mirror of
https://github.com/NicolasBohn/NexQuant.git
synced 2026-08-01 09:27:43 +00:00
7f4c2d18c6
* refine ds modal for more cases: eval and es * update model template * prompts for model and ensemble * fix a bug * fix a bug * init: ds workflow evovingstrategy * Adding ensemble (#505) * Initial Draft * Updating logic for init * Revising * Successful Testing * Updating to use the latest & right class * bug: bug-fixing for testing * data science loop changes * data science loop base * ds loop feedback * fix * remove measure_time because it's duplicated (in LoopBase) * add the knowledge query for data_loader & feature * edit ds workflow evaluator * data_loader bug fix * stop evolving when all tasks completed * llm app change * fix break all complete strategy * Adding queried knowledge (#508) Co-authored-by: XianBW <36835909+XianBW@users.noreply.github.com> * fix loop bug * ds workflow evaluator; test; refine prompts * workflow spec * fix ci * feature task changes * ds loop change * fix a bug in feat * add query knowledge for model and workflow * llm_debug info(for show) using pickle instead of json * remove NextLoopException * loop change * coder raise CoderError when all sub_tasks failed * rename code_dict to file_dict in FBWorkspace * add CoSTEER unittest * now show self.version in Task.get_task_information(), simplify CoSTEER sub tasks definition * remove some properties in ModelTask, add model_type in it. * fix llm app bug * llm web app bug fix * ds loop bug fix * fix: give component code to feature&ens eval * loop catch error bug * rename load_from_raw_data to load_data * feat: Add debug data creation functionality for data science scenarios * support local folder (#511) * support local folder * remove unnecessary random * KaggleScen Subclass * small fix * use template for style description * update default scen to kaggle * update sample data script * make sure frac < 1 * fix a bug * feature spec changes * fix * changeimport order * clear unnecessary std outputs * fix a typo * create sample folder after unzip kaggle data * feature/model test script update * Align the data types across modules. * fix a bug in model eval * show line number * move sample entry point to app * spec & model prompt changes * Refine the competition specification to address the data type problem and the coherence issue. * fix some bugs * add file filter in FBworkspace.code property * support non-binary prediction * avoid too much warnings * fix a bug in ensemble module * filtered the knowledge query in all modules * delete RAG in idea proposal * refine the code in ensemble * show exp workspace in llm_st * exp_gen bug fix * feedback bug fix * use `feature` instead of `feat01` * Trace & method of judging if exp is completed change * fix a bug in package calling and execute ci * fix code * bug fix * bug fix * fix a bug * fix some bugs * fix a bug * refactor: Enhance error handling and feedback in data science loop * support different use_azure on chat and embedding models * multi-model proposal logic * fix a small syntax error * loopBase and some changes * ensemble scores change * fbworkspace.code -> .all_codes * use all model codes in workflow coder * check scores.csv's keys(model_names) * model name changes * add a todo in ensemble test * sota_exp changes * give model info in exp gen * add runner time limit * config using debug data or not in evals * exp to feedback base * add feature code when writing model task * small problem * copying during sampling * update * refactor: Simplify code handling and improve workspace management * model part output fix * print model's execution time * bug fix * ensemble test fix * ens small change * ens_test bug fix * Refine partial expansion logic to display only a few subfolders when their structure is uniform, improving readability in nested directories. * several update on prompts * sample subfolders * Filter the stdout after code execution to remove irrelevant information e.g. progress bars, whitespace characters, excessive line breaks. * Add some more prompts and comments * several update on the first init rounds * model timeout as error * fix pattern of getting model codes in workspace * small bux fix on model prompts * remove get_code_with_key since we have regex pattern * fix: Correct tqdm progress bar update logic in LoopBase class * feat: Add diff generation and enhance feedback mechanism in data science loop * update some fix to model and workflow prompts * refine the logic of progress bar filter * add last_successful_exp in exp_gen * fix a one line bug * add a hint in prompt * fix data sample for bms * fix data sample for bms * hypothesis small fix * crawler readme update * fix component gen * fix bug * annotation change * load description.md if it exists * refactor: Simplify SOTA description handling in feedback and prompts * refactor: Use shared templates for feedback and experiment descriptions * change webapp for model codes changes * update proposal * add timeout message for docker run output * fix * refine the code in docker time processing * use .shape instead of len() when do shape eval * won't change size during iteration * support bson sample * sample support jsonl and bson * add former_code to coder prompts * a little speed us in debug data creating * filter progress bar when eval ens and main * avoid costeer makes no change to former code * fix several log error * add timeout judge threshold * fix some bugs in the evaluation of component output shapes * File structure for supporting litellm (#517) Co-authored-by: Young <afe.young@gmail.com> * ignore submission and show processing * ignore submission and show processing * add efficiency notice * refactor: Enhance error message with detailed feedback summary * refactor: Simplify component handling in DSExpGen class * refactor: Update code structure and add docstring for clarity * reserve one sample to each label in data sampling * add Evaluation info * refine costeer code to avoid giving same code twice * use raw_description as plain text * add a prompt hint to avoid same dict key * model task name bug in first model exp gen * fix a typo * add some debug info in costeer tests * task init change * enhance data sampling * refine the code in data_loader * more reasonable loop * fix a bug in data folder description * add error msg & traceback to execution feedback * fix llm error msg detection * add task information to costeer eval & add cache to docker run(use zipfile to store the whole workspace) * fix CI first round * fix CI second round * use txt to store test script to avoid pytest * remove zipfile in requirements * add azure.identity to requirements * ignore debug web page * component test changes * remove redundent task_desc in model coder * feat: Add APE module and prompts for automated prompt engineering * fix: Update .gitignore and improve text formatting in eval.py * refactor: Update print output and improve code comments and imports * style: Fix string formatting and import order in ape.py and fmt.py * exclude ape * add a data folder notice * reduce unnecessary output to stdout * refine the code of describe_data_folder * fix ci * style: streamlit style update (#522) * streamlit style update * fix import * fix format * fix llm_st loop progress bar * debugapp small change * fix model str * refine some prompts * fix model str * fix CI * refine the logic associated with the data_folder * fix ci * small change * set filter_progress_bar as default in execute * model proposal with workflow * add submission check in workflow eval * fix bug * small change * fix CI * fix CI * refactor: Move generate_diff to utils and update DSExpGen logic * more reasonable prompt describing metric direction * fix a minor jinja2 bug * quick fix exp_gen bugs * fix the following bug * fix * fix some bugs * remove workflow from model * add pending_tasks_list in data science to enable coding model and workflow * refine the code for handling JSON-formatted data descriptions * assert with information * ensure correct csv file name * add logging to help record the output * log competition * add log tag for debug llm app * test: Test ds refactor ll (#523) * fix bugs to former scenario * fix a bug because coding in rdloop changed * fix the bug when feedback gets no hypothesis * fix trace structure * change all trace hist when merging hypothesis to experiments * ignore some error in ruff * fix kaggle scenario bugs * refine one line * another bug * another small bug * fix ui bugs * chage kaggle train.py path --------- Co-authored-by: Xu Yang <peteryang@vip.qq.com> * fix CI * Update rdagent/app/data_science/loop.py Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * add samplecsv into spec prompts * fix CI --------- Co-authored-by: TPLin22 <tplin2@163.com> Co-authored-by: yuanteli <1957922024@qq.com> Co-authored-by: Xisen Wang <118058822+xisen-w@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Bowen Xian <xianbowen@outlook.com> Co-authored-by: Xu Yang <peteryang@vip.qq.com> Co-authored-by: XianBW <36835909+XianBW@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Tim <illking@foxmail.com> Co-authored-by: 炼金术师华华 <37462254+YeewahChan@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Linlang <30293408+SunsetWolf@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
137 lines
8.4 KiB
YAML
137 lines
8.4 KiB
YAML
model_coder:
|
|
system: |-
|
|
You are a world-class data scientist and machine learning engineer with deep expertise in statistics, mathematics, and computer science.
|
|
Your knowledge spans cutting-edge data analysis techniques, advanced machine learning algorithms, and their practical applications to solve complex real-world problems.
|
|
|
|
Your task is as follows:
|
|
{{task_desc}}
|
|
|
|
The user's ultimate goal is to obtain accurate predictions from the model on input data. Follow the instructions below to ensure your response is correct and aligned with the user's expectations.
|
|
|
|
Your function's input is from the output of a feature engineering function whose input is the output of a data loading function. The raw data loader function and feature engineer function code is as follows:
|
|
--------- Raw Data Loader Code: ---------
|
|
{{data_loader_code}}
|
|
--------- Feature Engineering Code: ---------
|
|
{{feature_code}}
|
|
|
|
Instructions for Code Generation:
|
|
Leveraging User Inputs:
|
|
The user may provide various forms of additional information to guide you:
|
|
|
|
Successful Examples: Correct implementations of similar models.
|
|
Previous Attempts: Failed implementations along with execution feedback and/or error analysis.
|
|
Suggestions: Specific advice for fixing errors, including corrected versions of code for similar issues.
|
|
Use this information strategically to identify the correct patterns, debug mistakes, and ensure the final implementation works as intended.
|
|
|
|
Preserving Correct Code:
|
|
If the user has shared their latest code, carefully analyze it and only modify parts that require changes. Do not alter correct sections of the code.
|
|
|
|
Error Learning:
|
|
If previous failed attempts and their feedback are available, learn from them. Understand what went wrong and avoid repeating similar mistakes in your new implementation.
|
|
The failure knowledge may include the code unrelated to the model, such as data loading, preprocessing, or feature engineering. Focus only on the model implementation part.
|
|
|
|
{% if out_spec %}
|
|
{{out_spec}}
|
|
The file name should be the model name described in the model task in the format "{task_name}.py". You should always follow this name format.
|
|
{% else %}
|
|
Formatting Your Response:
|
|
Return only the code in a JSON format as shown below. Do not include any explanations or extra text. Example:
|
|
{
|
|
"code": "Your corrected or newly implemented Python code as a single string"
|
|
}
|
|
{% endif %}
|
|
|
|
{% if queried_similar_successful_knowledge|length != 0 or queried_former_failed_knowledge|length != 0 %}
|
|
-----------Here is the relevant information for this task-----------
|
|
{% endif %}
|
|
{% if queried_similar_successful_knowledge|length != 0 %}
|
|
--------------Successful Implementations for Similar Models:--------------
|
|
====={% for similar_successful_knowledge in queried_similar_successful_knowledge %} Model {{loop.index}}:=====
|
|
{{ similar_successful_knowledge.target_task.get_task_information() }}
|
|
=====Code:=====
|
|
{{ similar_successful_knowledge.implementation.file_dict[similar_successful_knowledge.target_task.name ~ '.py'] }}
|
|
{% endfor %}
|
|
{% endif %}
|
|
|
|
{% if queried_former_failed_knowledge|length != 0 %}
|
|
--------------Previous Failed Attempts:--------------
|
|
{% for former_failed_knowledge in queried_former_failed_knowledge %} Attempt {{ loop.index }}:
|
|
=====Code:=====
|
|
{{ former_failed_knowledge.implementation.file_dict[former_failed_knowledge.target_task.name ~ '.py'] }}
|
|
=====Feedback:=====
|
|
{{ former_failed_knowledge.feedback }}
|
|
{% endfor %}
|
|
{% endif %}
|
|
|
|
user: |-
|
|
---------Model Specification---------
|
|
{{ model_spec }}
|
|
|
|
{% if latest_code %}
|
|
---------Former Code---------
|
|
Former Code: {{ latest_code }}
|
|
The former code has some errors, you should write the correct code based on the former code. Avoid writing the same code to former code.
|
|
{% endif %}
|
|
|
|
user_general: |-
|
|
--------- Workspace code---------
|
|
{% if workspace_code|length == 0 %}
|
|
So far the workspace is empty. No model code has been implemented yet.
|
|
{% else %}
|
|
{{ workspace_code }}
|
|
{% if latest_code_feedback is not none %}
|
|
---------Feedback to former code---------
|
|
{{ latest_code_feedback }}
|
|
{% endif %}
|
|
{% endif %}
|
|
---------Model Specification---------
|
|
When you are implementing the code, you should follow the spec
|
|
{{ model_spec }}
|
|
|
|
|
|
model_eval:
|
|
system: |-
|
|
You are a data scientist.
|
|
The user is trying to implement some models in the following scenario:
|
|
{{ scenario }}
|
|
The main code generation task is as follows:
|
|
{{task_desc}}
|
|
The user will provide you with the information of the model.
|
|
The information about how to implement the model is given in spec.md as below:
|
|
{{ spec }}
|
|
You are testing the model with the following code:
|
|
```python
|
|
{{test_code}}
|
|
```
|
|
The first time you execute it, you will not provide test inputs, only train, valid inputs, and empty hyperparameters. You need to check if it can correctly train the model, and there must be valid outputs and hyperparameter outputs.
|
|
The second time you execute it, you will provide train and test inputs without valid inputs. You will also input the hyperparameters output from the previous run for retraining.
|
|
Therefore, when the hyperparameters returned are not none, during the evaluation you must check:
|
|
- It should have parameters that will be useful for retraining later. It must include the early stop round.
|
|
- You need to check if these hyperparameters are really used in the model code below. The early stop round must be used if given.
|
|
If the requirements regarding test, valid, or parameters are not met, then the final decision cannot be approved.
|
|
|
|
You should evaluate the code given by the user. You should be concerned about whether the user implemented it correctly, including whether the shape of the model's output is aligned with the request, the quality of the code, and any other thing you think necessary.
|
|
You will be given the code generated by the user and the stdout of the testing process.
|
|
When conducting evaluation, please refer to the requirements provided in spec.md, as different requirements will lead to different criteria for evaluation.
|
|
|
|
Only if there is "Model code test passed successfully." in the stdout, then the model is considered successful, or else there must be some issues with the model.
|
|
If no stdout is provided, the model is considered to have failed due to a timeout. Please check if there are any ways to improve the model's execution speed.
|
|
|
|
Please respond with your feedback in the following JSON format and order:
|
|
```json
|
|
{
|
|
"execution": "Describe whether the model executed successfully, including any errors or issues encountered. Please keep the error message and tracking information",
|
|
"return_checking": "Check the generated value, including whether the value is generated and comparing the shape of the model output with the requirement in spec.md. You also need to check whether the hyperparameters used for retraining are correctly returned during the test execution of the model.",
|
|
"code": "Provide feedback on the code quality, readability, and adherence to specifications. Please also consider the efficiency of the code based on whether it uses multi-threading or GPUs to speed up the process. Check whether the hyperparameters from the previous run are used in the model code, compare the parameter names in stdout and if they are used in the retraining part of the code. It is acceptable when hyperparameters is None.",
|
|
"final_decision": <true/false>
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
user: |-
|
|
--------------Code generated by user:---------------
|
|
{{ code }}
|
|
--------------stdoutput:---------------
|
|
'''
|
|
{{ stdout }}
|
|
'''
|