QA for Self-Refine (HotpotQA, FEVER, AmbigNQ, TriviaQA) #227
Conversation
alckasoc
added
enhancement
WalkthroughThe updates enhance the self-refinement capabilities of QA benchmarks by adding new prompts, instructions, and examples for various datasets. Debugging print statements are included, new critique generation strategies are introduced, and the functionality of the Changes
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (invoked as PR comments)
Additionally, you can add CodeRabbit Configration File (
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests β
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (11)
agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py (11)
24-30: LGTM! Initialization is straightforward.The
__init__method correctly initializes the class with the provided language model and patience parameter.
32-61: LGTM! Answer generation logic is clear.The
generatemethod correctly uses_prompt_agentto generate the answer and processes the result to extract the relevant part.
63-102: LGTM! Critique generation and patience handling logic is clear.The
generate_critiquemethod correctly uses_prompt_critiqueto generate the critique and includes logic to handle the patience counter and halting condition.
104-114: LGTM! Output dictionary creation is straightforward.The
create_output_dictmethod correctly creates an output dictionary containing the answer and critique.
116-149: LGTM! Answer update logic is clear.The
update_answer_based_on_critiquemethod correctly uses_prompt_refineto update the answer and processes the result to extract the relevant part.
151-159: LGTM! Halting condition check is straightforward.The
halting_conditionmethod correctly checks if the halting condition has been met.
161-171: LGTM! Reset logic is straightforward.The
resetmethod correctly resets the strategy to its initial state.
174-177: LGTM! Inheritance is straightforward.The
SelfRefineHotQAStrategyclass correctly inherits fromSelfRefineQAStrategyand does not introduce any new methods or attributes.
180-183: LGTM! Inheritance is straightforward.The
SelfRefineFEVERStrategyclass correctly inherits fromSelfRefineQAStrategyand does not introduce any new methods or attributes.
186-189: LGTM! Inheritance is straightforward.The
SelfRefineTriviaQAStrategyclass correctly inherits fromSelfRefineQAStrategyand does not introduce any new methods or attributes.
192-195: LGTM! Inheritance is straightforward.The
SelfRefineAmbigNQStrategyclass correctly inherits fromSelfRefineQAStrategyand does not introduce any new methods or attributes.
β¦into self_refine_qa
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (23)
agential/cog/self_refine/prompts.py (23)
13-37: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the elevation range question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, the explanation can be improved for clarity. + However, the explanation can be improved by specifying the source of the elevation data more explicitly.
40-61: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the Milhouse question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, the explanation can be improved for clarity. + However, the explanation can be improved by providing additional context about the character's naming.
65-88: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the Finnish rock groups question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, the explanation can be improved for clarity. + However, the explanation can be improved by providing additional context about the documentary.
92-113: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the professions question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- The proposed answer correctly identifies the professions of both individuals but does not specify which profession they have in common. + The proposed answer correctly identifies the professions of both individuals but should specify that they both worked as directors.
117-140: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the magazine question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- The proposed answer gives the wrong dates of publication for Arthur's Magazine. The final answer "Arthur's Magazine" is correct since 1844 < 1989. + The proposed answer correctly identifies Arthur's Magazine as the earlier publication, but the explanation should include the specific publication dates for clarity.
156-179: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the elevation range question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, the explanation can be improved for clarity. + However, the explanation can be improved by specifying the source of the elevation data more explicitly.
186-211: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the Milhouse question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, the explanation can be improved for clarity. + However, the explanation can be improved by providing additional context about the character's naming.
214-241: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the Finnish rock groups question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, the explanation can be improved for clarity. + However, the explanation can be improved by providing additional context about the documentary.
244-269: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the professions question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- The proposed answer correctly identifies the professions of both individuals but does not specify which profession they have in common. + The proposed answer correctly identifies the professions of both individuals but should specify that they both worked as directors.
272-297: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the magazine question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- The proposed answer gives the wrong dates of publication for Arthur's Magazine. The final answer "Arthur's Magazine" is correct since 1844 < 1989. + The proposed answer correctly identifies Arthur's Magazine as the earlier publication, but the explanation should include the specific publication dates for clarity.
356-381: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the painting question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, the explanation can be improved for clarity. + However, the explanation can be improved by providing additional context about the artist's work.
385-407: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the National Theatre question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, it might not be accurate. + However, it might not be accurate without further verification.
410-426: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the skier question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, it might not be accurate. + However, it might not be accurate without further verification.
428-441: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the author question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, it might not be accurate. + However, it might not be accurate without further verification.
490-515: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the painting question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, the explanation can be improved for clarity. + However, the explanation can be improved by providing additional context about the artist's work.
522-543: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the National Theatre question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, it might not be accurate. + However, it might not be accurate without further verification.
550-565: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the skier question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, it might not be accurate. + However, it might not be accurate without further verification.
571-585: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the author question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, it might not be accurate. + However, it might not be accurate without further verification.
778-807: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the World Cup question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, it might not be accurate. + However, it might not be accurate without further verification.
810-843: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the CT scan question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, it might not be accurate. + However, it might not be accurate without further verification.
847-873: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the Civil War question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, it might not be accurate. + However, it might not be accurate without further verification.
877-894: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the Nando's question is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- However, it might not be accurate. + However, it might not be accurate without further verification.
925-939: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the Fox Broadcasting claim is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding more clarity on how the explanation can be improved.
- The evidence contradicts the proposed answer, confirming he did work with Fox in the television film Virtuality. + The evidence contradicts the proposed answer, confirming he did work with Fox in the television film Virtuality. The explanation can be improved by specifying the role he played in the film.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (1)
- agential/cog/self_refine/prompts.py (1 hunks)
Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- agential/cog/self_refine/prompts.py: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Additional comments not posted (10)
agential/cog/self_refine/prompts.py (10)
6-10: Ensure placeholders are correctly formatted.The placeholders
{examples},{question}, and{answer}should be consistent with the rest of the file.Ensure that the placeholders are correctly replaced during runtime.
143-153: Ensure placeholders are correctly formatted.The placeholders
{examples},{question}, and{answer}should be consistent with the rest of the file.Ensure that the placeholders are correctly replaced during runtime.
301-313: Ensure placeholders are correctly formatted.The placeholders
{examples},{question}, and{answer}should be consistent with the rest of the file.Ensure that the placeholders are correctly replaced during runtime.
320-324: Ensure placeholders are correctly formatted.The placeholders
{examples},{question}, and{answer}should be consistent with the rest of the file.Ensure that the placeholders are correctly replaced during runtime.
