`combine_docs` does not go through the standard chain call path which
means that chain callbacks won't be triggered, meaning QA chains won't
be traced properly, this fixes that.
Also fix several errors in the chat_vector_db notebook
Right now, eval chains require an answer for every question. It's
cumbersome to collect this ground truth so getting around this issue
with 2 things:
* Adding a context param in `ContextQAEvalChain` and simply evaluating
if the question is answered accurately from context
* Adding chain of though explanation prompting to improve the accuracy
of this w/o GT.
This also gets to feature parity with openai/evals which has the same
contextual eval w/o GT.
TODO in follow-up:
* Better prompt inheritance. No need for seperate prompt for CoT
reasoning. How can we merge them together
---------
Co-authored-by: Vashisht Madhavan <vashishtmadhavan@Vashs-MacBook-Pro.local>
This still doesn't handle the following
- non-JSON media types
- anyOf, allOf, oneOf's
And doesn't emit the typescript definitions for referred types yet, but
that can be saved for a separate PR.
Also, we could have better support for Swagger 2.0 specs and OpenAPI
3.0.3 (can use the same lib for the latter) recommend offline conversion
for now.
`AgentExecutor` already has support for limiting the number of
iterations. But the amount of time taken for each iteration can vary
quite a bit, so it is difficult to place limits on the execution time.
This PR adds a new field `max_execution_time` to the `AgentExecutor`
model. When called asynchronously, the agent loop is wrapped in an
`asyncio.timeout()` context which triggers the early stopping response
if the time limit is reached. When called synchronously, the agent loop
checks for both the max_iteration limit and the time limit after each
iteration.
When used asynchronously `max_execution_time` gives really tight control
over the max time for an execution chain. When used synchronously, the
chain can unfortunately exceed max_execution_time, but it still gives
more control than trying to estimate the number of max_iterations needed
to cap the execution time.
---------
Co-authored-by: Zachary Jones <zjones@zetaglobal.com>
This pull request adds an enum class for the various types of agents
used in the project, located in the `agent_types.py` file. Currently,
the project is using hardcoded strings for the initialization of these
agents, which can lead to errors and make the code harder to maintain.
With the introduction of the new enums, the code will be more readable
and less error-prone.
The new enum members include:
- ZERO_SHOT_REACT_DESCRIPTION
- REACT_DOCSTORE
- SELF_ASK_WITH_SEARCH
- CONVERSATIONAL_REACT_DESCRIPTION
- CHAT_ZERO_SHOT_REACT_DESCRIPTION
- CHAT_CONVERSATIONAL_REACT_DESCRIPTION
In this PR, I have also replaced the hardcoded strings with the
appropriate enum members throughout the codebase, ensuring a smooth
transition to the new approach.
Fix issue#1645: Parse either whitespace or newline after 'Action Input:'
in llm_output in mrkl agent.
Unittests added accordingly.
Co-authored-by: ₿ingnan.ΞTH <brillliantz@outlook.com>
I was getting the same issue reported in #1339 by
[MacYang555](https://github.com/MacYang555) when running the test suite
on my Mac. I implemented the fix they suggested to use a regex match in
the output assertion for the scenario under test.
Resolves#1339
Seeing a lot of issues in Discord in which the LLM is not using the
correct LIMIT clause for different SQL dialects. ie, it's using `LIMIT`
for mssql instead of `TOP`, or instead of `ROWNUM` for Oracle, etc.
I think this could be due to us specifying the LIMIT statement in the
example rows portion of `table_info`. So the LLM is seeing the `LIMIT`
statement used in the prompt.
Since we can't specify each dialect's method here, I think it's fine to
just replace the `SELECT... LIMIT 3;` statement with `3 rows from
table_name table:`, and wrap everything in a block comment directly
following the `CREATE` statement. The Rajkumar et al paper wrapped the
example rows and `SELECT` statement in a block comment as well anyway.
Thoughts @fpingham?
