code-eval logo

code-eval

Enrichment pending
abacaj/code-eval

Run evaluation on LLMs using human-eval benchmark

GraphCanon updated today · GitHub synced today

429
Stars
37
Forks
5
Open issues
9
Watchers
2y
Last push
Python MITCreated Jul 1, 2023

Trust & integrity

Full report
Maintenance
Dormant (1033d since push)
As of today · Source: github_public_v1
Provenance
Not a fork · Personal account
As of today · Source: github_public_v1
Security (OSV)
73 low (73 low)
As of today · Source: osv@v1

Public GitHub metadata and optional OSV dependency scans. Signals, not a guarantee. Trust methodology.

Overview

Run evaluation on LLMs using human-eval benchmark

Capability facts

Languages
python

Source: github.language · Jul 11, 2026

Categories

Compatibility

Sourced claims from the README excerpt - not unsourced marketing copy.

Python runtimePython

Source: README excerpt (regex_v1, Jul 11, 2026)

Create python environment
Source link

Tags

README

code-eval

What

This is a repo I use to run human-eval on code models, adjust as needed. Some scripts were adjusted from wizardcoder repo (process_eval.py). The evaluation code is duplicated in several files, mostly to handle edge cases around model tokenizing and loading (will clean it up).

Results

Table is sorted by pass@1 score.

modelsizepass@1pass@10screenshot
sahil2801/replit-code-instruct-glaive3B63.5%67%
WizardCoder-15B-V1.015B57%68.9%
bigcode/starcoder15B34.6%48.7%
openchat/opencoderplus15B27.3%43.9%
teknium/Replit-v1-CodeInstruct-3B3B25.8%42.6%
teknium/Replit-v2-CodeInstruct-3B3B21.5%31%
replit-code-v1-3b3B17.1%29.8%
mpt-7b7B15.9%23.7%
xgen-7b-8k-base7B14.9%22.5%
openllama-7b-v27B14%23.1%
llama-2-7b7B13.1%21.9%
llama-7b7B12.1%18.9%
mpt-30b30Bpendingpendingpending

FAQ

Why is there a discrepancy on some of the scores between official numbers?

Because it is not obvious or published what prompt or processing the official models used to conduct their evaluation on this benchmark. The goal here is to try and best reproduce those numbers, in many cases it is possible to get very close to the published numbers.

All of the scores here were run independently of any published numbers and are reproducible by cloning the repo and following the setup.

Why do some models have a filter_code post generation step?

Base models can in many cases repeat outputs, breaking the benchmark scores. Instruct models don't have this problem and so you won't see this step, they tend to output a end of sequence token.

Setup

Create python environment

python -m venv env && source env/bin/activate

Install dependencies

pip install -r requirements.txt