445-455: Ensure placeholders are correctly formatted.The placeholders
{examples},{question}, and{answer}should be consistent with the rest of the file.Ensure that the placeholders are correctly replaced during runtime.
591-603: Ensure placeholders are correctly formatted.The placeholders
{examples},{question}, and{answer}should be consistent with the rest of the file.Ensure that the placeholders are correctly replaced during runtime.
610-614: Ensure placeholders are correctly formatted.The placeholders
{examples},{question}, and{answer}should be consistent with the rest of the file.Ensure that the placeholders are correctly replaced during runtime.
899-913: Ensure placeholders are correctly formatted.The placeholders
{examples},{question}, and{answer}should be consistent with the rest of the file.Ensure that the placeholders are correctly replaced during runtime.
918-922: Ensure placeholders are correctly formatted.The placeholders
{examples},{question}, and{answer}should be consistent with the rest of the file.Ensure that the placeholders are correctly replaced during runtime.
943-957: Example critique is detailed and accurate.The critique example for the Stranger Things claim is well-detailed and correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, consider adding
| TRIVIAQA_REFINE_FEWSHOT_EXAMPLES = """Q: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was. originally written as incidental music for which Shakespeare play in 1842? | ||
| A: A Midsummer Night's Dream | ||
|
|
||
| What's the problem with the above answer? | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Plausibility: | ||
|
|
||
| The question asks for the name of the Shakespeare play, and the answer is "Hamlet," which is a name of a Shakespeare play. So it's plausible. | ||
|
|
||
| 2. Truthfulness: | ||
|
|
||
| Let's search the question in google: | ||
|
|
||
| > Search Query: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was originally written as incidental music for which Shakespeare play in 1842? site: wikipedia.org | ||
| > Evidence: [Wedding March (Mendelssohn) - Wikipedia] The "Wedding March" in C major, written in 1842, is one of the most famous pieces by Mendelssohn. It was written as incidental music for William Shakespeare's play "A Midsummer Night's Dream." | ||
|
|
||
| The evidence suggests that Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was written as incidental music for "A Midsummer Night's Dream," not "Hamlet." | ||
|
|
||
| Let's check the proposed answer: | ||
|
|
||
| > Search Query: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was originally written as incidental music for the play "Hamlet" in 1842. | ||
| > Evidence: [Hamlet - Wikipedia] "Hamlet" is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare at an uncertain date between 1599 and 1602. Mendelssohn did not write incidental music for "Hamlet." | ||
|
|
||
| The evidence shows that Mendelssohn did not write incidental music for "Hamlet," contradicting the proposed answer. | ||
|
|
||
| Above all, the proposed answer is incorrect because Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was not written for "Hamlet." It was actually written for "A Midsummer Night's Dream." | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Example critique contains an inconsistency.
The critique example for the Shakespeare play question correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, there is an inconsistency in the initial plausibility check where the answer is incorrectly stated as "Hamlet" instead of "A Midsummer Night's Dream."
- The question asks for the name of the Shakespeare play, and the answer is "Hamlet," which is a name of a Shakespeare play. So it's plausible.
+ The question asks for the name of the Shakespeare play, and the answer is "A Midsummer Night's Dream," which is a name of a Shakespeare play. So it's plausible.Committable suggestion
βΌοΈ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| TRIVIAQA_REFINE_FEWSHOT_EXAMPLES = """Q: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was. originally written as incidental music for which Shakespeare play in 1842? | |
| A: A Midsummer Night's Dream | |
| What's the problem with the above answer? | |
| 1. Plausibility: | |
| The question asks for the name of the Shakespeare play, and the answer is "Hamlet," which is a name of a Shakespeare play. So it's plausible. | |
| 2. Truthfulness: | |
| Let's search the question in google: | |
| > Search Query: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was originally written as incidental music for which Shakespeare play in 1842? site: wikipedia.org | |
| > Evidence: [Wedding March (Mendelssohn) - Wikipedia] The "Wedding March" in C major, written in 1842, is one of the most famous pieces by Mendelssohn. It was written as incidental music for William Shakespeare's play "A Midsummer Night's Dream." | |
| The evidence suggests that Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was written as incidental music for "A Midsummer Night's Dream," not "Hamlet." | |
| Let's check the proposed answer: | |
| > Search Query: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was originally written as incidental music for the play "Hamlet" in 1842. | |
| > Evidence: [Hamlet - Wikipedia] "Hamlet" is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare at an uncertain date between 1599 and 1602. Mendelssohn did not write incidental music for "Hamlet." | |
| The evidence shows that Mendelssohn did not write incidental music for "Hamlet," contradicting the proposed answer. | |
| Above all, the proposed answer is incorrect because Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was not written for "Hamlet." It was actually written for "A Midsummer Night's Dream." | |
| The question asks for the name of the Shakespeare play, and the answer is "A Midsummer Night's Dream," which is a name of a Shakespeare play. So it's plausible. |
| TRIVIAQA_CRITIQUE_FEWSHOT_EXAMPLES = """Q: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was. originally written as incidental music for which Shakespeare play in 1842? | ||
| A: A Midsummer Night's Dream | ||
|
|
||
| What's the problem with the above answer? | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Plausibility: | ||
|
|
||
| The question asks for the name of the Shakespeare play, and the answer is "Hamlet," which is a name of a Shakespeare play. So it's plausible. | ||
|
|
||
| 2. Truthfulness: | ||
|
|
||
| Let's search the question in google: | ||
|
|
||
| > Search Query: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was originally written as incidental music for which Shakespeare play in 1842? site: wikipedia.org | ||
| > Evidence: [Wedding March (Mendelssohn) - Wikipedia] The "Wedding March" in C major, written in 1842, is one of the most famous pieces by Mendelssohn. It was written as incidental music for William Shakespeare's play "A Midsummer Night's Dream." | ||
|
|
||
| The evidence suggests that Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was written as incidental music for "A Midsummer Night's Dream," not "Hamlet." | ||
|
|
||
| Let's check the proposed answer: | ||
|
|
||
| > Search Query: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was originally written as incidental music for the play "Hamlet" in 1842. | ||
| > Evidence: [Hamlet - Wikipedia] "Hamlet" is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare at an uncertain date between 1599 and 1602. Mendelssohn did not write incidental music for "Hamlet." | ||
|
|
||
| The evidence shows that Mendelssohn did not write incidental music for "Hamlet," contradicting the proposed answer. | ||
|
|
||
| Above all, the proposed answer is incorrect because Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was not written for "Hamlet." It was actually written for "A Midsummer Night's Dream." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Example critique contains an inconsistency.