This class enables us to send a dictionary containing an output key and
the expected format, which in turn allows us to retrieve the result of
the matching formats and extract specific information from it.
To exclude irrelevant information from our return dictionary, we can
prompt the LLM to use a specific command that notifies us when it
doesn't know the answer. We refer to this variable as the
"no_update_value".
Regarding the updated regular expression pattern
(r"{}:\s?([^.'\n']*).?"), it enables us to retrieve a format as 'Output
Key':'value'.
We have improved the regex by adding an optional space between ':' and
'value' with "s?", and by excluding points and line jumps from the
matches using "[^.'\n']*".
Provide shared memory capability for the Agent.
Inspired by #1293 .
## Problem
If both Agent and Tools (i.e., LLMChain) use the same memory, both of
them will save the context. It can be annoying in some cases.
## Solution
Create a memory wrapper that ignores the save and clear, thereby
preventing updates from Agent or Tools.
This PR adds
* `ZeroShotAgent.as_sql_agent`, which returns an agent for interacting
with a sql database. This builds off of `SQLDatabaseChain`. The main
advantages are 1) answering general questions about the db, 2) access to
a tool for double checking queries, and 3) recovering from errors
* `ZeroShotAgent.as_json_agent` which returns an agent for interacting
with json blobs.
* Several examples in notebooks
---------
Co-authored-by: Harrison Chase <hw.chase.17@gmail.com>
Follow-up of @hinthornw's PR:
- Migrate the Tool abstraction to a separate file (`BaseTool`).
- `Tool` implementation of `BaseTool` takes in function and coroutine to
more easily maintain backwards compatibility
- Add a Toolkit abstraction that can own the generation of tools around
a shared concept or state
---------
Co-authored-by: William FH <13333726+hinthornw@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Harrison Chase <hw.chase.17@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Francisco Ingham <fpingham@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Dhruv Anand <105786647+dhruv-anand-aintech@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: cragwolfe <cragcw@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Anton Troynikov <atroyn@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Oliver Klingefjord <oliver@klingefjord.com>
Co-authored-by: William Fu-Hinthorn <whinthorn@Williams-MBP-3.attlocal.net>
Co-authored-by: Bruno Bornsztein <bruno.bornsztein@gmail.com>
This approach has several advantages:
* it improves the readability of the code
* removes incompatibilities between SQL dialects
* fixes a bug with `datetime` values in rows and `ast.literal_eval`
Huge thanks and credits to @jzluo for finding the weaknesses in the
current approach and for the thoughtful discussion on the best way to
implement this.
---------
Co-authored-by: Francisco Ingham <>
Co-authored-by: Jon Luo <20971593+jzluo@users.noreply.github.com>
Currently the chain is getting the column names and types on the one
side and the example rows on the other. It is easier for the llm to read
the table information if the column name and examples are shown together
so that it can easily understand to which columns do the examples refer
to. For an instantiation of this, please refer to the changes in the
`sqlite.ipynb` notebook.
Also changed `eval` for `ast.literal_eval` when interpreting the results
from the sample row query since it is a better practice.
---------
Co-authored-by: Francisco Ingham <>
---------
Co-authored-by: Francisco Ingham <fpingham@gmail.com>
Supporting asyncio in langchain primitives allows for users to run them
concurrently and creates more seamless integration with
asyncio-supported frameworks (FastAPI, etc.)
Summary of changes:
**LLM**
* Add `agenerate` and `_agenerate`
* Implement in OpenAI by leveraging `client.Completions.acreate`
**Chain**
* Add `arun`, `acall`, `_acall`
* Implement them in `LLMChain` and `LLMMathChain` for now
**Agent**
* Refactor and leverage async chain and llm methods
* Add ability for `Tools` to contain async coroutine
* Implement async SerpaPI `arun`
Create demo notebook.
Open questions:
* Should all the async stuff go in separate classes? I've seen both
patterns (keeping the same class and having async and sync methods vs.
having class separation)
