File size: 32,062 Bytes
b5beb60 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 | from .image_base import ImageBaseDataset
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from ..smp import *
from .utils import build_judge, DEBUG_MESSAGE
from ..utils import track_progress_rich
import re
prompt_dict = {}
prompt_dict['LiveMMBench_Creation'] = {
# Subjective Judge [GPT-4o reference]
'subjective':"""
Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the quality of two responses provided by AI assistants to the user prompt.
Your task is to carefully assess two responses based on provided instructions and evaluation criteria. After evaluating both responses, determine which response features better quality and better meets the criteria. If both responses are similar or nearly identical in quality, you should indicate a tie. Avoid position bias toward the first or second response.
Suggested Steps for Evaluation:
1. Review both responses independently and then carefully compare their strengths and weaknesses. A good response should feature good language quality, follow the user instruction and meet as many criteria as possible.
2. After completing the first evaluation, swap the positions of response A and B and repeat Step 1 and get the 2nd evaluation outcome. This helps to mitigate the potential position bias.
3. After completing both evaluations (in the original and reversed order), combine your analysis and provide a final conclusion based on the overall assessment. If both responses are relatively similar, or the differences are minimal and hard to distinguish, your conclusion should indicate a tie ([[A=B]]).
Your **conclusion** should be one of the following options (A, B are of the original order):
1. [[A>>B]]: Response A is clearly better than Response B.
2. [[A>B]]: Response A is slightly better than Response B.
3. [[A=B]]: Response A is nearly identical to Response B.
4. [[B>A]]: Response B is slightly better than Response A.
5. [[B>>A]]: Response B is clearly better than Response A.
User Instruction:\n[INSTRUCTIONS]\n{instructions}\n[END INSTRUCTIONS]\n\n
Repsonse A:\n[RESPONSE A]\n{reference_answer_by_gpt4o}\n[END RESPONSE A]\n\n
Response B:\n[RESPONSE B]\n{prediction}\n[END RESPONSE B]\n\n
Evaluation Criteria:\n[CRITERIA]\n{criteria}\n[END CRITERIA]\n\n
Your output should include:
1. Conclusion: Your final conclusion based on the overall assessment.
2. Reasoning: Your reasoning process and analysis of the two responses.
Your output should follow the following format (CONCLUSION should be one of the five options: A>>B, A>B, A=B, B>A, B>>A):
Final Conclusion: [[CONCLUSION]]
Reasoning Process: [REASONING]\n
""",
# Criteria Alignment w/o GT
'objective_without_gt':"""
Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the **Criteria Alignment** of the two responses provided by AI assistants to the user prompt. The responses were generated based on the provided instructions and visual input from images.
Suggested Steps for Evaluation:
1. Evaluate **Criteria Alignment** of both responses based on the criteria.
• If a criterion consist of **X aspects**, each aspect is worth **10 / X points**.
• For each aspect, there may be multiple sub-criteria. If there are **Y sub-criteria for the aspect**, each sub-criterion worths **10 / (X * Y) points**.
2. Assign a total score out of 10 for each response.
User Instruction:\n[INSTRUCTIONS]\n{instructions}\n[END INSTRUCTIONS]\n\n
Repsonse A:\n[RESPONSE A]\n{reference_answer_by_gpt4o}\n[END RESPONSE A]\n\n
Response B:\n[RESPONSE B]\n{prediction}\n[END RESPONSE B]\n\n
Criteria:\n[CRITERIA]\n{criteria}\n[END CRITERIA]\n\n
Your output should evaluate alignment scores of each response and end with a conclusion in the following format (The full score is 10. X, Y are alignment scores for Response A and B):
Response A Alignment Score: X/10
Response B Alignment Score: Y/10\n
""",
# Criteria Alignment w. GT
'objective_with_gt':"""
Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the **Criteria Alignment** of the two responses provided by AI assistants to the user prompt. The responses were generated based on the provided instructions and visual input from images. There is also a ground truth corresponding to the instructions provided for reference.
Take this context into account when making your judgment.
Steps for Evaluation:
1. Evaluate **Criteria Alignment** of both responses based on the criteria and the ground truth.
• If a criterion consist of **X aspects**, each aspect is worth **10 / X points**.
• For each aspect, there may be multiple sub-criteria. If there are **Y sub-criteria for the aspect**, each sub-criterion worths **10 / (X * Y) points**.