The critique example for the Shakespeare play question correctly identifies the plausibility and truthfulness of the answer. However, there is an inconsistency in the initial plausibility check where the answer is incorrectly stated as "Hamlet" instead of "A Midsummer Night's Dream."
- The question asks for the name of the Shakespeare play, and the answer is "Hamlet," which is a name of a Shakespeare play. So it's plausible.
+ The question asks for the name of the Shakespeare play, and the answer is "A Midsummer Night's Dream," which is a name of a Shakespeare play. So it's plausible.Committable suggestion
βΌοΈ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| TRIVIAQA_CRITIQUE_FEWSHOT_EXAMPLES = """Q: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was. originally written as incidental music for which Shakespeare play in 1842? | |
| A: A Midsummer Night's Dream | |
| What's the problem with the above answer? | |
| 1. Plausibility: | |
| The question asks for the name of the Shakespeare play, and the answer is "Hamlet," which is a name of a Shakespeare play. So it's plausible. | |
| 2. Truthfulness: | |
| Let's search the question in google: | |
| > Search Query: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was originally written as incidental music for which Shakespeare play in 1842? site: wikipedia.org | |
| > Evidence: [Wedding March (Mendelssohn) - Wikipedia] The "Wedding March" in C major, written in 1842, is one of the most famous pieces by Mendelssohn. It was written as incidental music for William Shakespeare's play "A Midsummer Night's Dream." | |
| The evidence suggests that Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was written as incidental music for "A Midsummer Night's Dream," not "Hamlet." | |
| Let's check the proposed answer: | |
| > Search Query: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was originally written as incidental music for the play "Hamlet" in 1842. | |
| > Evidence: [Hamlet - Wikipedia] "Hamlet" is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare at an uncertain date between 1599 and 1602. Mendelssohn did not write incidental music for "Hamlet." | |
| The evidence shows that Mendelssohn did not write incidental music for "Hamlet," contradicting the proposed answer. | |
| Above all, the proposed answer is incorrect because Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was not written for "Hamlet." It was actually written for "A Midsummer Night's Dream." | |
| TRIVIAQA_CRITIQUE_FEWSHOT_EXAMPLES = """Q: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was. originally written as incidental music for which Shakespeare play in 1842? | |
| A: A Midsummer Night's Dream | |
| What's the problem with the above answer? | |
| 1. Plausibility: | |
| The question asks for the name of the Shakespeare play, and the answer is "A Midsummer Night's Dream," which is a name of a Shakespeare play. So it's plausible. | |
| 2. Truthfulness: | |
| Let's search the question in google: | |
| > Search Query: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was originally written as incidental music for which Shakespeare play in 1842? site: wikipedia.org | |
| > Evidence: [Wedding March (Mendelssohn) - Wikipedia] The "Wedding March" in C major, written in 1842, is one of the most famous pieces by Mendelssohn. It was written as incidental music for William Shakespeare's play "A Midsummer Night's Dream." | |
| The evidence suggests that Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was written as incidental music for "A Midsummer Night's Dream," not "Hamlet." | |
| Let's check the proposed answer: | |
| > Search Query: Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was originally written as incidental music for the play "Hamlet" in 1842. | |
| > Evidence: [Hamlet - Wikipedia] "Hamlet" is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare at an uncertain date between 1599 and 1602. Mendelssohn did not write incidental music for "Hamlet." | |
| The evidence shows that Mendelssohn did not write incidental music for "Hamlet," contradicting the proposed answer. | |
| Above all, the proposed answer is incorrect because Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' was not written for "Hamlet." It was actually written for "A Midsummer Night's Dream." |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/math.py (2 hunks)
- agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py (1 hunks)
Additional context used
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py
[warning] 3-3: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L3
Added line #L3 was not covered by tests
[warning] 5-5: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L5
Added line #L5 was not covered by tests
[warning] 7-7: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L7
Added line #L7 was not covered by tests
[warning] 12-13: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L12-L13
Added lines #L12 - L13 were not covered by tests
[warning] 16-16: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L16
Added line #L16 was not covered by tests
[warning] 25-25: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L25
Added line #L25 was not covered by tests
[warning] 27-31: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L27-L31
Added lines #L27 - L31 were not covered by tests
[warning] 33-33: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L33
Added line #L33 was not covered by tests
[warning] 53-53: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L53
Added line #L53 was not covered by tests
[warning] 61-61: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L61
Added line #L61 was not covered by tests
[warning] 63-63: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L63
Added line #L63 was not covered by tests
[warning] 86-86: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L86
Added line #L86 was not covered by tests
[warning] 95-98: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L95-L98
Added lines #L95 - L98 were not covered by tests
[warning] 100-100: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L100
Added line #L100 was not covered by tests
[warning] 102-102: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L102
Added line #L102 was not covered by tests
[warning] 104-104: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L104
Added line #L104 was not covered by tests
[warning] 114-114: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L114
Added line #L114 was not covered by tests
[warning] 116-116: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L116
Added line #L116 was not covered by tests
[warning] 138-138: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L138
Added line #L138 was not covered by tests
[warning] 147-147: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L147
Added line #L147 was not covered by tests
[warning] 149-149: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L149
Added line #L149 was not covered by tests
[warning] 151-151: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L151
Added line #L151 was not covered by tests
[warning] 159-159: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L159
Added line #L159 was not covered by tests
[warning] 161-161: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L161
Added line #L161 was not covered by tests
[warning] 169-171: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L169-L171
Added lines #L169 - L171 were not covered by tests
[warning] 174-174: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L174
Added line #L174 was not covered by tests
[warning] 177-177: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L177
Added line #L177 was not covered by tests
[warning] 180-180: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L180
Added line #L180 was not covered by tests
[warning] 183-183: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L183
Added line #L183 was not covered by tests
[warning] 186-186: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L186
Added line #L186 was not covered by tests
Additional comments not posted (13)
agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/math.py (2)
13-13: LGTM! The import statement and its usage are valid.The
EMfunction fromagential.eval.emis correctly imported and used in thegenerate_critiquemethod.
