File size: 11,883 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 | import re
from functools import partial
from .image_base import ImageBaseDataset
from .utils import build_judge, DEBUG_MESSAGE
from ..smp import *
from ..utils import track_progress_rich
SYSTEM_PROMPT = """\
Please act as an impartial evaluator and assess the quality of the responses provided by two AI assistants to a given user prompt and accompanying image. You will be provided with Assistant A's and Assistant B's answers. Your task is to determine which assistant's response is superior.
Start your evaluation by generating your own answer to the prompt and image. Ensure that you complete your answer before reviewing any assistant responses.
When evaluating the assistants' responses, compare each one to your own answer.
First, assess whether the assistants' answers are helpful and relevant. A response is considered helpful if it appropriately addresses the prompt, follows the given instructions, and is well-organized. A relevant answer closely aligns with the context or requirements of the prompt.
When applicable, consider the creativity and novelty of each assistant's response and evaluate the writing quality of both responses.
Then, identify and correct any errors or inaccuracies in the assistants' answers. Lastly, identify any critical information missing from the assistants' responses that should have been included to improve the answer.
After providing your explanation, you must output only one of the following choices as your final verdict with a label:
1. Assistant A is significantly better: [[A>>B]]
2. Assistant A is slightly better: [[A>B]]
3. Tie, relatively the same: [[A=B]]
4. Assistant B is slightly better: [[B>A]]
5. Assistant B is significantly better: [[B>>A]]
Example output: "My final verdict is tie: [[A=B]]".\
"""
SYSTEM_PROMPT_GT = """\
Please act as an impartial evaluator and assess the quality of the responses provided by two AI assistants to a given user prompt and accompanying image. You will be provided with Assistant A's and Assistant B's answers. Your task is to determine which assistant's response is superior.
Start your evaluation by generating your own answer to the prompt and image. Ensure that you complete your answer before reviewing any assistant responses.
When evaluating the assistants' responses, compare each one to your own answer.
First, assess whether the assistants' answers are helpful and relevant. A response is considered helpful if it appropriately addresses the prompt, follows the given instructions, and is well-organized. A relevant answer closely aligns with the context or requirements of the prompt.
When applicable, consider the creativity and novelty of each assistant's response and evaluate the writing quality of both responses.
Then, identify and correct any errors or inaccuracies in the assistants' answers. Lastly, identify any critical information missing from the assistants' responses that should have been included to improve the answer. Please refer to the provided Ground Truth answer, which constitutes the key fact relevant to the question.
After providing your explanation, you must output only one of the following choices as your final verdict with a label:
1. Assistant A is significantly better: [[A>>B]]
2. Assistant A is slightly better: [[A>B]]
3. Tie, relatively the same: [[A=B]]
4. Assistant B is slightly better: [[B>A]]
5. Assistant B is significantly better: [[B>>A]]
Example output: "My final verdict is tie: [[A=B]]".\
"""
PROMPT_TEMPLATE = """**INPUT**:
<|User Prompt|>\n{question}
<|The Start of Assistant A's Answer|>\n{answer_1}\n<|The End of Assistant A's Answer|>
<|The Start of Assistant B's Answer|>\n{answer_2}\n<|The End of Assistant B's Answer|>
"""
PROMPT_TEMPLATE_GT = """**INPUT**:
<|User Prompt|>\n{question}
<|Ground Truth|>\n{gt}
<|The Start of Assistant A's Answer|>\n{answer_1}\n<|The End of Assistant A's Answer|>
<|The Start of Assistant B's Answer|>\n{answer_2}\n<|The End of Assistant B's Answer|>
"""
REGEX_PATTERN = re.compile("\[\[([AB<>=]+)\]\]") # noqa: W605
def get_score(judgement, pattern=REGEX_PATTERN):
matches = pattern.findall(judgement)
matches = [m for m in matches if m != ""]
if len(set(matches)) == 0:
return None, True
elif len(set(matches)) == 1:
return matches[0].strip("\n"), False
else:
return None, True
def MMAlignBench_auxeval(model, line):
if 'gt' in line and str(line['gt']) != 'nan':
config = dict(question=line['question'], gt=line['gt'], answer_1=line['A'], answer_2=line['B'])
prompt = SYSTEM_PROMPT_GT + '\n' + PROMPT_TEMPLATE_GT.format(**config)
# prompt = PROMPT_TEMPLATE.format(**config)
print('gt_prompt'+prompt)
else:
config = dict(question=line['question'], answer_1=line['A'], answer_2=line['B'])
prompt = SYSTEM_PROMPT + '\n' + PROMPT_TEMPLATE.format(**config)
# prompt = PROMPT_TEMPLATE.format(**config)
print('prompt'+prompt)
prefix = 'data:image/jpeg;base64,'
img = prefix + line['image']
messages = [
dict(type='text', value=prompt),
dict(type='image', value=img)
]
retry = 2
while retry:
resp = model.generate(messages)
score, try_again = get_score(resp)
if not try_again:
break
retry -= 1
if score is None:
return 'Unknown'
return [score, resp]
class MMAlignBench(ImageBaseDataset):
TYPE = 'VQA'
DATASET_URL = {'MMAlignBench': 'https://opencompass.openxlab.space/utils/VLMEval/MMAlignBench.tsv'}
DATASET_MD5 = {'MMAlignBench': 'd00d8e61c99257cbaf76d8d5e926f01e'}
score_map = {
'A>>B': -2,
'A>B': -1,
'A=B': 0,
'B>A': 1,
'B>>A': 2
}
# Given one data record, return the built prompt (a multi-modal message), can override
def build_prompt(self, line):
if isinstance(line, int):
line = self.data.iloc[line]
if self.meta_only:
tgt_path = toliststr(line['image_path'])
else:
tgt_path = self.dump_image(line)
question = line['question']
msgs = []
if isinstance(tgt_path, list):
msgs.extend([dict(type='image', value=p) for p in tgt_path])
else:
msgs = [dict(type='image', value=tgt_path)]
# WildVision adopts text first
msgs = [dict(type='text', value=question)] + msgs
return msgs
@classmethod
def gen_eval_base(self, eval_file, b64_map):
data = load(eval_file)
data['B'] = data.pop('prediction')
data['A'] = data.pop('claude3_sonnet')
data['image'] = [b64_map[x] for x in data['index']]
return data
# It returns a DataFrame
@classmethod
def evaluate(self, eval_file, **judge_kwargs):
# We adopt pairwise evaluation (twice for a pair) for this dataset
suffix = eval_file.split('.')[-1]
model = judge_kwargs['model']
storage = eval_file.replace(f'.{suffix}', f'_{model}.xlsx')
score_file = eval_file.replace(f'.{suffix}', f'_{model}_score.csv')
tmp_file = eval_file.replace(f'.{suffix}', f'_{model}.pkl')
nproc = judge_kwargs.pop('nproc', 4)
if not osp.exists(storage):
raw_data = MMAlignBench('MMAlignBench').data
b64_map = {x: y for x, y in zip(raw_data['index'], raw_data['image'])}
data = self.gen_eval_base(eval_file, b64_map)
# judge_kwargs['system_prompt'] = SYSTEM_PROMPT
judge_kwargs['temperature'] = 0
judge_kwargs['img_detail'] = 'high'
judge_kwargs['timeout'] = 300
model = build_judge(max_tokens=4096, **judge_kwargs)
assert model.working(), (
'MMAlignBench evaluation requires a working OPENAI API\n' + DEBUG_MESSAGE
)
lt = len(data)
lines = [data.iloc[i] for i in range(lt)]
tups = [(model, line) for line in lines]
indices = [line['index'] for line in lines]
ans = load(tmp_file) if osp.exists(tmp_file) else {}
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):
new_results = track_progress_rich(
MMAlignBench_auxeval,
tups,
nproc=nproc,
chunksize=nproc,
keys=indices,
save=tmp_file,
)
ans = load(tmp_file)
for k, v in zip(indices, new_results):
ans[k] = {'score': v[0], 'resp': v[1]}
else:
for k,v in ans.items():
ans[k] = {'score': v[0], 'resp': v[1]}
# breakpoint()
data['score'] = [ans[x]['score'] for x in data['index']]
data['judge'] = [ans[x]['resp'] for x in data['index']]
data.pop('image')
dump(data, storage)
data = load(storage)
lt = len(data)
scores = defaultdict(lambda: 0)
type_scores = defaultdict(lambda: defaultdict(lambda: 0))
for i in range(lt):
item = data.iloc[i]
if item['score'] not in self.score_map:
score = 0
else:
score = self.score_map[item['score']]
if '_rev' in item['index']:
score = -score
scores[score] += 1
type = item['type']
type_scores[type][score] += 1
name_map = {
2: 'Much Better',
1: 'Better',
0: 'Tie',
-1: 'Worse',
-2: 'Much Worse'
}
scores = {name_map[k]: v for k, v in scores.items()}
scores['Reward'] = (
100 * scores.get('Much Better', 0)
+ 50 * scores.get('Better', 0)
- 50 * scores.get('Worse', 0)
- 100 * scores.get('Much Worse', 0)
) / lt
scores['Win Rate'] = (scores.get('Better', 0) + scores.get('Much Better', 0)) / lt
scores = {k: [v] for k, v in scores.items()}
scores = pd.DataFrame(scores)
for type_name, type_score_dict in type_scores.items():
type_score_dict = {name_map[k]: v for k, v in type_score_dict.items()}
type_lt = sum(type_score_dict.values())
type_score_dict['Reward'] = (
(
100 * type_score_dict.get('Much Better', 0)
+ 50 * type_score_dict.get('Better', 0)
- 50 * type_score_dict.get('Worse', 0)
- 100 * type_score_dict.get('Much Worse', 0)
)
/ type_lt
if type_lt > 0
else 0
)
type_score_dict['Win Rate'] = (
(type_score_dict.get('Better', 0) + type_score_dict.get('Much Better', 0)) / type_lt
if type_lt > 0
else 0
)
# 将该类型的得分添加到结果中
type_score_df = pd.DataFrame(
{
f"{type_name}_Much Better": [type_score_dict.get('Much Better', 0)],
f"{type_name}_Better": [type_score_dict.get('Better', 0)],
f"{type_name}_Tie": [type_score_dict.get('Tie', 0)],
f"{type_name}_Worse": [type_score_dict.get('Worse', 0)],
f"{type_name}_Much Worse": [type_score_dict.get('Much Worse', 0)],
f"{type_name}_Reward": [type_score_dict['Reward']],
f"{type_name}_Win Rate": [type_score_dict['Win Rate']],
}
)
scores = pd.concat([scores, type_score_df], axis=1)
dump(scores, score_file)
return scores
|