2. Assign a total score out of 10 for each response.
User Instruction:\n[INSTRUCTIONS]\n{instructions}\n[END INSTRUCTIONS]\n\n
Ground Truth:\n[GROUND TRUTH]\n{groundtruth}\n[END GROUND TRUTH]\n\n
Repsonse A:\n[RESPONSE A]\n{reference_answer_by_gpt4o}\n[END RESPONSE A]\n\n
Response B:\n[RESPONSE B]\n{prediction}\n[END RESPONSE B]\n\n
Criteria:\n[CRITERIA]\n{criteria}\n[END CRITERIA]\n\n
Your output should evaluate alignment scores of each response and end with a conclusion in the following format (The full score is 10. X, Y are alignment scores for Response A and B):
Response A Alignment Score: X/10
Response B Alignment Score: Y/10\n
""",
}
prompt_dict['Creation_MMBench'] = {
# Subjective Judge [GPT-4o reference, with image]
'subjective':"""
Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the quality of the responses provided by two AI assistants to the user prompt below, considering both the provided criteria and the image.
Your task is to carefully assess each response based on how well it meets the evaluation criteria, incorporating the visual context from the image. The criteria should be the primary basis for your judgment, with the image serving to complement and inform your analysis.
Steps for Evaluation:
1. Review Both Responses Independently:
Carefully analyze Assistant A’s and Assistant B’s responses with the criteria and the image. Do not assume any response is better just because it is listed first. Each response should be independently assessed based on the criteria and aided by images to help understand the context.
2. Compare the Strengths and Weaknesses:
After evaluating each response independently, compare the two. Consider both the quality of the content and how closely it aligns with the criteria and image. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of each response, and highlight the key differences.
3. Ensure Fairness:
To avoid positional bias, swap the positions of Assistant A and Assistant B after the first evaluation (i.e., make Assistant A become Assistant B and vice versa) and repeat the analysis and comparison. This ensures that each response is evaluated impartially under the same criteria.
4. Provide a Conclusion Based on Both Evaluations:
After completing both evaluations (original and swapped positions), combine your analysis to provide a final verdict. If the responses are similar, with only minimal differences, your judgment should reflect that and indicate a tie.
Possible Verdict Options:
• If Assistant A is clearly better in both evaluations: [[A>>B]]
• If Assistant A is slightly better in both evaluations: [[A>B]]
• If both responses are nearly identical, showing minimal differences and no clear advantage: [[A=B]]
• If Assistant B is slightly better in both evaluations: [[B>A]]
• If Assistant B is clearly better in both evaluations: [[B>>A]]
Instructions to the AI Assistants:
[INSTRUCTIONS]
{instructions}
[END INSTRUCTIONS]
Assistant A Response:
[ASSISTANT A]
{reference_answer_by_gpt4o}
[END ASSISTANT A]
Evaluation Criteria:
[CRITERIA]
{criteria}
[END CRITERIA]
Assistant B Response:
[ASSISTANT B]
{prediction}
[END ASSISTANT B]
Output Format:
Your output should include:
1. Evaluation of Assistant A’s Response: Provide a detailed qualitative evaluation, focusing on how well Assistant A’s response aligns with the criteria and the image.
2. Evaluation of Assistant B’s Response: Provide a detailed qualitative evaluation, focusing on how well Assistant B’s response aligns with the criteria and the image.
3. Final Verdict: After considering both evaluations, select one of the following verdicts and justify it based on your analysis:
Your output format should end like this:
Assistant A Evaluation: [qualitative comment]
Assistant B Evaluation: [qualitative comment]
Final Verdict is: [[VERDICT]]
""",
##### For Visual Factuality
'objective_without_gt':"""
Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the **Visual Factuality** of the responses provided by two AI assistants to the user prompt displayed below.
The responses were generated based on the provided instructions and visual input from images. Take this context into account when making your judgment.
Steps for Evaluation:
1. Evaluate visual factuality for both responses based on the visual factuality criteria.
• If the visual factuality criteria consist of **X aspects**, each aspect is worth **10/X points**.
• For each aspect, there may be multiple small criteria. If there are **Y small criteria in one aspect**, each small criterion is worth **10/X/Y points**.
