stanford_alpaca VS lm-evaluation-harness

Alpaca is an instruction-oriented LLM derived from LLaMA, enhanced by Stanford researchers with a dataset of 52,000 examples of following instructions, sourced from OpenAI’s InstructGPT through the self-instruct method. The extensive self-instruct dataset, details of data generation, and the model refinement code were publicly disclosed. This model complies with the licensing requirements of its base model. Due to the utilization of InstructGPT for data generation, it also adheres to OpenAI’s usage terms, which prohibit the creation of models competing with OpenAI. This illustrates how dataset restrictions can indirectly affect the resulting fine-tuned model.

In this article, we're going to experiment with LoRA and fine-tune Llama Alpaca using commercial hardware.

Most papers I did read showed at least a thousand, even 10000 at several cases, so I assumed that to be the trend in the case of Low rank adapter(PEFT) training.(source: [2305.14314] QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs (arxiv.org) , Stanford CRFM (Alpaca) and the minimum being openchat/openchat · Hugging Face ; There are a lot more examples)

I'm not talking about OpenAI ChatGPT I'm talking about things ALPACA, and where did they train these models? Off the existing models for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the cost: https://crfm.stanford.edu/2023/03/13/alpaca.html

I think there's a new approach for “How do you get the data?” that wasn't available when this article was written in 2015. The new text and image generative models can now be used to synthesize training datasets.

I was working on an typing autocorrect project and needed a corpus of "text messages". Most of the traditional NLP corpuses like those available through NLTK [0] aren't suitable. But it was easy to script ChatGPT to generate thousands of believable text messages by throwing random topics at it.

Similarly, you can synthesize a training dataset by giving GPT the outputs/labels and asking it to generate a variety of inputs. For sentiment analysis... "Give me 1000 negative movie reviews" and "Now give me 1000 positive movie reviews".

The Alpaca folks used GPT-3 to generate high-quality instruction-following datasets [1] based on a small set of human samples.

Etc.

[0] https://www.nltk.org/nltk_data/

[1] https://crfm.stanford.edu/2023/03/13/alpaca.html

AFAIK, the original alpaca repo was a full finetune. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca

The easiest is to use vllm (https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm) to run it on a Couple of A100's, and you can benchmark this using this library (https://github.com/EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness)

Fair question.

Evaluate refers to the phase after training to check if the training is good.

Usually the flow goes training -> evaluation -> deployment (what you called inference). This project is aimed for evaluation. Evaluation can be slow (might even be slower than training if you're finetuning on a small domain specific subset)!

So there are [quite](https://github.com/microsoft/promptbench) [a](https://github.com/confident-ai/deepeval) [few](https://github.com/openai/evals) [frameworks](https://github.com/EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness) working on evaluation, however, all of them are quite slow, because LLM are slow if you don't have infinite money. [This](https://github.com/open-compass/opencompass) one tries to speed up by parallelizing on multiple computers, but none of them takes advantage of the fact that many evaluation queries might be similar and all try to evaluate on all given queries. And that's where this project might come in handy.

I haven't run this yet, but I'm aware of Eleuther AI's evaluation harness EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness: A framework for few-shot evaluation of autoregressive language models. (github.com) and GPT-4 -based evaluations like lm-sys/FastChat: An open platform for training, serving, and evaluating large language models. Release repo for Vicuna and FastChat-T5. (github.com)

Updates: Just finished final evaluation (additional metrics) on https://github.com/EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness and have averaged the results for orca-mini-v2-13b. The average results for the Open LLM Leaderboard are not that great, compare to initial metrics. The average is now 0.54675 which put this model below then many other 13b out there.

Hey u/The-Bloke Appreciate the quants! What is the degradation on the some benchmarks. Have you seen https://github.com/EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness. 3-bit and 2-bit quant will really be pushing it. I don't see a ton of evaluation results on the quants and nice to see a before and after.

I am primarily looking for results of running the MMLU evaluation on modern large language models. I have been able to find some data here https://github.com/EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness/tree/master/results and will be asking them if/when, they can provide any additional data.

I evaluated orca_mini_v2_7b on a wide range of tasks using Language Model Evaluation Harness from EleutherAI.

There is the Language Model Evaluation Harness project which evaluates LLMs on over 200 tasks. HuggingFace has a leaderboard tracking performance on a subset of these tasks.

https://github.com/EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness

https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderb...