# evaluate.py import os import json import time import re # <-- ADD THIS IMPORT import pandas as pd from typing import List, Dict, Any from pathlib import Path # --- ADD THIS FLAG --- # NLU_ONLY_TEST = True NLU_ONLY_TEST = False # --------------------- # --- Imports from the main application --- try: from alz_companion.agent import ( make_rag_chain, route_query_type, detect_tags_from_query, answer_query, call_llm, build_or_load_vectorstore ) from alz_companion.prompts import FAITHFULNESS_JUDGE_PROMPT from langchain_community.vectorstores import FAISS # --- Also move this import inside the try block for consistency --- from langchain.schema import Document except ImportError: # --- START: FALLBACK DEFINITIONS --- class FAISS: def __init__(self): self.docstore = type('obj', (object,), {'_dict': {}})() def add_documents(self, docs): pass def save_local(self, path): pass @classmethod def from_documents(cls, docs, embeddings=None): return cls() class Document: def __init__(self, page_content, metadata=None): self.page_content = page_content self.metadata = metadata or {} def make_rag_chain(*args, **kwargs): return lambda q, **k: {"answer": f"(Eval Fallback) You asked: {q}", "sources": []} def route_query_type(q, **kwargs): return "general_conversation" def detect_tags_from_query(*args, **kwargs): return {} def answer_query(chain, q, **kwargs): return chain(q, **kwargs) def call_llm(*args, **kwargs): return "{}" # --- ADD FALLBACK DEFINITION FOR THE MISSING FUNCTION --- def build_or_load_vectorstore(docs, index_path, is_personal=False): return FAISS() # --- END OF ADDITION --- FAITHFULNESS_JUDGE_PROMPT = "" print("WARNING: Could not import from alz_companion. Evaluation functions will use fallbacks.") # --- END: FALLBACK DEFINITIONS --- # --- LLM-as-a-Judge Prompt for Answer Correctness --- # Aware of QUERY TYPE and ROLE # In prompts.py or evaluate.py ANSWER_CORRECTNESS_JUDGE_PROMPT = """You are an expert evaluator. Your task is to assess a GENERATED_ANSWER against a GROUND_TRUTH_ANSWER based on the provided context (QUERY_TYPE and USER_ROLE) and the scoring rubric below. --- CONTEXT FOR EVALUATION --- QUERY_TYPE: {query_type} USER_ROLE: {role} --- General Rules (Apply to ALL evaluations) --- - Ignore minor differences in phrasing, tone, or structure. Your evaluation should be based on the substance of the answer, not its style. --- Scoring Rubric --- - 1.0 (Fully Correct): The generated answer contains all the key factual points and advice from the ground truth. - 0.8 (Mostly Correct): The generated answer captures the main point and is factually correct, but it misses a secondary detail or a specific actionable step. - 0.5 (Partially Correct): The generated answer is factually correct in what it states but is too generic or vague. It misses the primary advice or the most critical information. - 0.0 (Incorrect): The generated answer is factually incorrect, contains hallucinations, or contradicts the core advice of the ground truth. --- Specific Judging Criteria by Context --- - If QUERY_TYPE is 'caregiving_scenario' AND USER_ROLE is 'patient': - Apply the rubric with a focus on **emotional support and validation**. The answer does NOT need to be factually exhaustive to get a high score. - If QUERY_TYPE is 'caregiving_scenario' AND USER_ROLE is 'caregiver': - Apply the rubric with a focus on a **blend of empathy and practical, actionable advice**. The answer should be factually aligned with the ground truth. - If QUERY_TYPE is 'factual_question': - Your evaluation should be based on **factual accuracy**. Any empathetic or conversational language should be ignored. - For all other QUERY_TYPEs: - Default to applying the rubric with a focus on factual accuracy. --- Examples --- # Example for a 1.0 Score (Patient Role - Emotional Support) GROUND_TRUTH: It's frustrating when something important goes missing. I understand why you're upset. Why don't we look for it together? GENERATED_ANSWER: I hear how frustrating this is for you. You're not alone, let's try and find it together. Score: 1.0 # --- NEW CAREGIVER EXAMPLE --- # Example