Line range hint
96-101: LGTM! The logic for using the EM function and managing the patience counter is correct.The
EMfunction is used to compare answers, and the patience counter is incremented correctly. The halting condition is handled appropriately.agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py (11)
25-31: LGTM! The initialization logic is correct.The
__init__method correctly initializes the attributes of theSelfRefineQAStrategyclass.Tools
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 25-25: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L25
Added line #L25 was not covered by tests
[warning] 27-31: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L27-L31
Added lines #L27 - L31 were not covered by tests
33-61: LGTM! The logic for generating an answer is correct.The
generatemethod uses the_prompt_agentfunction to generate an answer based on the provided question, examples, prompt, and additional keys.Tools
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 33-33: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L33
Added line #L33 was not covered by tests
[warning] 53-53: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L53
Added line #L53 was not covered by tests
[warning] 61-61: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L61
Added line #L61 was not covered by tests
63-102: LGTM! The logic for generating a critique and managing the patience counter is correct.The
generate_critiquemethod uses the_prompt_critiquefunction to generate a critique and theEMfunction to manage the patience counter. The halting condition is handled appropriately.Tools
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 63-63: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L63
Added line #L63 was not covered by tests
[warning] 86-86: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L86
Added line #L86 was not covered by tests
[warning] 95-98: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L95-L98
Added lines #L95 - L98 were not covered by tests
[warning] 100-100: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L100
Added line #L100 was not covered by tests
[warning] 102-102: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L102
Added line #L102 was not covered by tests
104-114: LGTM! The logic for creating the output dictionary is correct.The
create_output_dictmethod correctly creates a dictionary containing the answer and critique.Tools
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 104-104: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L104
Added line #L104 was not covered by tests
[warning] 114-114: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L114
Added line #L114 was not covered by tests
116-149: LGTM! The logic for updating the answer based on the critique is correct.The
update_answer_based_on_critiquemethod uses the_prompt_refinefunction to update the answer based on the provided critique.Tools
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 116-116: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L116
Added line #L116 was not covered by tests
[warning] 138-138: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L138
Added line #L138 was not covered by tests
[warning] 147-147: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L147
Added line #L147 was not covered by tests
[warning] 149-149: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L149
Added line #L149 was not covered by tests
151-159: LGTM! The logic for checking the halting condition is correct.The
halting_conditionmethod correctly checks if the halting condition has been met based on the patience counter.Tools
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 151-151: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L151
Added line #L151 was not covered by tests
[warning] 159-159: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L159
Added line #L159 was not covered by tests
161-171: LGTM! The logic for resetting the strategy is correct.The
resetmethod correctly resets the internal variables keeping track of the halting condition.Tools
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 161-161: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L161
Added line #L161 was not covered by tests
[warning] 169-171: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L169-L171
Added lines #L169 - L171 were not covered by tests
174-177: LGTM! The class inheritance is correct.The
SelfRefineHotQAStrategyclass correctly inherits fromSelfRefineQAStrategy.Tools
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 174-174: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L174
Added line #L174 was not covered by tests
[warning] 177-177: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L177
Added line #L177 was not covered by tests
180-183: LGTM! The class inheritance is correct.The
SelfRefineFEVERStrategyclass correctly inherits fromSelfRefineQAStrategy.Tools
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 180-180: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L180
Added line #L180 was not covered by tests
[warning] 183-183: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L183
Added line #L183 was not covered by tests
186-189: LGTM! The class inheritance is correct.The
SelfRefineTriviaQAStrategyclass correctly inherits fromSelfRefineQAStrategy.Tools
GitHub Check: codecov/patch
[warning] 186-186: agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py#L186
Added line #L186 was not covered by tests
192-195: LGTM! The class inheritance is correct.The
SelfRefineAmbigNQStrategyclass correctly inherits fromSelfRefineQAStrategy.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
Outside diff range, codebase verification and nitpick comments (3)
agential/cog/self_refine/prompts.py (3)
6-10: Clarify the instruction format.The instruction for HOTPOTQA ends abruptly with "A:". Consider adding a placeholder or more context to complete the instruction.
- Q: {question} - A: """ + Q: {question} + A: {answer}"""
13-37: Ensure consistency in critique examples.The critique examples for HOTPOTQA are generally clear and well-structured. However, ensure that each example consistently follows the same format for clarity.
- Above all, the proposed answer correctly identifies the elevation range for the area that the eastern sector of the Colorado orogeny extends into. However, the explanation can be improved for clarity. + Above all, the proposed answer correctly identifies the elevation range for the area that the eastern sector of the Colorado orogeny extends into. However, the explanation can be improved for clarity. --- Q: Musician and satirist Allie Goertz wrote a song about the \"The Simpsons\" character Milhouse, who Matt Groening named after who? A: Richard Nixon
156-179: Ensure clarity in refinement examples.The refinement examples for HOTPOTQA are clear, but ensure that the explanations are concise and directly address the question and proposed answer.
- Above all, the proposed answer correctly identifies the elevation range for the area that the eastern sector of the Colorado orogeny extends into. However, the explanation can be improved for clarity. + Above all, the proposed answer correctly identifies the elevation range for the area that the eastern sector of the Colorado orogeny extends into. The explanation can be improved for clarity.
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (5)
- agential/cog/self_refine/factory.py (4 hunks)
- agential/cog/self_refine/functional.py (3 hunks)
- agential/cog/self_refine/prompts.py (1 hunks)
- agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/math.py (3 hunks)
- agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py (1 hunks)
Files not summarized due to errors (1)
- agential/cog/self_refine/prompts.py: Error: Message exceeds token limit
Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (2)
- agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/math.py
- agential/cog/self_refine/strategies/qa.py
Additional comments not posted (7)
agential/cog/self_refine/factory.py (6)
8-17: LGTM! Imports are necessary for the new functionality.The imports include new few-shot examples and instructions for various benchmarks. These changes are appropriate and necessary.
Also applies to: 19-19, 22-24, 26-26, 29-31, 33-33, 36-36, 41-42, 50-55
58-61: LGTM! Updates to SELF_REFINE_BENCHMARK_FEWSHOTS are appropriate.The dictionary has been updated to include new few-shot types for various benchmarks. These changes are necessary to support the new functionality.
71-73: LGTM! Updates to SELF_REFINE_PROMPTS are appropriate.The dictionary has been updated to include new prompts for various benchmarks. These changes are necessary to support the new functionality.
Also applies to: 76-78, 81-83, 86-88
114-117: LGTM! Updates to SELF_REFINE_FEWSHOTS are appropriate.The dictionary has been updated to include new few-shot examples for various benchmarks. These changes are necessary to support the new functionality.
Also applies to: 119-121, 123-125, 127-129
147-150: LGTM! Updates to SELF_REFINE_STRATEGIES are appropriate.The dictionary has been updated to include new strategies for various benchmarks. These changes are necessary to support the new functionality.
Line range hint
158-162:
LGTM! Methods in SelfRefineFactory are well-defined.The methods to retrieve few-shot examples, prompts, and strategies based on the benchmark are well-defined and necessary for the new functionality.
Also applies to: 164-167, 169-172, 174-178, 180-184, 186-191, 193-197, 199-204, 206-210
agential/cog/self_refine/prompts.py (1)
757-779: Correct inconsistencies in refinement examples.The refinement example for the figure skating question contains an inconsistency. The initial plausibility check incorrectly states the answer as "never" instead of "1908."
|
|
||
| > Search Query: Barium is used in CT scans to help highlight the digestive system | ||
| > Evidence: [Barium Sulfate (Enhancer)] Barium sulfate works by coating the inside of your esophagus, stomach, or intestines which allows them to be seen more clearly on a CT scan or other radiologic (x-ray) examination. | ||
|
|
||
| According to the evidence, the proposed answer is not completely accurate. | ||
|
|
||
| Let's search the question in google: | ||
|
|
||
| > Search Query: What does barium do in a ct scan? site: wikipedia.org | ||
| > Evidence: [Barium sulfate suspension - Wikipedia] Barium sulfate suspension, often simply called barium, is a contrast agent used during X-rays. Specifically it is used to improve visualization of the gastrointestinal tract (esophagus, stomach, intestines) on plain X-ray or computed tomography. | ||
|
|
||
| The evidence suggests that barium is used to "improve visualization of the gastrointestinal tract", which includes the digestive system. Therefore, the proposed answer should be more specific by staing "improve visualization". | ||
|
|
||
| > Search Query: Why barium used in CT scans? | ||
| > Evidence: [What To Expect Before Your CT Scan - St. Elizabeth's Medical Center] The barium helps to highlight body areas for the CT scan. If you are having a scan of a body part other than the abdomen you should arrive 30 minutes before your appointed time. | ||
|
|
||
| The evidence suggests that barium helps "highlight body areas" for the CT scan, not specifically the digestive system. However, it is possible that barium is used to highlight the digestive system in many cases, so the proposed answer is not complete. | ||
|
|
||
| Conclusion: While the answer "highlight the digestive system" is a common usage of barium in CT scans, it is not a complete description of barium's function. A more complete answer would be "to improve visualization of the gastrointestinal tract." | ||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| Q: Where was the fort located at which the first shot of the civil war was fired? | ||
| A: Charleston Harbor, South Carolina | ||
|
|
||
| What's the problem with the above answer? | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Plausibility: | ||
|
|
||
| The question asks for the location of the fort, and the answer is "Fort Sumter", which may be a location. So it's plausible. | ||
|
|
||
| 2. Truthfulness: | ||
|
|
||
| Let's search the question in google: | ||
|
|
||
| > Search Query: Where was the fort located at which the first shot of the civil war was fired? | ||
| > Evidence: [Civil War Begins - U.S. Senate] April 12, 1861 At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter in South Carolinaβs Charleston Harbor. Less than 34 hours later, Union forces surrendered. | ||
|
|
||
| The evidence suggests that the first shot of the Civil War was fired at Fort Sumter, which is consistent with the proposed answer. | ||
|
|
||
| We then need to check whether Fort Sumter is located in Charleston, South Carolina. | ||
|
|
||
| > Search Query: Where is Fort Sumter located? | ||
| > Evidence: [Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park (U.S. National ...] Fort Sumter is located in the middle of Charleston Harbor, and is only accessible by ferry rides through Fort Sumter Tours. | ||
|
|
||
| Conclusion: From the above evidence we know that the first shot of the Civil War was fired at Fort Sumter, and Fort Sumter is located in Charleston, the reasoning process is correct. However, the proposed answer should specify the location "Charleston" rather than only state "Fort Sumter". | ||
|
|
||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| Q: When did nando's come to the uk? | ||
| A: 1992 | ||
|
|
||
| What's the problem with the above answer? | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Plausibility: | ||
|
|
||
| The question asks for a time, and the answer is "1992", which is a year. So it's plausible. | ||
|
|
||
| 2. Truthfulness: | ||
|
|
||
| Let's search the question in google: | ||
|
|
||
| > Search Query: When did nando's come to the uk? site: wikipedia.org | ||
| > Evidence: [Nando's - Wikipedia] Nando's opened its first restaurants within the United Kingdom, in 1992, in the west London suburbs of Ealing and Earls Court, initially focusing on takeaway food. | ||
|
|
||
| The evidence suggests that Nando's first opened in the UK in 1992, which is consistent with the proposed answer. We can provide more detailed information in the answer.""" | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| SELF_REFINE_CRITIQUE_INSTRUCTION_AMBIGNQ = """{examples} | ||
| (END OF EXAMPLES) | ||
|
|
||
| Question: {question} | ||
| Proposed Answer: {answer} | ||
|
|
||
| What's the problem with the above answer? | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Plausibility: | ||
|
|
||
| """ | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| AMBIGNQ_REFINE_FEWSHOT_EXAMPLES = """Q: When did men's figure skating become a summer Olympic sport? | ||
| A: 1908 | ||
|
|
||
| What's the problem with the above answer? | ||
|
|
||
| 1. Plausibility: | ||
|
|
||
| The question asks for the time men's figure skating become a summer Olympic sport, and the answer "never" does not provide a time. So it's not plausible. The answer should be a time, like year or date. | ||
|
|
||
| 2. Truthfulness: | ||
|
|
||
| Let's search the question in google: | ||
|
|
||
| > Search Query: When did men's figure skating become a summer Olympic sport? | ||
| > Evidence: [Figure skating at the Olympic Games - Wikipedia] Figure skating was first contested in the Olympic Games at the 1908 Summer Olympics . Since 1924, the sport has been a part of the Winter Olympic Games . | ||
|
|
||
| The evidence suggests Figure skating became an Olympic sport at the 1908 Summer Olympics, and has been a part of the Winter Olympic Games in 1924. | ||
|
|
||
| The answer is wrong by saying that men's figure skating has never been a part of the Summer Olympics. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Correct inconsistencies in critique examples.
The critique example for the figure skating question contains an inconsistency. The initial plausibility check incorrectly states the answer as "never" instead of "1908."
