy chart) and you can get decent performance on 13B models on M1/M2 Macs.

You can take a look at a list of evals here: https://llm-tracker.info/books/evals/page/list-of-evals - for general usage, I think home-rolled evals like llm-jeopardy [2] and local-llm-comparison [3] by hobbyists are more useful than most of the benchmark rankings.

That being said, personally I mostly use GPT-4 for code assistance to that's what I'm most interested in, and the latest code assistants are scoring quite well: https://github.com/abacaj/code-eval - a recent replit-3b fine tune the human-eval results for open models (as a point of reference, GPT-3.5 gets 60.4 on pass@1 and 68.9 on pass@10 [4]) - I've only just started playing around with it since replit model tooling is not as good as llamas (doc here: https://llm-tracker.info/books/howto-guides/page/replit-mode...).

I'm interested in potentially applying reflexion or some of the other techniques that have been tried to even further increase coding abilities. (InterCode in particular has caught my eye https://intercode-benchmark.github.io/)

[1] https://github.com/turboderp/exllama#results-so-far

[2] https://github.com/aigoopy/llm-jeopardy

[3] https://github.com/Troyanovsky/Local-LLM-comparison/tree/mai...

[4] https://github.com/nlpxucan/WizardLM/tree/main/WizardCoder