for a 1.0 Score (Caregiver Role - Empathy + Action) GROUND_TRUTH: This can be very trying. Repetitive questioning happens because the brain isn't retaining new information. Try to answer in a calm, reassuring tone each time. GENERATED_ANSWER: It can be very frustrating to answer the same question repeatedly. Remember that this is due to memory changes. The best approach is to stay patient and answer calmly. Score: 1.0 # --- END NEW EXAMPLE --- # Example for a 0.8 Score (Mostly Correct but Incomplete) GROUND_TRUTH: A calm and reassuring approach is best. Instead of arguing, validate their feelings and suggest looking for the item together. GENERATED_ANSWER: It's important to stay calm and reassure them. You should tell them you understand they are upset. Score: 0.8 # Example for a 0.5 Score (Partially Correct but Vague) GROUND_TRUTH: Repetitive questioning happens because the brain isn't retaining new info. Answer calmly, and consider writing the answer on a visible whiteboard. GENERATED_ANSWER: It's important to be patient when they ask the same question over and over. Score: 0.5 # Example for a 0.0 Score (Contradicts Core Advice) GROUND_TRUTH: A calm and reassuring approach is best. Try not to argue about the facts. GENERATED_ANSWER: You need to firmly correct him and explain that the carer did not steal his watch. It is important to confront these delusions directly with facts. Score: 0.0 --- --- DATA TO EVALUATE --- GROUND_TRUTH_ANSWER: {ground_truth_answer} GENERATED_ANSWER: {generated_answer} --- Return a single JSON object with your score based on the rubric and examples: {{ "correctness_score": }} """ ORIG_ANSWER_CORRECTNESS_JUDGE_PROMPT = """You are an expert evaluator. Your task is to assess a GENERATED_ANSWER against a GROUND_TRUTH_ANSWER based on the provided QUERY_TYPE and the scoring rubric below. QUERY_TYPE: {query_type} --- General Rules (Apply to ALL evaluations) --- - Ignore minor differences in phrasing, tone, or structure. Your evaluation should be based on the substance of the answer, not its style. --- Scoring Rubric --- - 1.0 (Fully Correct): The generated answer contains all the key factual points and advice from the ground truth. - 0.8 (Mostly Correct): The generated answer captures the main point and is factually correct, but it misses a secondary detail or a specific actionable step. - 0.5 (Partially Correct): The generated answer is factually correct in what it states but is too generic or vague. It misses the primary advice or the most critical information. - 0.0 (Incorrect): The generated answer is factually incorrect, contains hallucinations, or contradicts the core advice of the ground truth. --- Specific Judging Criteria by QUERY_TYPE --- - If QUERY_TYPE is 'caregiving_scenario' AND the user is the patient: - Apply the rubric with a focus on **emotional support and validation**. The answer does NOT need to be factually exhaustive to get a high score. A 1.0 score means it provided excellent emotional comfort that aligns with the ground truth's intent. - If QUERY_TYPE is 'factual_question': - Apply the rubric with a focus on **strict factual accuracy**. The answer must be factually aligned with the ground truth to get a high score. - For all other QUERY_TYPEs: - Default to applying the rubric with a focus on factual accuracy. --- Examples --- # Example for a 1.0 Score (Different Tone, Same Facts) GROUND_TRUTH: For a withdrawn person, a powerful approach is personalized music therapy. Creating a playlist of music from their youth can help them reconnect. GENERATED_ANSWER: It's hard when he's so withdrawn. You could try making a playlist of his favorite songs from when he was younger. Music is a wonderful way to connect. Score: 1.0 # Example for a 0.8 Score (Mostly Correct but Incomplete) GROUND_TRUTH: A calm and reassuring approach is best. Instead of arguing, validate their feelings and suggest looking for the item together. GENERATED_ANSWER: It's important to stay calm and reassure them. You should tell them you understand they are upset. Score: 0.8 # Example for a 0.5 Score (Partially