- The question asks for the time men's figure skating become a summer Olympic sport, and the answer "never" does not provide a time. So it's not plausible.
+ The question asks for the time men's figure skating become a summer Olympic sport, and the answer "1908" provides a time. So it's plausible.Committable suggestion
βΌοΈ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| AMBIGNQ_CRITIQUE_FEWSHOT_EXAMPLES = """Q: When did men's figure skating become a summer Olympic sport? | |
| A: 1908 | |
| What's the problem with the above answer? | |
| 1. Plausibility: | |
| The question asks for the time men's figure skating become a summer Olympic sport, and the answer "never" does not provide a time. So it's not plausible. The answer should be a time, like year or date. | |
| 2. Truthfulness: | |
| Let's search the question in google: | |
| > Search Query: When did men's figure skating become a summer Olympic sport? | |
| > Evidence: [Figure skating at the Olympic Games - Wikipedia] Figure skating was first contested in the Olympic Games at the 1908 Summer Olympics . Since 1924, the sport has been a part of the Winter Olympic Games . | |
| The evidence suggests Figure skating became an Olympic sport at the 1908 Summer Olympics, and has been a part of the Winter Olympic Games in 1924. | |
| The answer is wrong by saying that men's figure skating has never been a part of the Summer Olympics. | |
| --- | |
| Q: When was the last time the USA men's national soccer team missed the World Cup? | |
| A: 2018 | |
| What's the problem with the above answer? | |
| 1. Plausibility: | |
| The question asks for a year, and the answer is "1986", which is a year. So it's plausible. | |
| 2. Truthfulness: | |
| Let's search the question and proposed answer in google: | |
| > Search Query: When was the last time the USA men's national soccer team missed the World Cup? site: wikipedia.org | |
| > Evidence: [United States at the FIFA World Cup - Wikipedia] The United States participated in every World Cup from 1990 through 2014, but did not qualify in 2018, marking first time the team had missed a World Cup since 1986. They returned to the World Cup by qualifying for the 2022 edition . | |
| > Search Query: The last time the USA men's national soccer team missed the World Cup was in 1986 | |
| > Evidence: [United States at the FIFA World Cup - Wikipedia] The United States participated in every World Cup from 1990 through 2014, but did not qualify in 2018, marking first time the team had missed a World Cup since 1986. | |
| The evidence suggests that the USA men's national soccer team did not qualify for the World Cup in 2018, but qualify for 2022, 2018 > 1986, so the last time the USA men's national soccer team missed the World Cup was in 2018, not in 1986, which contradicts the proposed answer. | |
| Above all, the USA men's national soccer team did miss the World Cup in 1986, but not the last time, the last time was in 2018. | |
| --- | |
| Q: What does barium do in a ct scan? | |
| A: to improve visualization of the gastrointestinal tract | |
| What's the problem with the above answer? | |
| 1. Plausibility: | |
| The question asks for the function of barium in a CT scan, and the answer is "highlight the digestive system", which is a function. So it's plausible. | |
| 2. Truthfulness: | |
| Let's search the proposed answer: | |
| > Search Query: Barium is used in CT scans to help highlight the digestive system | |
| > Evidence: [Barium Sulfate (Enhancer)] Barium sulfate works by coating the inside of your esophagus, stomach, or intestines which allows them to be seen more clearly on a CT scan or other radiologic (x-ray) examination. | |
| According to the evidence, the proposed answer is not completely accurate. | |
| Let's search the question in google: | |
| > Search Query: What does barium do in a ct scan? site: wikipedia.org | |
| > Evidence: [Barium sulfate suspension - Wikipedia] Barium sulfate suspension, often simply called barium, is a contrast agent used during X-rays. Specifically it is used to improve visualization of the gastrointestinal tract (esophagus, stomach, intestines) on plain X-ray or computed tomography. | |
| The evidence suggests that barium is used to "improve visualization of the gastrointestinal tract", which includes the digestive system. Therefore, the proposed answer should be more specific by staing "improve visualization". | |
| > Search Query: Why barium used in CT scans? | |
| > Evidence: [What To Expect Before Your CT Scan - St. Elizabeth's Medical Center] The barium helps to highlight body areas for the CT scan. If you are having a scan of a body part other than the abdomen you should arrive 30 minutes before your appointed time. | |
| The evidence suggests that barium helps "highlight body areas" for the CT scan, not specifically the digestive system. However, it is possible that barium is used to highlight the digestive system in many cases, so the proposed answer is not complete. | |
| Conclusion: While the answer "highlight the digestive system" is a common usage of barium in CT scans, it is not a complete description of barium's function. A more complete answer would be "to improve visualization of the gastrointestinal tract." | |
| --- | |
| Q: Where was the fort located at which the first shot of the civil war was fired? | |
| A: Charleston Harbor, South Carolina | |
| What's the problem with the above answer? | |
| 1. Plausibility: | |
| The question asks for the location of the fort, and the answer is "Fort Sumter", which may be a location. So it's plausible. | |
| 2. Truthfulness: | |
| Let's search the question in google: | |
| > Search Query: Where was the fort located at which the first shot of the civil war was fired? | |
| > Evidence: [Civil War Begins - U.S. Senate] April 12, 1861 At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter in South Carolinaβs Charleston Harbor. Less than 34 hours later, Union forces surrendered. | |
| The evidence suggests that the first shot of the Civil War was fired at Fort Sumter, which is consistent with the proposed answer. | |
| We then need to check whether Fort Sumter is located in Charleston, South Carolina. | |
| > Search Query: Where is Fort Sumter located? | |
| > Evidence: [Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park (U.S. National ...] Fort Sumter is located in the middle of Charleston Harbor, and is only accessible by ferry rides through Fort Sumter Tours. | |
| Conclusion: From the above evidence we know that the first shot of the Civil War was fired at Fort Sumter, and Fort Sumter is located in Charleston, the reasoning process is correct. However, the proposed answer should specify the location "Charleston" rather than only state "Fort Sumter". | |
| --- | |
| Q: When did nando's come to the uk? | |
| A: 1992 | |
| What's the problem with the above answer? | |
| 1. Plausibility: | |
| The question asks for a time, and the answer is "1992", which is a year. So it's plausible. | |
| 2. Truthfulness: | |
| Let's search the question in google: | |
| > Search Query: When did nando's come to the uk? site: wikipedia.org | |
| > Evidence: [Nando's - Wikipedia] Nando's opened its first restaurants within the United Kingdom, in 1992, in the west London suburbs of Ealing and Earls Court, initially focusing on takeaway food. | |
| The evidence suggests that Nando's first opened in the UK in 1992, which is consistent with the proposed answer. We can provide more detailed information in the answer.""" | |
| SELF_REFINE_CRITIQUE_INSTRUCTION_AMBIGNQ = """{examples} | |
| (END OF EXAMPLES) | |
| Question: {question} | |
| Proposed Answer: {answer} | |
| What's the problem with the above answer? | |
| 1. Plausibility: | |
| """ | |
| AMBIGNQ_REFINE_FEWSHOT_EXAMPLES = """Q: When did men's figure skating become a summer Olympic sport? | |
| A: 1908 | |
| What's the problem with the above answer? | |
| 1. Plausibility: | |
| The question asks for the time men's figure skating become a summer Olympic sport, and the answer "never" does not provide a time. So it's not plausible. The answer should be a time, like year or date. | |
| 2. Truthfulness: | |
| Let's search the question in google: | |
| > Search Query: When did men's figure skating become a summer Olympic sport? | |
| > Evidence: [Figure skating at the Olympic Games - Wikipedia] Figure skating was first contested in the Olympic Games at the 1908 Summer Olympics . Since 1924, the sport has been a part of the Winter Olympic Games . | |
| The evidence suggests Figure skating became an Olympic sport at the 1908 Summer Olympics, and has been a part of the Winter Olympic Games in 1924. | |
| The answer is wrong by saying that men's figure skating has never been a part of the Summer Olympics. | |
| The question asks for the time men's figure skating become a summer Olympic sport, and the answer "1908" provides a time. So it's plausible. |
| print("<OUT REFINE=============================================>") | ||
| print(repr(out)) | ||
| print("<OUT REFINE=============================================>") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider using logging instead of print statements for debugging.
