Jaa

Step 5. Identify the root cause of quality issues

  • Artikkeli

workflow with iterate step highlighted

See the GitHub repository for the sample code in this section.

Expected time: 60 minutes.

Requirements

  • Evaluation results for the POC are available in MLflow. If you followed Step 4. Evaluate the POC’s quality, the results are available in MLflow.
  • All requirements from previous steps.

Overview

The most likely root causes of quality issues are the retrieval and generation steps. To determine where to focus first, use the output of the Mosaic AI Agent Evaluation LLM judges that you ran in the previous step to identify the most frequent root cause that impacts your app’s quality.

Each row your evaluation set is tagged as follows:

  • Overall assessment: Pass or fail.
  • Root cause: Improve Retrieval or Improve Generation.
  • Root cause rationale: A brief description of why the root cause was selected.

Instructions

The approach depends on if your evaluation set contains the ground-truth responses to your questions. These responses are stored in expected_response. If you have expected_response available, use the table Root cause analysis if ground truth is available. Otherwise, use the table Root cause analysis if ground truth is not available.

  1. Open the B_quality_iteration/01_root_cause_quality_issues notebook.
  2. Run the cells that are relevant to your use case e.g., if you do or don’t have expected_response
  3. Review the output tables to determine the most frequent root cause in your application
  4. For each root cause, follow the steps below to further debug and identify potential fixes:

Root cause analysis if ground truth is available

Note

If you have human labeled ground-truth for which document should be retrieved for each question, you can optionally substitute retrieval/llm_judged/chunk_relevance/precision/average with the score for retrieval/ground_truth/document_recall/average.

Chunk relevance precision Groundedness Correctness Relevance to query Issue summary Root cause Overall rating
<50% Fail Fail Fail Retrieval is poor. Improve Retrieval Fail
<50% Fail Fail Pass LLM generates relevant response, but retrieval is poor. For example, the LLM ignores retrieval and uses its training knowledge to answer. Improve Retrieval Fail
<50% Fail Pass Pass or fail Retrieval quality is poor, but LLM gets the answer correct regardless. Improve Retrieval Fail
<50% Pass Fail Fail Response is grounded in retrieval, but retrieval is poor. Improve Retrieval Fail
<50% Pass Fail Pass Relevant response grounded in the retrieved context, but retrieval may not be related to the expected answer. Improve Retrieval Fail
<50% Pass Pass Pass or fail Retrieval finds enough information for the LLM to correctly answer. None Pass
>50% Fail Fail Pass or fail Hallucination. Improve Generation Fail
>50% Fail Pass Pass or fail Hallucination, correct but generates details not in context. Improve Generation Fail
>50% Pass Fail Fail Good retrieval, but the LLM does not provide a relevant response. Improve Generation Fail
>50% Pass Fail Pass Good retrieval and relevant response, but not correct. Improve Generation Fail
>50% Pass Pass Pass No issues. None Pass

Root cause analysis if ground truth is not available

Chunk relevance precision Groundedness Relevance to query Issue summary Root cause Overall rating
<50% Fail Fail Retrieval quality is poor. Improve Retrieval Fail
<50% Fail Pass Retrieval quality is poor. Improve Retrieval Fail
<50% Pass Fail Response is grounded in retrieval, but retrieval is poor. Improve Retrieval Fail
<50% Pass Pass Relevant response grounded in the retrieved context and relevant, but retrieval is poor. Improve Retrieval Pass
>50% Fail Fail Hallucination. Improve Generation Fail
>50% Fail Pass Hallucination. Improve Generation Fail
>50% Pass Fail Good retrieval and grounded, but LLM does not provide a relevant response. Improve Generation Fail
>50% Pass Pass Good retrieval and relevant response. Collect ground-truth to know if the answer is correct. None Pass

Next step

See the following pages to debug the issues you identified:

< Previous: Step 4. Evaluate POC quality

Next: Step 5.1. Debug retrieval quality >