Executable tutorial proposal: Automated Evaluation Pipelines with RAGAS - #3003
Open
Miao0404 wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
Executable tutorial proposal: Automated Evaluation Pipelines with RAGAS#3003Miao0404 wants to merge 3 commits into
Miao0404 wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Assignment Proposal
Title
RAG Quality Gates: Automated Evaluation Pipelines with RAGAS
Names and KTH ID
Deadline
Category
Description
We will build a Google Colab notebook that shows how to automatically test whether a RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) application's answer quality holds up before a change is merged. The reader sets up a small RAG system with LangChain and FAISS, then runs RAGAS on a provided test set of questions with reference answers (and adds a couple of their own) to score retrieval and generation quality (faithfulness, answer relevancy, context precision, context recall). The reader then deliberately weakens the retrieval step, watches the scores drop, and finally wires the evaluation into a CI step that blocks the change if the scores fall below a threshold.
Relevance
A RAG application's quality depends heavily on its retrieval setup, such as the chunking strategy, the embedding model, and the retrieval parameters. These get changed often, but unlike application code, there is no test that catches it when such a change quietly makes answers worse. RAGAS turns answer quality into something measurable, making it possible to apply the same continuous integration discipline (automated checks that gate every change) to the retrieval and generation layer of an LLM application.