mirror of
https://github.com/hwchase17/langchain
synced 2024-11-10 01:10:59 +00:00
97 lines
5.1 KiB
ReStructuredText
97 lines
5.1 KiB
ReStructuredText
Evaluation
|
|
==============
|
|
|
|
This section of documentation covers how we approach and think about evaluation in LangChain.
|
|
Both evaluation of internal chains/agents, but also how we would recommend people building on top of LangChain approach evaluation.
|
|
|
|
The Problem
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
It can be really hard to evaluate LangChain chains and agents.
|
|
There are two main reasons for this:
|
|
|
|
**# 1: Lack of data**
|
|
|
|
You generally don't have a ton of data to evaluate your chains/agents over before starting a project.
|
|
This is usually because Large Language Models (the core of most chains/agents) are terrific few-shot and zero shot learners,
|
|
meaning you are almost always able to get started on a particular task (text-to-SQL, question answering, etc) without
|
|
a large dataset of examples.
|
|
This is in stark contrast to traditional machine learning where you had to first collect a bunch of datapoints
|
|
before even getting started using a model.
|
|
|
|
**# 2: Lack of metrics**
|
|
|
|
Most chains/agents are performing tasks for which there are not very good metrics to evaluate performance.
|
|
For example, one of the most common use cases is generating text of some form.
|
|
Evaluating generated text is much more complicated than evaluating a classification prediction, or a numeric prediction.
|
|
|
|
The Solution
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
LangChain attempts to tackle both of those issues.
|
|
What we have so far are initial passes at solutions - we do not think we have a perfect solution.
|
|
So we very much welcome feedback, contributions, integrations, and thoughts on this.
|
|
|
|
Here is what we have for each problem so far:
|
|
|
|
**# 1: Lack of data**
|
|
|
|
We have started `LangChainDatasets <https://huggingface.co/LangChainDatasets>`_ a Community space on Hugging Face.
|
|
We intend this to be a collection of open source datasets for evaluating common chains and agents.
|
|
We have contributed five datasets of our own to start, but we highly intend this to be a community effort.
|
|
In order to contribute a dataset, you simply need to join the community and then you will be able to upload datasets.
|
|
|
|
We're also aiming to make it as easy as possible for people to create their own datasets.
|
|
As a first pass at this, we've added a QAGenerationChain, which given a document comes up
|
|
with question-answer pairs that can be used to evaluate question-answering tasks over that document down the line.
|
|
See `this notebook <./evaluation/qa_generation.html>`_ for an example of how to use this chain.
|
|
|
|
**# 2: Lack of metrics**
|
|
|
|
We have two solutions to the lack of metrics.
|
|
|
|
The first solution is to use no metrics, and rather just rely on looking at results by eye to get a sense for how the chain/agent is performing.
|
|
To assist in this, we have developed (and will continue to develop) `tracing <../tracing.html>`_, a UI-based visualizer of your chain and agent runs.
|
|
|
|
The second solution we recommend is to use Language Models themselves to evaluate outputs.
|
|
For this we have a few different chains and prompts aimed at tackling this issue.
|
|
|
|
The Examples
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
We have created a bunch of examples combining the above two solutions to show how we internally evaluate chains and agents when we are developing.
|
|
In addition to the examples we've curated, we also highly welcome contributions here.
|
|
To facilitate that, we've included a `template notebook <./evaluation/benchmarking_template.html>`_ for community members to use to build their own examples.
|
|
|
|
The existing examples we have are:
|
|
|
|
`Question Answering (State of Union) <./evaluation/qa_benchmarking_sota.html>`_: An notebook showing evaluation of a question-answering task over a State-of-the-Union address.
|
|
|
|
`Question Answering (Paul Graham Essay) <./evaluation/qa_benchmarking_pg.html>`_: An notebook showing evaluation of a question-answering task over a Paul Graham essay.
|
|
|
|
`SQL Question Answering (Chinook) <./evaluation/sql_qa_benchmarking_chinook.html>`_: An notebook showing evaluation of a question-answering task over a SQL database (the Chinook database).
|
|
|
|
`Agent Vectorstore <./evaluation/agent_vectordb_sota_pg.html>`_: An notebook showing evaluation of an agent doing question answering while routing between two different vector databases.
|
|
|
|
`Agent Search + Calculator <./evaluation/agent_benchmarking.html>`_: An notebook showing evaluation of an agent doing question answering using a Search engine and a Calculator as tools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Examples
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
In addition, we also have some more generic resources for evaluation.
|
|
|
|
`Question Answering <./evaluation/question_answering.html>`_: An overview of LLMs aimed at evaluating question answering systems in general.
|
|
|
|
`Data Augmented Question Answering <./evaluation/data_augmented_question_answering.html>`_: An end-to-end example of evaluating a question answering system focused on a specific document (a VectorDBQAChain to be precise). This example highlights how to use LLMs to come up with question/answer examples to evaluate over, and then highlights how to use LLMs to evaluate performance on those generated examples.
|
|
|
|
`Hugging Face Datasets <./evaluation/huggingface_datasets.html>`_: Covers an example of loading and using a dataset from Hugging Face for evaluation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. toctree::
|
|
:maxdepth: 1
|
|
:glob:
|
|
:hidden:
|
|
|
|
evaluation/*
|