2. Assign a total score out of 10 for each response.
Instructions to the AI assistants:
[INSTRUCTIONS]
{instructions}
[END INSTRUCTIONS]
Assistant A response:
[ASSISTANT A]
{reference_answer_by_gpt4o}
[END ASSISTANT A]
Visual Factuality Criteria:
[VISUAL FACTUALITY CRITERIA]
{criteria}
[END CRITERIA]
Assistant B response:
[ASSISTANT B]
{prediction}
[END ASSISTANT B]
Your output should evaluate visual factuality scores for each assistant and end like this:
Response A Visual Factuality Score: X/10
Response B Visual Factuality Score: Y/10
""",
'objective_with_gt':"""
Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the **Visual Factuality** of the responses provided by two AI assistants to the user prompt displayed below.
The responses were generated based on the provided instructions and visual input from images.
There is a provided ground truth for the instructions, but the ground truth was not given to the AI assistants when generating their responses.
Take this context into account when making your judgment.
Steps for Evaluation:
1. Evaluate visual factuality for both responses based on the provided ground truth and visual factuality criteria.
• If the visual factuality criteria consist of **X aspects**, each aspect is worth **10/X points**.
• For each aspect, there may be multiple small criteria. If there are **Y small criteria in one aspect**, each small criterion is worth **10/X/Y points**.
2. Assign a total score out of 10 for each response.
Instructions to the AI assistants:
[INSTRUCTIONS]
{instructions}
[END INSTRUCTIONS]
Assistant A response:
[ASSISTANT A]
{reference_answer_by_gpt4o}
[END ASSISTANT A]
Visual Factuality Criteria:
[VISUAL FACTUALITY CRITERIA]
{criteria}
[END CRITERIA]
Assistant B response:
[ASSISTANT B]
{prediction}
[END ASSISTANT B]
Ground truth:
[GROUND TRUTH]
{groundtruth}
[END GROUND TRUTH]
Your output should evaluate visual factuality scores for each assistant and end like this:
Response A Visual Factuality Score: X/10
Response B Visual Factuality Score: Y/10
""",
}
creation_mmbench_category_dict = {
'CATEGORY_Literary_Writing': [
'story_continue',
'landscape_to_poem',
'historical_story_creation',
'story_novel_creation',
'prose_writing_scenery',
'art_inspired_prose',
'daily_conversation_creation',
'children_book_illustration_dialogue_creation'
],
'CATEGORY_Common_Functionality_Writing':[
'ins_simple_daily_copywriter',
'travel_journal',
'short_video_scripts_for_social_media',
'social_media_travel_content',
'daily_achievement_show_off',
'scientific_research_simple_promotion',
'twitter_comment_on_daily_news',
'personal_event_summaries',
'daily_affairs_inquiries',
'business_collaborative_email_writing',
'daily_emotional_email_writing',
'letter_of_complaint',
'daily_invitation_email_writing',
'holiday_card_writing',
'letter_of_application',
'product_usage_experience_review',
'store_experience_review',
'public_welfare_activity_participation_initiative'
],
'CATEGORY_Professional_Functionality_Writing': [
'museum_guide_word_creation',
'recipe_infer_and_guide',
'landscape_introduction',
'drafting_announcements_for_public_spaces',
'floor_plan_renovation_design',
'teaching_plan',
'nutritional_formulation_of_recipe',
'clothing_match_design',
'software_engineering_diagram_explanation',
'event_planning_and_venue_arrangement',
'ui_design_analysis_and_optimization',
'attraction_promotional_words',
'product_marketing_strategy',
'script_writing_for_product_advertisement_promotional_video',
'residence_reasoning',
'scientific_diagram_understanding',
'pulitzer_prize_judge',
'architecture_appreciation',
'company_team_amuse_broadcast'
],
'CATEGORY_Creative_Multimodal_Understanding': [
'travel_itinerary_planning_and_recommendations',
'photography_appreciation',
'meme_explanation',
'advertisement_explanation',
'document_understanding',
'snapshot_analysis'
]
}
def is_criteria_valid(criteria):
import re
for value in criteria.values():
if value == '\\' or value == '' or not re.search('[a-zA-Z]', value):
return False
return True
key_mapping = {
"sub_parse_ok": "preference_parse_ok",
"sub_dist": "preference_dist",
"win_rate": "win_rate",
"sub_reward": "reward",
"obj_parse_ok": "visual_factuality_parse_ok",
"obj_score": "visual_factuality_score",
"obj_ref_score": "visual_factuality_ref_score"
}
def rename_keys(data, key_mapping):
if isinstance(data, dict):
new_data = {}
for key, value in data.items():
new_key = key_mapping.get(key, key)
new_data[new_key] = rename_keys(value, key_mapping)
return new_data
elif isinstance(data, list):
return [rename_keys(item, key_mapping) for item in data]
else:
return data
def build_prompt(line, dataset_name):
try:
criteria = eval(line['criteria'])
except:
criteria = line['criteria']
if isinstance(criteria, dict):
new_criteria = {}
for k in criteria:
if 'subjective' in k.lower():
new_criteria['subjective'] = criteria[k]
else:
new_criteria['objective'] = criteria[k]
else:
assert isinstance(criteria, str)
new_criteria = {'subjective': criteria}
criteria = new_criteria
assert 'subjective' in criteria, 'No subjective criteria found in the criteria dict'
prompts = {}
if listinstr(['Creation_MMBench'], dataset_name):
dataset_name = 'Creation_MMBench'
prompts['subjective'] = prompt_dict[dataset_name]['subjective'].format(
instructions=line['question'],
criteria=criteria['subjective'],
reference_answer_by_gpt4o=line['reference_answer_by_gpt4o'],
prediction=line['prediction']
)
if 'objective' in criteria:
if 'ground_truth' in line and (not pd.isna(line['ground_truth'])) and line['ground_truth'] != '':
prompts['objective'] = prompt_dict[dataset_name]['objective_with_gt'].format(
instructions=line['question'],
criteria=criteria['objective'],
groundtruth=line['ground_truth'],
reference_answer_by_gpt4o=line['reference_answer_by_gpt4o'],
prediction=line['prediction'])
else:
prompts['objective'] = prompt_dict[dataset_name]['objective_without_gt'].format(
instructions=line['question'],
criteria=criteria['objective'],
reference_answer_by_gpt4o=line['reference_answer_by_gpt4o'],
prediction=line['prediction'])
return prompts
def Generate_Creation_MMBench_judge(model, image_list, prompt):
assert isinstance(prompt, dict)
response = {}
for key in prompt.keys():
if image_list and key == 'subjective':
input_msg = []
for img_path in image_list:
if read_ok(img_path):
input_msg.append({'type': 'image', 'value': img_path})
else:
raise ValueError(f"Image not found: {img_path}")
input_msg.append({'type': 'text', 'value': prompt[key]})
# print(f'using image {image_list} and text')
response[key] = model.generate(input_msg)
else:
response[key] = model.generate(prompt[key])
return response
def extract_subjective(inp, dataset_name):
mapping_dict = {
'LiveMMBench_Creation': 'FINAL CONCLUSION:',
'Creation_MMBench': 'FINAL VERDICT IS:'
}
lines = inp.split('\n')
for line in lines:
line = line.upper()
if line.startswith(mapping_dict[dataset_name]):
rem = line.split(mapping_dict[dataset_name])[1].strip()
rem = rem.split('[[')[1].split(']]')[0].strip()
cands = [
'A>>B', 'A>B', 'A=B', 'B>A', 'B>>A',
'B<<A', 'B<A', 'B=A', 'A<B', 'A<<B'
]
if rem in cands:
return rem
return None
def extract_objective(inp, dataset_name):
# Response A Alignment Score: X/10
mapping_dict = {
'LiveMMBench_Creation': {
'A': 'RESPONSE A ALIGNMENT SCORE:',
'B': 'RESPONSE B ALIGNMENT SCORE:'
},
'Creation_MMBench': {
'A': 'RESPONSE A VISUAL FACTUALITY SCORE:',
'B': 'RESPONSE B VISUAL FACTUALITY SCORE:'
},
}
if pd.isna(inp) or inp is None or inp == '':
return 'NO_OBJECTIVE'
lines = inp.split('\n')
a_score, b_score = None, None
for line in lines:
line = line.upper()
line = re.sub(r"[“”*]", "", line)
if line.startswith(mapping_dict[dataset_name]['A']):
rem = line.split(mapping_dict[dataset_name]['A'])[1].strip()
rem = rem.split('/')[0].strip()
try:
a_score = float(rem)