Using print statements for debugging is not recommended for production code. Consider using the logging module to provide better control over log levels and outputs.
- print("<OUT REFINE=============================================>")
- print(repr(out))
- print("<OUT REFINE=============================================>")
+ logger.debug("<OUT REFINE=============================================>")
+ logger.debug(repr(out))
+ logger.debug("<OUT REFINE=============================================>")Committable suggestion
βΌοΈ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| print("<OUT REFINE=============================================>") | |
| print(repr(out)) | |
| print("<OUT REFINE=============================================>") | |
| logger.debug("<OUT REFINE=============================================>") | |
| logger.debug(repr(out)) | |
| logger.debug("<OUT REFINE=============================================>") |
| print("<OUT AGENT=============================================>") | ||
| print(repr(out)) | ||
| print("<OUT AGENT=============================================>") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider using logging instead of print statements for debugging.
Using print statements for debugging is not recommended for production code. Consider using the logging module to provide better control over log levels and outputs.
- print("<OUT AGENT=============================================>")
- print(repr(out))
- print("<OUT AGENT=============================================>")
+ logger.debug("<OUT AGENT=============================================>")
+ logger.debug(repr(out))
+ logger.debug("<OUT AGENT=============================================>")Committable suggestion
βΌοΈ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| print("<OUT AGENT=============================================>") | |
| print(repr(out)) | |
| print("<OUT AGENT=============================================>") | |
| logger.debug("<OUT AGENT=============================================>") | |
| logger.debug(repr(out)) | |
| logger.debug("<OUT AGENT=============================================>") |
| print("<PROMPT AGENT=============================================>") | ||
| print(prompt) | ||
| print("<PROMPT AGENT=============================================>") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider using logging instead of print statements for debugging.
Using print statements for debugging is not recommended for production code. Consider using the logging module to provide better control over log levels and outputs.
- print("<PROMPT AGENT=============================================>")
- print(prompt)
- print("<PROMPT AGENT=============================================>")
+ import logging
+ logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)
+ logger.debug("<PROMPT AGENT=============================================>")
+ logger.debug(prompt)
+ logger.debug("<PROMPT AGENT=============================================>")Committable suggestion
βΌοΈ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| print("<PROMPT AGENT=============================================>") | |
| print(prompt) | |
| print("<PROMPT AGENT=============================================>") | |
| import logging | |
| logger = logging.getLogger(__name__) | |
| logger.debug("<PROMPT AGENT=============================================>") | |
| logger.debug(prompt) | |
| logger.debug("<PROMPT AGENT=============================================>") |
| print("<OUT CRITIQUE=============================================>") | ||
| print(repr(out)) | ||
| print("<OUT CRITIQUE=============================================>") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider using logging instead of print statements for debugging.
Using print statements for debugging is not recommended for production code. Consider using the logging module to provide better control over log levels and outputs.
- print("<OUT CRITIQUE=============================================>")
- print(repr(out))
- print("<OUT CRITIQUE=============================================>")
+ logger.debug("<OUT CRITIQUE=============================================>")
+ logger.debug(repr(out))
+ logger.debug("<OUT CRITIQUE=============================================>")Committable suggestion
βΌοΈ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| print("<OUT CRITIQUE=============================================>") | |
| print(repr(out)) | |
| print("<OUT CRITIQUE=============================================>") | |
| logger.debug("<OUT CRITIQUE=============================================>") | |
| logger.debug(repr(out)) | |
| logger.debug("<OUT CRITIQUE=============================================>") |
| print("<PROMPT REFINE=============================================>") | ||
| print(prompt) | ||
| print("<PROMPT REFINE=============================================>") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider using logging instead of print statements for debugging.
Using print statements for debugging is not recommended for production code. Consider using the logging module to provide better control over log levels and outputs.
- print("<PROMPT REFINE=============================================>")
- print(prompt)
- print("<PROMPT REFINE=============================================>")
+ logger.debug("<PROMPT REFINE=============================================>")
+ logger.debug(prompt)
+ logger.debug("<PROMPT REFINE=============================================>")Committable suggestion
βΌοΈ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| print("<PROMPT REFINE=============================================>") | |
| print(prompt) | |
| print("<PROMPT REFINE=============================================>") | |
| logger.debug("<PROMPT REFINE=============================================>") | |
| logger.debug(prompt) | |
| logger.debug("<PROMPT REFINE=============================================>") |
| print("<PROMPT CRITIQUE=============================================>") | ||
| print(prompt) | ||
| print("<PROMPT CRITIQUE=============================================>") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider using logging instead of print statements for debugging.
Using print statements for debugging is not recommended for production code. Consider using the logging module to provide better control over log levels and outputs.