Correct but Vague) GROUND_TRUTH: Repetitive questioning happens because the brain isn't retaining new info. Answer calmly, and consider writing the answer on a visible whiteboard. GENERATED_ANSWER: It's important to be patient when they ask the same question over and over. Score: 0.5 # Example for a 0.0 Score (Contradicts Core Advice) GROUND_TRUTH: A calm and reassuring approach is best. Try not to argue about the facts. GENERATED_ANSWER: You need to firmly correct him and explain that the carer did not steal his watch. It is important to confront these delusions directly with facts. Score: 0.0 --- --- DATA TO EVALUATE --- GROUND_TRUTH_ANSWER: {ground_truth_answer} GENERATED_ANSWER: {generated_answer} --- Return a single JSON object with your score based on the rubric and examples: {{ "correctness_score": }} """ test_fixtures = [] def load_test_fixtures(): """Loads fixtures into the test_fixtures list.""" global test_fixtures test_fixtures = [] env_path = os.environ.get("TEST_FIXTURES_PATH", "").strip() # --- START: DEFINITIVE FIX --- # The old code used a relative path, which is unreliable. # This new code builds an absolute path to the fixture file based on # the location of this (evaluate.py) script. # default_fixture_file = script_dir / "Test_Syn_Caregiving_Patient.jsonl" # candidates = [env_path] if env_path else [str(default_fixture_file)] script_dir = Path(__file__).parent default_fixture_file = script_dir / "Test_Data" / "small_test_cases_v10.jsonl" candidates = [env_path] if env_path else [str(default_fixture_file)] # --- END: DEFINITIVE FIX --- # candidates = [env_path] if env_path else ["conversation_test_fixtures_v10.jsonl"] # candidates = [env_path] if env_path else ["Test_Syn_Caregiving_Patient.jsonl"] # candidates = [env_path] if env_path else ["Test_Syn_Caregiving_Caregiver.jsonl"] # candidates = [env_path] if env_path else ["Test_Syn_Factual.jsonl"] # candidates = [env_path] if env_path else ["Test_Syn_Multi_Hop.jsonl"] # candidates = [env_path] if env_path else ["Test_Syn_Gen_Chat.jsonl"] # candidates = [env_path] if env_path else ["Test_Syn_Gen_Know.jsonl"] # candidates = [env_path] if env_path else ["Test_Syn_Sum.jsonl"] # candidates = [env_path] if env_path else ["small_test_cases_v10.jsonl"] # candidates = [env_path] if env_path else ["Test_Syn_Caregiving_Patient.jsonl"] path = next((p for p in candidates if p and os.path.exists(p)), None) if not path: print("Warning: No test fixtures file found for evaluation.") return # if "Test_Syn_Caregiving_Patient.jsonl" in path: # if "Test_Syn_Caregiving_Caregiver.jsonl" in path: # if "Test_Syn_Factual.jsonl" in path: # if "Test_Syn_Multi_Hop.jsonl" in path: # if "Test_Syn_Gen_Chat.jsonl" in path: # if "Test_Syn_Gen_Know.jsonl" in path: # if "Test_Syn_Sum.jsonl" in path: # if "small_test_cases_v10.jsonl" in path: # if "conversation_test_fixtures_v10.jsonl" in path: if "small_test_cases_v10.jsonl" in path: print(f"Using corrected test fixtures: {path}") with open(path, "r", encoding="utf-8") as f: for line in f: try: test_fixtures.append(json.loads(line)) except json.JSONDecodeError: print(f"Skipping malformed JSON line in {path}") print(f"Loaded {len(test_fixtures)} fixtures for evaluation from {path}") def evaluate_nlu_tags(expected: Dict[str, Any], actual: Dict[str, Any], tag_key: str, expected_key_override: str = None) -> Dict[str, float]: lookup_key = expected_key_override or tag_key expected_raw = expected.get(lookup_key, []) expected_set = set(expected_raw if isinstance(expected_raw, list) else [expected_raw]) if expected_raw and expected_raw != "None" else set() actual_raw = actual.get(tag_key, []) actual_set = set(actual_raw if isinstance(actual_raw, list) else [actual_raw]) if actual_raw and actual_raw != "None" else set() if not expected_set and not actual_set: return {"precision": 1.0, "recall": 1.0, "f1_score": 1.0} true_positives = len(expected_set.intersection(actual_set)) precision = true_positives / len(actual_set) if actual_set else 0.0 recall = true_positives / len(expected_set) if expected_set else 0.0 f1_score = 2 * (precision * recall) / (precision + recall) if (precision + recall) > 0 else 0.0 return {"precision": precision, "recall": recall, "f1_score": f1_score} def _parse_judge_json(raw_str: str) -> dict | None: try: start_brace = raw_str.find('{') end_brace = raw_str.rfind('}') if start_brace != -1 and end_brace > start_brace: json_str = raw_str[start_brace : end_brace + 1] return json.loads(json_str) return None except (json.JSONDecodeError, AttributeError): return None # --- NEW: helpers for categorisation and error-class labelling --- def _categorize_test(test_id: str) -> str: tid = (test_id or "").lower() if "synonym" in tid: return "synonym" if "multi_fact" in tid or "multi-hop" in tid or "multihop" in tid: return "multi_fact" if "omission" in tid: return "omission" if "hallucination" in tid: return "hallucination" if "time" in tid or "temporal" in tid: return "temporal" if "context" in tid: return "context_disambig" return "baseline" def _classify_error(gt: str, gen: str) -> str: import re gt = (gt or "").strip().lower() gen = (gen or "").strip().lower() if not gen: return "empty" if not gt: return "hallucination" if gen else "empty" if gt in gen: return "paraphrase" gt_tokens = set([t for t in re.split(r'\W+', gt) if t]) gen_tokens = set([t for t in re.split(r'\W+', gen) if t]) overlap = len(gt_tokens & gen_tokens) / max(1, len(gt_tokens)) if overlap >= 0.3: return "omission" return "contradiction" # New Test Metric def calculate_recall_at_k(retrieved_docs: List[str], expected_sources: set, k: int) -> float: """Calculates the fraction of relevant docs found in the top K results.""" top_k_docs = set(retrieved_docs[:k]) expected_set = set(expected_sources) if not expected_set: return 1.0 # If there are no expected docs, recall is trivially perfect. found_count = len(top_k_docs.intersection(expected_set)) total_relevant = len(expected_set) return found_count / total_relevant if total_relevant > 0 else 0.0 ## NEW # In evaluate.py def run_comprehensive_evaluation( vs_general: FAISS, vs_personal: FAISS, nlu_vectorstore: FAISS, config: Dict[str, Any], storage_path: Path # <-- ADD THIS PARAMETER ): global test_fixtures if not test_fixtures: # The return signature is now back to 3 items. return "No test fixtures loaded.", [], [] vs_personal_test = None personal_context_docs = [] personal_context_file = "sample_data/1 Complaints of a Dutiful Daughter.txt" if os.path.exists(personal_context_file): print(f"Found personal context file for evaluation: '{personal_context_file}'") with open(personal_context_file, "r", encoding="utf-8") as f: content = f.read() doc = Document(page_content=content, metadata={"source": os.path.basename(personal_context_file)}) personal_context_docs.append(doc) else: print(f"WARNING: Personal context file not found at '{personal_context_file}'. Factual tests will likely fail.") vs_personal_test = build_or_load_vectorstore( personal_context_docs, index_path="tmp/eval_personal_index", is_personal=True ) print(f"Successfully created temporary personal vectorstore with {len(personal_context_docs)} document(s) for this evaluation run.") def _norm(label: str) -> str: label = (label or "").strip().lower() return "factual_question" if "factual" in label else label print("Starting comprehensive evaluation...") results: List[Dict[str, Any]] = [] total_fixtures = len(test_fixtures) print(f"\nšŸš€ STARTING EVALUATION on {total_fixtures} test cases...") for i, fx in enumerate(test_fixtures): test_id = fx.get("test_id", "N/A") print(f"--- Processing Test Case {i+1}/{total_fixtures}: ID = {test_id} ---") turns = fx.get("turns") or [] api_chat_history = [{"role": t.get("role"), "content": t.get("text")} for t in turns] query = next((t["content"] for t in reversed(api_chat_history) if (t.get("role") or "user").lower() == "user"), "") if not query: continue print(f'Query: "{query}"') ground_truth = fx.get("ground_truth", {}) expected_route = _norm(ground_truth.get("expected_route", "caregiving_scenario")) expected_tags = ground_truth.get("expected_tags", {}) expected_sources = ground_truth.get("expected_sources", []) # --- CORRECTED NLU-ONLY