Skip to content

Fix - #2660

Merged
hanyunfan merged 2 commits into
masterfrom
fix-llama2-70b-99-v61-old-checker
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

Fix#2660
hanyunfan merged 2 commits into
masterfrom
fix-llama2-70b-99-v61-old-checker

Conversation

@anandhu-eng

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Removes llama2-70b-99 from the v6.1 config in tools/submission/submission_checker_old.py.

Why

#2651 removed llama2-70b-99 from the v6.1 block of the modular checker's constants.py, but left the legacy submission_checker_old.py untouched. The two configs then disagreed about whether the model exists in v6.1.

preprocess_submission.py does import submission_checker_old as checker, and its infer_low_accuracy_results pass copies a -99.9 result to -99 whenever the low-accuracy variant is in config.required. Against the legacy v6.1 config that condition still held, so preprocessing recreated the model directory:

[preprocess_submission.py:541 INFO] Division closed, submitter MLCommons,
  system SR680a_V3_B200SXMx8_TRT: copying llama2-70b-99.9 results to llama2-70b-99

The modular checker then walked that directory, Config.get_required() returned None for the unknown model, and lower_list(None) raised:

File "submission_checker/loader.py", line 249, in check_scenarios
    required_scenarios = lower_list(self.config.get_required(mlperf_model))
File "submission_checker/utils.py", line 119, in lower_list
    return [str(e).lower() for e in l]
TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable

That crashed all six round=6.1 / folder_name=closed submission generation jobs on every open PR. Round 6.0 passes because it legitimately still has the model, and the 6.1 open fixtures never reach check_scenarios() — it only runs for closed/network divisions.

Change

Mirrors the #2651 deletions site for site — models, both required-scenarios-* and optional-scenarios-* dicts, accuracy-target, accuracy-upper-limit, performance-sample-count, dataset-size, latency-constraint, min-queries, and models_TEST06. Same 21 lines, v6.1 only. v6.0 and v5.1 keep the model.

Paired with a matching cleanup on the submission-generation-examples branch (14c5196), which dropped the stale llama2-70b-99 fixture from submission_round_6.1/closed/. Both are needed: the fixture removal stops the raw directory being copied in, and this stops preprocessing from recreating it.

Note

Worth considering as a follow-up: check_scenarios() could treat a None from get_required() as an "unknown benchmark" error rather than letting it become a traceback. A submitter with a retired or misspelled model directory currently gets an unreadable stack trace and no summary.csv, which then cascades into a second FileNotFoundError from generate_final_report.py.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Remove llama2-70b-99 from the v6.1 config in submission_checker_old.py.

#2651 removed llama2-70b-99 from the v6.1 block of the modular checker's
constants.py but left the legacy submission_checker_old.py untouched, so the
two configs disagreed about whether the model exists in v6.1.

preprocess_submission.py imports submission_checker_old, and its
infer_low_accuracy_results pass copies a -99.9 result to -99 whenever the low
accuracy variant appears in config.required. Against the legacy v6.1 config
that condition still held, so preprocessing recreated
results/<system>/llama2-70b-99 from llama2-70b-99.9. The modular checker then
ran over that directory, got None back from Config.get_required(), and died in
lower_list() with "TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not iterable" - failing
every round 6.1 closed submission generation CI job.

This mirrors the #2651 deletions site for site; v6.0 and v5.1 keep the model.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@anandhu-eng
anandhu-eng requested review from a team as code owners September 2, 2026 04:42
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

MLCommons CLA bot All contributors have signed the MLCommons CLA ✍️ ✅

@hanyunfan
hanyunfan merged commit ecef039 into master Sep 2, 2026
41 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants