Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

refactor: Generate eval result in separate method #5001

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
May 25, 2023

Conversation

bogdankostic
Copy link
Contributor

@bogdankostic bogdankostic commented May 23, 2023

Related Issues

Proposed Changes:

This PR creates a separate method for generating eval results from batch predictions.

How did you test it?

Manual tests + CI

Notes for the reviewer

This is needed for benchmarking, as we want to get performance metrics for Pipelines but want to measure pure inference time without the overhead of calculating the metrics.

Checklist

  • I have read the contributors guidelines and the code of conduct
  • I have updated the related issue with new insights and changes
  • I added tests that demonstrate the correct behavior of the change
  • I've used one of the conventional commit types for my PR title: fix:, feat:, build:, chore:, ci:, docs:, style:, refactor:, perf:, test:.
  • I documented my code
  • I ran pre-commit hooks and fixed any issue

@github-actions github-actions bot added topic:pipeline type:documentation Improvements on the docs labels May 23, 2023
@coveralls
Copy link
Collaborator

coveralls commented May 23, 2023

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 5067539591

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • 158 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 39.594%

Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
pipelines/base.py 158 33.38%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 5067531118: 0.1%
Covered Lines: 8864
Relevant Lines: 22387

💛 - Coveralls

custom_document_id_field: Optional[str] = None,
context_matching_min_length: int = 100,
context_matching_boost_split_overlaps: bool = True,
context_matching_threshold: float = 65.0,
Copy link
Member

@vblagoje vblagoje May 24, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Out of curiosity - where did these defaults like context_matching_threshold and their values come from?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

They come from eval_batch.

@vblagoje vblagoje self-requested a review May 25, 2023 08:26
Copy link
Member

@vblagoje vblagoje left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM 🚀

@bogdankostic bogdankostic merged commit 19829da into main May 25, 2023
56 checks passed
@bogdankostic bogdankostic deleted the refactor_benchmarking branch May 25, 2023 08:30
context_matching_boost_split_overlaps: bool = True,
context_matching_threshold: float = 65.0,
use_auth_token: Optional[Union[str, bool]] = None,
) -> EvaluationResult:
eval_result = EvaluationResult()
if add_isolated_node_eval:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this would need to happen before we do the batch evaluation

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@bogdankostic This causes isolated evaluation to be omitted

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
topic:pipeline type:documentation Improvements on the docs
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants