WizardLM vs OpenChat — Comparison

WizardLM

LLMs build upon Evol Insturct: WizardLM, WizardCoder, WizardMath - nlpxucan/WizardLM

Thanks to the enthusiastic friends, their video introductions are more lively and interesting. Please cite the paper if you use the data or code from WizardLM. Please cite the paper if you use the data or code from WizardCoder. Please cite the paper if you refer to our model or code or data or paper from WizardMath. ❗To commen concern about dataset: Recently, there have been clear changes in the open-source policy and regulations of our overall organization's code, data, and models. Despite this, we have still worked hard to obtain opening the weights of the model first, but the data involves stricter auditing and is in review with our legal team . Our researchers have no authority to publicly release them without authorization. Thank you for your understanding. We adopt the automatic evaluation framework based on GPT-4 proposed by FastChat to assess the performance of chatbot models. As shown in the following figure, WizardLM-30B achieved better results than Guanaco-65B. The following figure compares WizardLM-30B and ChatGPT’s skill on Evol-Instruct testset. The result indicates that WizardLM-30B achieves 97.8% of ChatGPT’s performance on average, with almost 100% (or more than) capacity on 18 skills, and more than 90% capacity on 24 skills. The following table provides a comparison of WizardLMs and other LLMs on NLP foundation tasks. The results indicate that WizardLMs consistently exhibit superior performance in comparison to the LLaMa models of the same size. Furthermore, our WizardLM-30B model showcases comparable performance to OpenAI's Text-davinci-003 on the MMLU and HellaSwag benchmarks. The following table provides a comprehensive comparison of WizardLMs and several other LLMs on the code generation task, namely HumanEval. The evaluation metric is pass@1. The results indicate that WizardLMs consistently exhibit superior performance in comparison to the LLaMa models of the same size. Furthermore, our WizardLM-30B model surpasses StarCoder and OpenAI's code-cushman-001. Moreover, our Code LLM, WizardCoder, demonstrates exceptional performance, achieving a pass@1 score of 57.3, surpassing the open-source SOTA by approximately 20 points. We welcome everyone to use your professional and difficult instructions to evaluate WizardLM, and show us examples of poor performance and your suggestions in the issue discussion area. We are focusing on improving the Evol-Instruct now and hope to relieve existing weaknesses and issues in the the next version of WizardLM. After that, we will open the code and pipeline of up-to-date Evol-Instruct algorithm and work with you together to improve it. The resources, including code, data, and model weights, associated with this project are restricted for academic research purposes only and cannot be used for commercial purposes. The content produced by any version of WizardLM is influenced by uncontrollable variables such as randomness, and therefore, the accuracy of the output cannot be guaranteed by

OpenChat

I notice that the reviews section is empty and the social mentions you've provided appear to be incomplete - it only shows the beginning of what seems to be a GitHub post about weekly rules documentation review, which doesn't contain user feedback about OpenChat's features, performance, or user experience. To provide an accurate summary of what users think about OpenChat, I would need actual user reviews, social media mentions, forum discussions, or other content that contains user opinions about the software's strengths, weaknesses, pricing, and overall reputation. Could you provide the complete user reviews and social mentions about OpenChat?

WizardLM

OpenChat

WizardLM

OpenChat

No screenshots

WizardLM

OpenChat