GUARD CLAUSE --- if NLU_ONLY_TEST: actual_route = _norm(route_query_type(query)) actual_tags = {} if "caregiving_scenario" in actual_route: actual_tags = detect_tags_from_query( query, nlu_vectorstore=nlu_vectorstore, behavior_options=config["behavior_tags"], emotion_options=config["emotion_tags"], topic_options=config["topic_tags"], context_options=config["context_tags"], ) # --- FIX: Calculate NLU F1 scores before appending results --- behavior_metrics = evaluate_nlu_tags(expected_tags, actual_tags, "detected_behaviors") emotion_metrics = evaluate_nlu_tags(expected_tags, actual_tags, "detected_emotion") topic_metrics = evaluate_nlu_tags(expected_tags, actual_tags, "detected_topics") context_metrics = evaluate_nlu_tags(expected_tags, actual_tags, "detected_contexts") results.append({ "test_id": test_id, "title": fx.get("title", "N/A"), "user_query": query, "actual_route": actual_route, "expected_route": expected_route, "route_correct": 1 if actual_route == expected_route else 0, "actual_tags": actual_tags, "expected_tags": expected_tags, # Add the F1 scores to the results dictionary "behavior_f1": f"{behavior_metrics['f1_score']:.2f}", "emotion_f1": f"{emotion_metrics['f1_score']:.2f}", "topic_f1": f"{topic_metrics['f1_score']:.2f}", "context_f1": f"{context_metrics['f1_score']:.2f}", # Set RAG metrics to default/None values "raw_sources": [], "expected_sources": expected_sources, "answer": "(NLU_ONLY_TEST)", "context_precision": None, "context_recall": None, "recall_at_5": None, "answer_correctness": None, "faithfulness_score": None, "latency_ms": 0 }) continue # Skip to the next test case # --- END OF CORRECTED BLOCK --- # --- 3. FULL RAG PIPELINE (only runs if NLU_ONLY_TEST is False) --- actual_route = _norm(route_query_type(query)) route_correct = (actual_route == expected_route) actual_tags: Dict[str, Any] = {} if "caregiving_scenario" in actual_route: actual_tags = detect_tags_from_query( query, nlu_vectorstore=nlu_vectorstore, behavior_options=config["behavior_tags"], emotion_options=config["emotion_tags"], topic_options=config["topic_tags"], context_options=config["context_tags"], ) behavior_metrics = evaluate_nlu_tags(expected_tags, actual_tags, "detected_behaviors") emotion_metrics = evaluate_nlu_tags(expected_tags, actual_tags, "detected_emotion") topic_metrics = evaluate_nlu_tags(expected_tags, actual_tags, "detected_topics") context_metrics = evaluate_nlu_tags(expected_tags, actual_tags, "detected_contexts") final_tags = {} if "caregiving_scenario" in actual_route: final_tags = { "scenario_tag": (actual_tags.get("detected_behaviors") or [None])[0], "emotion_tag": actual_tags.get("detected_emotion"), "topic_tag": (actual_tags.get("detected_topics") or [None])[0], "context_tags": actual_tags.get("detected_contexts", []) } current_test_role = fx.get("test_role", "patient") rag_chain = make_rag_chain( vs_general, vs_personal, role=current_test_role, for_evaluation=True ) t0 = time.time() response = answer_query(rag_chain, query, query_type=actual_route, chat_history=api_chat_history, **final_tags) latency_ms = round((time.time() - t0) * 1000.0, 1) answer_text = response.get("answer", "ERROR") ground_truth_answer = ground_truth.get("ground_truth_answer") category = _categorize_test(test_id) error_class = _classify_error(ground_truth_answer, answer_text) expected_sources_set = set(map(str, ground_truth.get("expected_sources", []))) raw_sources = response.get("sources", []) actual_sources_set = set(map(str, raw_sources if isinstance(raw_sources, (list, tuple)) else [raw_sources])) print("\n" + "-"*20 + " SOURCE EVALUATION " + "-"*20) print(f" - Expected: {sorted(list(expected_sources_set))}") print(f" - Actual: {sorted(list(actual_sources_set))}") true_positives = expected_sources_set.intersection(actual_sources_set) false_positives = actual_sources_set - expected_sources_set false_negatives = expected_sources_set - actual_sources_set if not false_positives and not false_negatives: print(" - Result: āœ… Perfect Match!") else: if false_positives: print(f" - šŸ”» False Positives (hurts precision): {sorted(list(false_positives))}") if