Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement the TriviaQA evaluation #11

Closed
2 tasks done
StellaAthena opened this issue Sep 16, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #53 or #107
Closed
2 tasks done

Implement the TriviaQA evaluation #11

StellaAthena opened this issue Sep 16, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #53 or #107
Assignees
Labels
feature request A feature that isn't implemented yet. good first issue Good for newcomers

Comments

@StellaAthena
Copy link
Member

StellaAthena commented Sep 16, 2020

From the GPT-3 paper:

In this section we measure GPT-3’s ability to answer questions about broad factual knowledge. Due to the immense amount of possible queries, this task has normally been approached by using an information retrieval system to find relevant text in combination with a model which learns to generate an answer given the question and the retrieved text. Since this setting allows a system to search for and condition on text which potentially contains the answer it is denoted “open-book”. [RRS20] recently demonstrated that a large language model can perform surprisingly well directly answering the questions without conditioning on auxilliary information. They denote this more restrictive evaluation setting as “closed-book”. Their work suggests that even higher-capacity models could perform even better and we test this hypothesis with GPT-3. We evaluate GPT-3 on the 3 datasets in [RRS20]: Natural Questions [KPR+19], WebQuestions [BCFL13], and TriviaQA [JCWZ17], using the same splits. Note that in addition to all results being in the closed-book setting, our use of few-shot, one-shot, and zero-shot evaluations represent an even stricter setting than previous closed-book QA work: in addition to external content not being allowed, fine-tuning on the Q&A dataset itself is also not permitted.

  • Data processing code implemented
  • Evaluation implemented

The evaluation code should be modeled after the interface in lm_eval/base.py and the example of the BoolQ task in lm_eval/tasks/suerglue.py

@StellaAthena StellaAthena added the feature request A feature that isn't implemented yet. label Sep 16, 2020
@StellaAthena StellaAthena added this to To do in Implementing Evaluations via automation Sep 16, 2020
@cfoster0
Copy link
Contributor

cfoster0 commented Oct 1, 2020

Note: HuggingFace includes this in its datasets package.

https://huggingface.co/datasets/trivia_qa

@anishthite anishthite moved this from To do to In progress in Implementing Evaluations Oct 4, 2020
@anishthite anishthite self-assigned this Oct 4, 2020
@StellaAthena StellaAthena added Eval Set and removed feature request A feature that isn't implemented yet. labels Oct 23, 2020
@anishthite anishthite linked a pull request Oct 24, 2020 that will close this issue
Implementing Evaluations automation moved this from In progress to Data integrated, Eval not done Oct 24, 2020
@StellaAthena StellaAthena reopened this Jan 5, 2021
@StellaAthena StellaAthena added feature request A feature that isn't implemented yet. good first issue Good for newcomers labels Jan 5, 2021
@leogao2 leogao2 moved this from In Progress to To do in Implementing Evaluations Jan 28, 2021
@leogao2 leogao2 moved this from To do to Done in Implementing Evaluations Jan 30, 2021
@leogao2 leogao2 closed this as completed Jan 30, 2021
StellaAthena pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 29, 2022
qmdnls pushed a commit to qmdnls/lm-evaluation-harness that referenced this issue Aug 17, 2023
…ext-separator

Add `"\n###\n"` example separator
LZY-the-boys pushed a commit to LZY-the-boys/lm-evaluation-harness-fast that referenced this issue Sep 12, 2023
…ext-separator

Add `"\n###\n"` example separator
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature request A feature that isn't implemented yet. good first issue Good for newcomers
Projects
No open projects
Implementing Evaluations
  
Done, evaluations
5 participants