except:
continue
elif line.startswith(mapping_dict[dataset_name]['B']):
rem = line.split(mapping_dict[dataset_name]['B'])[1].strip()
rem = rem.split('/')[0].strip()
try:
b_score = float(rem)
except:
continue
if a_score is not None and b_score is not None and (0 <= a_score <= 10) and (0 <= b_score <= 10):
return f'{a_score}|{b_score}'
else:
return None
def Creation_MMBench_extract(judge_response_pkl, org_data, dataset_name):
import copy as cp
data = cp.deepcopy(org_data)
data['subjective_judge'] = [judge_response_pkl[idx]['subjective'] for idx in data['index']]
data['objective_judge'] = [judge_response_pkl[idx].get('objective', None) for idx in data['index']]
data['subjective_score'] = [extract_subjective(x, dataset_name) for x in data['subjective_judge']]
data['objective_score'] = [extract_objective(x, dataset_name) for x in data['objective_judge']]
return data
def get_dimension_rating(score_file_name, rev=False):
def get_pw_score(text):
if 'A<<B' in text or 'B>>A' in text:
return 2
elif 'A<B' in text or 'B>A' in text:
return 1
elif 'A=B' in text or 'B=A' in text:
return 0
elif 'A>B' in text or 'B<A' in text:
return -1
elif 'A>>B' in text or 'B<<A' in text:
return -2
else:
return None
score_file = load(score_file_name)
base_dict = {'sub_valid': 0, 'sub_missing': 0, 'sub_score': [], 'obj_valid': 0, 'obj_missing': 0, 'obj_ref_score': [], 'obj_score': []}
return_dict = {'overall': cp.deepcopy(base_dict)}
for idx, item in score_file.iterrows():
task_name = item['task_name']
if task_name not in return_dict.keys():
return_dict[task_name] = cp.deepcopy(base_dict)
if not pd.isna(item['subjective_score']):
for k in ['overall', task_name]:
return_dict[k]['sub_valid'] += 1
return_dict[k]['sub_score'].append(get_pw_score(item['subjective_score']))
else:
return_dict['overall']['sub_missing'] += 1
return_dict[task_name]['sub_missing'] += 1
if item['objective_score'] == 'NO_OBJECTIVE':
continue
elif not pd.isna(item['objective_score']):
score = item['objective_score']
assert '|' in score
ref_score, score = [float(x) for x in score.split('|')]
for k in ['overall', task_name]:
return_dict[k]['obj_valid'] += 1
return_dict[k]['obj_score'].append(score)
return_dict[k]['obj_ref_score'].append(ref_score)
else:
return_dict['overall']['obj_missing'] += 1
return_dict[task_name]['obj_missing'] += 1
final_res = {}
for k, v in return_dict.items():
res = {}
res['sub_parse_ok'] = v['sub_valid'] / (v['sub_valid'] + v['sub_missing'])
dist = defaultdict(lambda: 0)
for x in v['sub_score']:
dist[x] += 1
assert len(dist) <= 5 and sum(list(dist.values())) == v['sub_valid']
if v['sub_valid']:
res['sub_dist'] = {k: dist[k] / v['sub_valid'] for k in [-2, -1, 0, 1, 2]}
res['sub_reward'] = (-100 * dist[-2] - 50 * dist[-1] + 50 * dist[1] + 100 * dist[2]) / v['sub_valid']
if v['obj_valid'] + v['obj_missing']:
res['obj_parse_ok'] = v['obj_valid'] / (v['obj_valid'] + v['obj_missing'])
if v['obj_valid']:
res['obj_score'] = sum(v['obj_score']) / v['obj_valid']
res['obj_ref_score'] = sum(v['obj_ref_score']) / v['obj_valid']
final_res[k] = res
final_res['raw'] = return_dict
return final_res
def merge_dual(raw, raw_dual, dataset_name):
final_res = {}
category_raw = {}
for k, v in raw.items():
# merge dual: {'sub_valid': 0, 'sub_missing': 0, 'sub_score': [], 'obj_valid': 0, 'obj_missing': 0, 'obj_ref_score': [], 'obj_score': []}
dual_v = raw_dual[k]
v['sub_valid'] += dual_v['sub_valid']
v['sub_missing'] += dual_v['sub_missing']
v['sub_score'].extend([-x for x in dual_v['sub_score']])
v['obj_valid'] += dual_v['obj_valid']
v['obj_missing'] += dual_v['obj_missing']
v['obj_score'].extend(dual_v['obj_ref_score'])
v['obj_ref_score'].extend(dual_v['obj_score'])
raw[k] = v
res = {}
res['sub_parse_ok'] = v['sub_valid'] / (v['sub_valid'] + v['sub_missing'])
dist = defaultdict(lambda: 0)
for x in v['sub_score']:
dist[x] += 1
assert len(dist) <= 5 and sum(list(dist.values())) == v['sub_valid']