- print("<PROMPT CRITIQUE=============================================>")
- print(prompt)
- print("<PROMPT CRITIQUE=============================================>")
+ logger.debug("<PROMPT CRITIQUE=============================================>")
+ logger.debug(prompt)
+ logger.debug("<PROMPT CRITIQUE=============================================>")Committable suggestion was skipped due to low confidence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (6)
- agential/cog/reflexion/agent.py (2 hunks)
- agential/cog/self_refine/agent.py (3 hunks)
- agential/cog/self_refine/factory.py (6 hunks)
- notebooks/self_refine.ipynb (6 hunks)
- tests/cog/self_refine/test_agent.py (2 hunks)
- tests/cog/self_refine/test_factory.py (1 hunks)
Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- agential/cog/reflexion/agent.py
Additional comments not posted (17)
tests/cog/self_refine/test_factory.py (3)
32-72: LGTM!The test function
test_self_refine_factory_get_strategyis well-structured and comprehensive. It covers multiple benchmarks and includes a test for an unsupported benchmark.
75-100: LGTM!The test function
test_self_refine_factory_get_fewshotsis well-structured and comprehensive. It covers multiple scenarios for theget_fewshotsmethod.
103-121: LGTM!The test function
test_self_refine_factory_get_promptsis well-structured and comprehensive. It covers multiple scenarios for theget_promptsmethod.agential/cog/self_refine/agent.py (3)
Line range hint
25-30:
LGTM!The
__init__method is well-structured and correctly initializes the class attributes.
Line range hint
116-118:
LGTM!The
resetmethod is well-structured and correctly resets the agent's state.
Line range hint
52-114:
LGTM! But verify the function usage in the codebase.The
generatemethod is well-structured and the new parameters enhance its flexibility.However, ensure that all function calls to
generatematch the new signature.tests/cog/self_refine/test_agent.py (3)
Line range hint
14-20:
LGTM!The test function
test_initis well-structured and correctly tests the initialization of theSelfRefineAgentclass.
Line range hint
23-28:
LGTM!The test function
test_resetis well-structured and correctly tests the reset functionality of theSelfRefineAgentclass.
Line range hint
32-136:
LGTM!The test function
test_generateis well-structured and comprehensive. It covers multiple scenarios for thegeneratemethod.agential/cog/self_refine/factory.py (3)
Line range hint
174-188:
LGTM!The
get_fewshotsmethod is well-structured and correctly handles various scenarios.
Line range hint
190-200:
LGTM!The
get_promptsmethod is well-structured and correctly handles various scenarios.
Line range hint
202-229:
LGTM!The
get_strategymethod is well-structured and correctly handles various scenarios.notebooks/self_refine.ipynb (5)
Line range hint
1-66:
LGTM! Imports are necessary for the notebook.The import statements include various few-shot examples and self-refine instructions for different benchmarks. Ensure that all imported modules and variables are used in the notebook.
120-142: LGTM! HotpotQA section is correctly implemented.The HotpotQA section initializes a
SelfRefineAgentand generates output based on the provided question and few-shot examples. Ensure that the parameters passed to thegeneratemethod are correct.
166-188: LGTM! FEVER section is correctly implemented.The FEVER section initializes a
SelfRefineAgentand generates output based on the provided question and few-shot examples. Ensure that the parameters passed to thegeneratemethod are correct.
212-234: LGTM! AmbigNQ section is correctly implemented.The AmbigNQ section initializes a
SelfRefineAgentand generates output based on the provided question and few-shot examples. Ensure that the parameters passed to thegeneratemethod are correct.
258-280: LGTM! TriviaQA section is correctly implemented.The TriviaQA section initializes a
SelfRefineAgentand generates output based on the provided question and few-shot examples. Ensure that the parameters passed to thegeneratemethod are correct.
alckasoc
changed the title
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Files selected for processing (2)
- tests/cog/self_refine/strategies/test_math.py (2 hunks)
- tests/cog/self_refine/strategies/test_qa.py (1 hunks)
Additional comments not posted (16)
tests/cog/self_refine/strategies/test_qa.py (8)
22-31: Initialization test looks good!The test comprehensively checks the initialization of the
SelfRefineQAStrategyclass.
33-46: Generate method test looks good!The test effectively validates the
generatemethod of theSelfRefineQAStrategyclass.
48-87: Generate critique method test looks good!The test comprehensively validates the
generate_critiquemethod, including early stopping functionality.
89-96: Create output dict method test looks good!The test effectively validates the
create_output_dictmethod of theSelfRefineQAStrategyclass.
98-115: Update answer based on critique method test looks good!The test comprehensively validates the
update_answer_based_on_critiquemethod of theSelfRefineQAStrategyclass.
118-128: Halting condition method test looks good!The test effectively validates the
halting_conditionmethod of theSelfRefineQAStrategyclass.
131-142: Reset method test looks good!The test comprehensively validates the
resetmethod of theSelfRefineQAStrategyclass.
145-151: Instantiation of QA strategies test looks good!The test effectively validates the instantiation of various QA strategy classes.
tests/cog/self_refine/strategies/test_math.py (8)
Line range hint
10-15:
Initialization test looks good!The test comprehensively checks the initialization of the
SelfRefineMathStrategyclass.
Line range hint
17-26:
Generate method test looks good!The test effectively validates the
generatemethod of theSelfRefineMathStrategyclass.
Line range hint
28-67:
Generate critique method test looks good!The test comprehensively validates the
generate_critiquemethod, including early stopping functionality.
Line range hint
69-74:
Create output dict method test looks good!The test effectively validates the
create_output_dictmethod of theSelfRefineMathStrategyclass.
Line range hint
76-87:
Update answer based on critique method test looks good!The test comprehensively validates the
update_answer_based_on_critiquemethod of theSelfRefineMathStrategyclass.
Line range hint
89-97:
Halting condition method test looks good!The test effectively validates the
halting_conditionmethod of theSelfRefineMathStrategyclass.
Line range hint
99-106:
Reset method test looks good!The test comprehensively validates the
resetmethod of theSelfRefineMathStrategyclass.
Line range hint
108-153:
Instantiation of Math strategies test looks good!The test effectively validates the instantiation of various Math strategy classes.
π€ Reasoning
Explain the purpose of this PR...
π§ Changes
Describe the changes made...
β PR Checklist
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Tests
SelfRefineAgentclass.Documentation
self_refine.ipynbnotebook with new instructions and examples for improved user guidance.