{ "cells": [ { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "657d2c8c-54b4-42a3-9f02-bdefa0ed6728", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "# Custom Pairwise Evaluator\n", "\n", "You can make your own pairwise string evaluators by inheriting from `PairwiseStringEvaluator` class and overwriting the `_evaluate_string_pairs` method (and the `_aevaluate_string_pairs` method if you want to use the evaluator asynchronously).\n", "\n", "In this example, you will make a simple custom evaluator that just returns whether the first prediction has more whitespace tokenized 'words' than the second.\n", "\n", "You can check out the reference docs for the [PairwiseStringEvaluator interface](https://api.python.langchain.com/en/latest/evaluation/langchain.evaluation.schema.PairwiseStringEvaluator.html#langchain.evaluation.schema.PairwiseStringEvaluator) for more info.\n" ] }, { "cell_type": "code", "execution_count": 1, "id": "93f3a653-d198-4291-973c-8d1adba338b2", "metadata": { "tags": [] }, "outputs": [], "source": [ "from typing import Optional, Any\n", "from langchain.evaluation import PairwiseStringEvaluator\n", "\n", "\n", "class LengthComparisonPairwiseEvalutor(PairwiseStringEvaluator):\n", " \"\"\"\n", " Custom evaluator to compare two strings.\n", " \"\"\"\n", "\n", " def _evaluate_string_pairs(\n", " self,\n", " *,\n", " prediction: str,\n", " prediction_b: str,\n", " reference: Optional[str] = None,\n", " input: Optional[str] = None,\n", " **kwargs: Any,\n", " ) -> dict:\n", " score = int(len(prediction.split()) > len(prediction_b.split()))\n", " return {\"score\": score}" ] }, { "cell_type": "code", "execution_count": 2, "id": "7d4a77c3-07a7-4076-8e7f-f9bca0d6c290", "metadata": { "tags": [] }, "outputs": [ { "data": { "text/plain": [ "{'score': 1}" ] }, "execution_count": 2, "metadata": {}, "output_type": "execute_result" } ], "source": [ "evaluator = LengthComparisonPairwiseEvalutor()\n", "\n", "evaluator.evaluate_string_pairs(\n", " prediction=\"The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.\",\n", " prediction_b=\"The quick brown fox jumped over the dog.\",\n", ")" ] }, { "cell_type": "markdown", "id": "d90f128f-6f49-42a1-b05a-3aea568ee03b", "metadata": {}, "source": [ "## LLM-Based Example\n", "\n", "That example was simple to illustrate the API, but it wasn't very useful in practice. Below, use an LLM with some custom instructions to form a simple preference scorer similar to the built-in [PairwiseStringEvalChain](https://api.python.langchain.com/en/latest/evaluation/langchain.evaluation.comparison.eval_chain.PairwiseStringEvalChain.html#langchain.evaluation.comparison.eval_chain.PairwiseStringEvalChain). We will use `ChatAnthropic` for the evaluator chain." ] }, { "cell_type": "code", "execution_count": 3, "id": "b4b43098-4d96-417b-a8a9-b3e75779cfe8", "metadata": { "tags": [] }, "outputs": [], "source": [ "# %pip install anthropic\n", "# %env ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=YOUR_API_KEY" ] }, { "cell_type": "code", "execution_count": 4, "id": "b6e978ab-48f1-47ff-9506-e13b1a50be6e", "metadata": { "tags": [] }, "outputs": [], "source": [ "from typing import Optional, Any\n", "from langchain.evaluation import PairwiseStringEvaluator\n", "from langchain.chat_models import ChatAnthropic\n", "from langchain.chains import LLMChain\n", "\n", "\n", "class CustomPreferenceEvaluator(PairwiseStringEvaluator):\n", " \"\"\"\n", " Custom evaluator to compare two strings using a custom LLMChain.\n", " \"\"\"\n", "\n", " def __init__(self) -> None:\n", " llm = ChatAnthropic(model=\"claude-2\", temperature=0)\n", " self.eval_chain = LLMChain.from_string(\n", " llm,\n", " \"\"\"Which option is preferred? Do not take order into account. Evaluate based on accuracy and helpfulness. If neither is preferred, respond with C. Provide your reasoning, then finish with Preference: A/B/C\n", "\n", "Input: How do I get the path of the parent directory in python 3.8?