false_negatives: print(f" - šŸ”» False Negatives (hurts recall): {sorted(list(false_negatives))}") print("-"*59 + "\n") context_precision, context_recall = 0.0, 0.0 if expected_sources_set or actual_sources_set: tp = len(expected_sources_set.intersection(actual_sources_set)) if len(actual_sources_set) > 0: context_precision = tp / len(actual_sources_set) if len(expected_sources_set) > 0: context_recall = tp / len(expected_sources_set) elif not expected_sources_set and not actual_sources_set: context_precision, context_recall = 1.0, 1.0 # TURN DEBUG on Answer Correctness # print("\n" + "-"*20 + " ANSWER & CORRECTNESS EVALUATION " + "-"*20) # print(f" - Ground Truth Answer: {ground_truth_answer}") # print(f" - Generated Answer: {answer_text}") # print("-" * 59) answer_correctness_score = None if ground_truth_answer and "ERROR" not in answer_text: try: # Change this line in the answer correctness section: judge_msg = ANSWER_CORRECTNESS_JUDGE_PROMPT.format( ground_truth_answer=ground_truth_answer, generated_answer=answer_text, query_type=expected_route, # <-- Add this line role=current_test_role # <-- ADD THIS LINE ) # judge_msg = ANSWER_CORRECTNESS_JUDGE_PROMPT.format(ground_truth_answer=ground_truth_answer, generated_answer=answer_text) # print(f" - Judge Prompt Sent:\n{judge_msg}") raw_correctness = call_llm([{"role": "user", "content": judge_msg}], temperature=0.0) print(f" - Judge Raw Response: {raw_correctness}") correctness_data = _parse_judge_json(raw_correctness) if correctness_data and "correctness_score" in correctness_data: answer_correctness_score = float(correctness_data["correctness_score"]) print(f" - Final Score: {answer_correctness_score}") except Exception as e: print(f"ERROR during answer correctness judging: {e}") faithfulness = None hallucination_rate = None source_docs = response.get("source_documents", []) if source_docs and "ERROR" not in answer_text: context_blob = "\n---\n".join([doc.page_content for doc in source_docs]) judge_msg = FAITHFULNESS_JUDGE_PROMPT.format(query=query, answer=answer_text, sources=context_blob) try: if context_blob.strip(): raw = call_llm([{"role": "user", "content": judge_msg}], temperature=0.0) data = _parse_judge_json(raw) if data: denom = data.get("supported", 0) + data.get("contradicted", 0) + data.get("not_enough_info", 0) if denom > 0: faithfulness = round(data.get("supported", 0) / denom, 3) hallucination_rate = 1.0 - faithfulness elif data.get("ignored", 0) > 0: faithfulness = 1.0 hallucination_rate = 0.0 except Exception as e: print(f"ERROR during faithfulness judging: {e}") # --- ADD THIS LINE TO CALCULATE RECALL@5 --- recall_at_5 = calculate_recall_at_k(raw_sources, expected_sources_set, 5) # --- END OF ADDITION --- # "route_correct": "āœ…" if route_correct else "āŒ", "expected_route": expected_route, "actual_route": actual_route, sources_pretty = ", ".join(sorted(s)) if (s:=actual_sources_set) else "" results.append({ "test_id": fx.get("test_id", "N/A"), "title": fx.get("title", "N/A"), "route_correct": 1 if route_correct else 0, "behavior_f1": f"{behavior_metrics['f1_score']:.2f}", "emotion_f1": f"{emotion_metrics['f1_score']:.2f}", "topic_f1": f"{topic_metrics['f1_score']:.2f}", "context_f1": f"{context_metrics['f1_score']:.2f}", "generated_answer": answer_text, "sources": sources_pretty, "source_count": len(actual_sources_set), "context_precision": context_precision, "context_recall": context_recall, "faithfulness": faithfulness, "hallucination_rate": hallucination_rate, "answer_correctness": answer_correctness_score, "category": category, "error_class": error_class, "recall_at_5": recall_at_5, # <-- ADD THIS LINE "latency_ms": latency_ms }) # --- 4. FINAL SUMMARY AND RETURN SECTION --- if not results: return "No valid test fixtures found to evaluate.", [], [] df = pd.DataFrame(results) summary_text, table_rows, headers = "No valid test fixtures found to evaluate.", [], [] if not df.empty: # Add "hallucination_rate" to this list of columns to ensure it is not dropped. cols = [ "test_id", "title", "route_correct", "expected_route", "actual_route", "behavior_f1", "emotion_f1", "topic_f1", "context_f1", "generated_answer", "sources", "source_count", "context_precision", "context_recall", "faithfulness", "hallucination_rate", "answer_correctness", "category", "error_class", "latency_ms", "recall_at_5" # <-- ADD recall_at_5 HERE ] df = df[[c for c in cols if c in df.columns]] # --- START OF MODIFICATION --- # pct = df["route_correct"].value_counts(normalize=True).get("āœ…", 0) * 100 pct = df["route_correct"].mean() * 100 to_f = lambda s: pd.to_numeric(s, errors="coerce") # Calculate the mean for the NLU F1 scores bf1_mean = to_f(df["behavior_f1"]).mean() * 100 ef1_mean = to_f(df["emotion_f1"]).mean() * 100 tf1_mean = to_f(df["topic_f1"]).mean() * 100 cf1_mean = to_f(df["context_f1"]).mean() * 100 # --- START: CORRECTED SUMMARY LOGIC --- # 1. Start building the summary_text string with the common parts summary_text = f"""## Evaluation Summary (Mode: {'NLU-Only' if NLU_ONLY_TEST else 'Full RAG'}) - **Routing Accuracy**: {pct:.2f}% - **Behaviour F1 (avg)**: {bf1_mean:.2f}% - **Emotion F1 (avg)**: {ef1_mean:.2f}% - **Topic F1 (avg)**: {tf1_mean:.2f}% - **Context F1 (avg)**: {cf1_mean:.2f}% """ # END of summary_text # 2. Conditionally append the RAG-specific part to the same string if not NLU_ONLY_TEST: # Calculate RAG-specific metrics from the DataFrame first context_precision_mean = to_f(df["context_precision"]).mean() context_recall_mean = to_f(df["context_recall"]).mean() # Calculate F1 score safely, handling potential division by zero if (context_precision_mean + context_recall_mean) > 0: cf1_mean = (2 * context_precision_mean * context_recall_mean) / (context_precision_mean + context_recall_mean) * 100 else: cf1_mean = 0.0 rag_with_sources_pct = (df["source_count"] > 0).mean() * 100 if "source_count" in df else 0 # Calculate the mean for Faithfulness # Choose to use Hallucination instead of - **RAG: Faithfulness**: {faith_mean:.1f}% faith_mean = to_f(df["faithfulness"]).mean() * 100 # halluc_mean = (1 - to_f(df["faithfulness_score"])).mean() * 100 halluc_mean = to_f(df["hallucination_rate"]).mean() * 100 answer_correctness_mean = to_f(df["answer_correctness"]).mean() * 100 latency_mean = to_f(df["latency_ms"]).mean() recall_at_5_mean = to_f(df["recall_at_5"]).mean() * 100 rag_summary = f""" - **RAG: Context Precision**: {context_precision_mean * 100:.1f}% - **RAG: Context Recall**: {context_recall_mean * 100:.1f}% - **RAG: Recall@5**: {recall_at_5_mean:.1f}% - **RAG Answers w/ Sources**: {rag_with_sources_pct:.1f}% - **RAG: Hallucination Rate**: {halluc_mean:.1f}% (Lower is better) - **RAG: Answer Correctness (LLM-judge)**: {answer_correctness_mean:.1f}% - **RAG: Avg Latency (ms)**: {latency_mean:.1f} """ # END rag_summary # Append the RAG summary to the main summary_text string summary_text += rag_summary # END RAG component if not NLU_ONLY_TEST: # 3. Print the final summary text to the console print(summary_text) # --- START: CORRECTED CONDITIONAL PRINTOUTS --- # 4. Only print these detailed breakdowns if in Full RAG mode if not NLU_ONLY_TEST: try: cat_means = df.groupby("category")["answer_correctness"].mean().reset_index() print("\nšŸ“Š Correctness by Category:") print(cat_means.to_string(index=False)) except Exception as e: print(f"WARNING: Could not compute category breakdown: {e}") try: confusion = pd.crosstab(df.get("category", []), df.get("error_class", []), rownames=["Category"], colnames=["Error Class"], dropna=False) print("\nšŸ“Š Error Class Distribution by Category:") print(confusion.to_string()) except Exception as e: print(f"WARNING: Could not build confusion matrix: {e}") # --- END: CORRECTED CONDITIONAL PRINTOUTS --- # 5. Prepare the other return values as usual df_display = df.rename(columns={"context_precision": "Ctx. Precision", "context_recall": "Ctx. Recall"}) table_rows = df_display.values.tolist() headers = df_display.columns.tolist() else: # Fallback return summary_text = "No valid test fixtures found to evaluate." table_rows, headers = [], [] return summary_text, table_rows, headers # return summary_text, table_rows ## END