res['sub_dist'] = {k: dist[k] / v['sub_valid'] for k in [-2, -1, 0, 1, 2]}
res['win_rate'] = (dist[2] + dist[1]) / v['sub_valid'] * 100
res['sub_reward'] = (-100 * dist[-2] - 50 * dist[-1] + 50 * dist[1] + 100 * dist[2]) / v['sub_valid']
if v['obj_valid'] + v['obj_missing']:
res['obj_parse_ok'] = v['obj_valid'] / (v['obj_valid'] + v['obj_missing'])
if v['obj_valid']:
res['obj_score'] = sum(v['obj_score']) / v['obj_valid']
res['obj_ref_score'] = sum(v['obj_ref_score']) / v['obj_valid']
final_res[k] = res
if listinstr(['Creation_MMBench'], dataset_name):
pass_flag = False
for main_category_name, category_list in creation_mmbench_category_dict.items():
if k in creation_mmbench_category_dict.keys() or k == 'overall':
pass_flag = True
break
if k in category_list:
if main_category_name not in category_raw.keys():
category_raw[main_category_name] = {'sub_valid': 0, 'sub_missing': 0, 'sub_score': [], 'obj_valid': 0, 'obj_missing': 0, 'obj_ref_score': [], 'obj_score': []}
category_raw[main_category_name]['sub_valid'] += v['sub_valid']
category_raw[main_category_name]['sub_missing'] += v['sub_missing']
category_raw[main_category_name]['sub_score'].extend(v['sub_score'])
category_raw[main_category_name]['obj_valid'] += v['obj_valid']
category_raw[main_category_name]['obj_missing'] += v['obj_missing']
category_raw[main_category_name]['obj_score'].extend(v['obj_score'])
category_raw[main_category_name]['obj_ref_score'].extend(v['obj_ref_score'])
pass_flag = True
break
if not pass_flag:
raise Exception(f"Error: {k} not found in type_dict")
for k, v in category_raw.items():
res = {}
res['sub_parse_ok'] = v['sub_valid'] / (v['sub_valid'] + v['sub_missing'])
dist = defaultdict(lambda: 0)
for x in v['sub_score']:
dist[x] += 1
assert len(dist) <= 5 and sum(list(dist.values())) == v['sub_valid']
res['sub_dist'] = {k: dist[k] / v['sub_valid'] for k in [-2, -1, 0, 1, 2]}
res['win_rate'] = (dist[2] + dist[1]) / v['sub_valid'] * 100
res['sub_reward'] = (-100 * dist[-2] - 50 * dist[-1] + 50 * dist[1] + 100 * dist[2]) / v['sub_valid']
if v['obj_valid'] + v['obj_missing']:
res['obj_parse_ok'] = v['obj_valid'] / (v['obj_valid'] + v['obj_missing'])
if v['obj_valid']:
res['obj_score'] = sum(v['obj_score']) / v['obj_valid']
res['obj_ref_score'] = sum(v['obj_ref_score']) / v['obj_valid']
final_res[k] = res
final_res['raw'] = raw
final_res['category_raw'] = category_raw
if listinstr(['Creation_MMBench'], dataset_name):
final_res = rename_keys(final_res, key_mapping)
return final_res
class CreationMMBenchDataset(ImageBaseDataset):
TYPE = 'CreationVQA'
DATASET_URL = {
'LiveMMBench_Creation': '',
'Creation_MMBench': 'https://opencompass.openxlab.space/utils/VLMEval/Creation_MMBench.tsv'
}
DATASET_MD5 = {
'Creation_MMBench':'870c0332a9c6a169d0ac9b8574c245fe'
}
# It returns a dictionary
def dump_image(self, line):
os.makedirs(self.img_root, exist_ok=True)
if 'image' in line:
if isinstance(line['image'], list):
tgt_path = []
assert 'image_path' in line
for img, im_name in zip(line['image'], line['image_path']):
path = osp.join(self.img_root, im_name)
if not read_ok(path):
decode_base64_to_image_file(img, path)
tgt_path.append(path)
else:
if 'image_path' in line:
assert isinstance(line['image_path'], str) or (isinstance(line['image_path'], list) and len(line['image_path']) == 1)
if isinstance(line['image_path'], list):
line['image_path'] = line['image_path'][0]
tgt_path = osp.join(self.img_root, line['image_path'])
else:
tgt_path = osp.join(self.img_root, f"{line['index']}.jpg")
if not read_ok(tgt_path):
decode_base64_to_image_file(line['image'], tgt_path)
tgt_path = [tgt_path]
else:
assert 'image_path' in line
tgt_path = toliststr(line['image_path'])
return tgt_path
def evaluate(self, eval_file, **judge_kwargs):
rating_rev = None
dual_eval = judge_kwargs.pop('dual_eval', True)
if dual_eval:
print('Dual Evaluation Strategy is enabled.')