\n", "Option A: You can use the following code:\n", "```python\n", "import os\n", "\n", "os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)))\n", "```\n", "Option B: You can use the following code:\n", "```python\n", "from pathlib import Path\n", "Path(__file__).absolute().parent\n", "```\n", "Reasoning: Both options return the same result. However, since option B is more concise and easily understand, it is preferred.\n", "Preference: B\n", "\n", "Which option is preferred? Do not take order into account. Evaluate based on accuracy and helpfulness. If neither is preferred, respond with C. Provide your reasoning, then finish with Preference: A/B/C\n", "Input: {input}\n", "Option A: {prediction}\n", "Option B: {prediction_b}\n", "Reasoning:\"\"\",\n", " )\n", "\n", " @property\n", " def requires_input(self) -> bool:\n", " return True\n", "\n", " @property\n", " def requires_reference(self) -> bool:\n", " return False\n", "\n", " def _evaluate_string_pairs(\n", " self,\n", " *,\n", " prediction: str,\n", " prediction_b: str,\n", " reference: Optional[str] = None,\n", " input: Optional[str] = None,\n", " **kwargs: Any,\n", " ) -> dict:\n", " result = self.eval_chain(\n", " {\n", " \"input\": input,\n", " \"prediction\": prediction,\n", " \"prediction_b\": prediction_b,\n", " \"stop\": [\"Which option is preferred?\"],\n", " },\n", " **kwargs,\n", " )\n", "\n", " response_text = result[\"text\"]\n", " reasoning, preference = response_text.split(\"Preference:\", maxsplit=1)\n", " preference = preference.strip()\n", " score = 1.0 if preference == \"A\" else (0.0 if preference == \"B\" else None)\n", " return {\"reasoning\": reasoning.strip(), \"value\": preference, \"score\": score}" ] }, { "cell_type": "code", "execution_count": 6, "id": "5cbd8b1d-2cb0-4f05-b435-a1a00074d94a", "metadata": { "tags": [] }, "outputs": [], "source": [ "evaluator = CustomPreferenceEvaluator()" ] }, { "cell_type": "code", "execution_count": 7, "id": "2c0a7fb7-b976-4443-9f0e-e707a6dfbdf7", "metadata": { "tags": [] }, "outputs": [ { "data": { "text/plain": [ "{'reasoning': 'Option B is preferred over option A for importing from a relative directory, because it is more straightforward and concise.\\n\\nOption A uses the importlib module, which allows importing a module by specifying the full name as a string. While this works, it is less clear compared to option B.\\n\\nOption B directly imports from the relative path using dot notation, which clearly shows that it is a relative import. This is the recommended way to do relative imports in Python.\\n\\nIn summary, option B is more accurate and helpful as it uses the standard Python relative import syntax.',\n", " 'value': 'B',\n", " 'score': 0.0}" ] }, "execution_count": 7, "metadata": {}, "output_type": "execute_result" } ], "source": [ "evaluator.evaluate_string_pairs(\n", " input=\"How do I import from a relative directory?\",\n", " prediction=\"use importlib! importlib.import_module('.my_package', '.')\",\n", " prediction_b=\"from .sibling import foo\",\n", ")" ] }, { "cell_type": "code", "execution_count": 13, "id": "f13a1346-7dbe-451d-b3a3-99e8fc7b753b", "metadata": { "tags": [] }, "outputs": [ { "name": "stdout", "output_type": "stream", "text": [ "CustomPreferenceEvaluator requires an input string.\n" ] } ], "source": [ "# Setting requires_input to return True adds additional validation to avoid returning a grade when insufficient data is provided to the chain.\n", "\n", "try:\n", " evaluator.evaluate_string_pairs(\n", " prediction=\"use importlib! importlib.import_module('.my_package', '.')\",\n", " prediction_b=\"from .sibling import foo\",\n", " )\n", "except ValueError as e:\n", " print(e)" ] }, { "cell_type": "code", "execution_count": null, "id": "e7829cc3-ebd1-4628-ae97-15166202e9cc", "metadata": {}, "outputs": [], "source": [] } ], "metadata": { "kernelspec": { "display_name": "Python 3 (ipykernel)", "language": "python", "name": "python3" }, "language_info": { "codemirror_mode": { "name": "ipython", "version": 3 }, "file_extension": ".py", "mimetype": "text/x-python", "name": "python", "nbconvert_exporter": "python", "pygments_lexer": "ipython3", "version": "3.11.2" } }, "nbformat": 4, "nbformat_minor": 5 }