@@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ Just like a compass guides us on our journey, OpenCompass will guide you through
## 🚀 What's New <a><img width="35" height="20" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/12782558/212848161-5e783dd6-11e8-4fe0-bbba-39ffb77730be.png"></a>
-**\[2024.04.26\]** We supported the evaluation of [ArenaHard](configs/eval_subjective_arena_hard.py) welcome to try!🔥🔥🔥.
-**\[2024.04.22\]** We supported the evaluation of [LLaMA3](configs/models/hf_llama/hf_llama3_8b.py) 和 [LLaMA3-Instruct](configs/models/hf_llama/hf_llama3_8b_instruct.py), welcome to try! 🔥🔥🔥
-**\[2024.02.29\]** We supported the MT-Bench, AlpacalEval and AlignBench, more information can be found [here](https://opencompass.readthedocs.io/en/latest/advanced_guides/subjective_evaluation.html)
-**\[2024.01.30\]** We release OpenCompass 2.0. Click [CompassKit](https://github.com/open-compass), [CompassHub](https://hub.opencompass.org.cn/home), and [CompassRank](https://rank.opencompass.org.cn/home) for more information !
The following introduction comes from the official repo:
Arena-Hard is an evaluation tool for instruction-tuned LLMs. It contains 500 challenging user queries, which prompt GPT-4-Turbo as judge to compare the models' responses against a baseline model (default: GPT-4-0314).
## Official link
https://github.com/lm-sys/arena-hard
### Paper
https://lmsys.org/blog/2024-04-19-arena-hard/
## Examples
Input example I:
```
Use ABC notation to write a melody in the style of a folk tune.
```
Output example I (from GPT-4):
```
X:1\nT:Untitled Folk Tune\nM:4/4\nL:1/8\nK:G\n|:G2A2|B2A2|G2E2|D4|E2F2|G2F2|E2C2|B,4|\nA2B2|c2B2|A2F2|E4|D2E2|F2E2|D2B,2|C4:|
```
## Evaluation results
```
LLaMa3-8b-instruct: 20.6 (Official Results)
LLaMa3-8b-instruct: 21.9 (Opencompass Results)
```
## Reference
```
@misc{arenahard2024,
title = {From Live Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: The Arena-Hard Pipeline},
system_prompt="Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the quality of the responses provided by two AI assistants to the user prompt displayed below. You will be given assistant A's answer and assistant B's answer. Your job is to evaluate which assistant's answer is better.\n\nBegin your evaluation by generating your own answer to the prompt. You must provide your answers before judging any answers.\n\nWhen evaluating the assistants' answers, compare both assistants' answers with your answer. You must identify and correct any mistakes or inaccurate information.\n\nThen consider if the assistant's answers are helpful, relevant, and concise. Helpful means the answer correctly responds to the prompt or follows the instructions. Note when user prompt has any ambiguity or more than one interpretation, it is more helpful and appropriate to ask for clarifications or more information from the user than providing an answer based on assumptions. Relevant means all parts of the response closely connect or are appropriate to what is being asked. Concise means the response is clear and not verbose or excessive.\n\nThen consider the creativity and novelty of the assistant's answers when needed. Finally, identify any missing important information in the assistants' answers that would be beneficial to include when responding to the user prompt.\n\nAfter providing your explanation, you must output only one of the following choices as your final verdict with a label:\n\n1. Assistant A is significantly better: [[A>>B]]\n2. Assistant A is slightly better: [[A>B]]\n3. Tie, relatively the same: [[A=B]]\n4. Assistant B is slightly better: [[B>A]]\n5. Assistant B is significantly better: [[B>>A]]\n\nExample output: \"My final verdict is tie: [[A=B]]\"."
judge_prompt="<|User Prompt|>\n{question}\n\n<|The Start of Assistant A's Answer|>\n{prediction}\n<|The End of Assistant A's Answer|>\n\n<|The Start of Assistant B's Answer|>\n{prediction2}\n<|The End of Assistant B's Answer|>"