src = load(eval_file)
tgt = load(eval_file)
tgt['reference_answer_by_gpt4o'] = src['prediction']
tgt['prediction'] = src['reference_answer_by_gpt4o']
tgt_file_name = eval_file.replace('.xlsx', '_rev.xlsx')
dump(tgt, tgt_file_name)
judge_kwargs['dual_eval'] = False
rating_rev = self.evaluate(tgt_file_name, **judge_kwargs)
judge_kwargs.pop('dual_eval', None)
suffix = '.' + eval_file.split('.')[-1]
score_file = eval_file.replace(suffix, '_score.csv')
tgt_file = eval_file.replace(suffix, '_rating.json')
model = judge_kwargs.pop('model', 'gpt-4o-0806')
model_name = model.split('/')[-1] if '/' in model else model
tmp_file = eval_file.replace(suffix, f'_{model_name}.pkl')
nproc = judge_kwargs.pop('nproc', 4)
if not osp.exists(score_file):
data = load(eval_file)
lt = len(data)
lines = [data.iloc[i] for i in range(len(data))]
judge_kwargs['max_tokens'] = 4096
model = build_judge(model=model, **judge_kwargs)
assert model.working(), ('CreationMMBench evaluation requires a working OPENAI API\n' + DEBUG_MESSAGE)
prompts = [build_prompt(line, self.dataset_name) for line in lines]
indices = [line['index'] for line in lines]
if listinstr(['Creation_MMBench'], self.dataset_name):
no_relative_image_list = [self.dump_image(line) for idx, line in self.data.iterrows()]
assert len(no_relative_image_list) == len(lines)
image_list = []
for subimage_list in no_relative_image_list:
sublist = []
for image_path in subimage_list:
image_path = osp.join(self.img_root, image_path)
assert osp.exists(image_path), f"Image not found: {image_path}"
sublist.append(image_path)
image_list.append(sublist)
else:
image_list = [[] * len(lines)]
tups = [(model, image, prompt) for prompt, image in zip(prompts, image_list)]
ans = {}
if osp.exists(tmp_file):
ans = load(tmp_file)
ans = {k: v for k, v in ans.items() if model.fail_msg not in str(v)}
tups = [x for x, i in zip(tups, indices) if i not in ans]
indices = [i for i in indices if i not in ans]
if len(indices):
_ = track_progress_rich(
Generate_Creation_MMBench_judge,
tups,
nproc=nproc,
chunksize=nproc,
keys=indices,
save=tmp_file,
)
ans = load(tmp_file)
data = Creation_MMBench_extract(ans, data, self.dataset_name)
dump(data, score_file)
rating = get_dimension_rating(score_file)
dump(rating, tgt_file)
if dual_eval:
raw = rating['raw']
rev_tgt_file = tgt_file.replace('rating.json', 'rev_rating.json')
rev_raw = load(rev_tgt_file)['raw']
merged_rating = merge_dual(raw, rev_raw, self.dataset_name)
dump(merged_rating, tgt_file.replace('rating.json', 'merged_rating.json'))
print(f"Rating:\n{rating['overall']}\n\nDual Rating:\n{merged_rating['overall']}")
return merged_rating['overall']
else:
return rating['overall'] |