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

feat: LLM-based Evaluators have raise_on_Failure=False by default #16

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 20, 2024

Conversation

davidsbatista
Copy link
Contributor

Proposed Changes:

  • LLM-based Evaluators have raise_on_Failure=False by default

Checklist

@davidsbatista davidsbatista requested a review from a team as a code owner June 19, 2024 14:03
@davidsbatista davidsbatista requested review from vblagoje and shadeMe and removed request for a team and vblagoje June 19, 2024 14:03
Comment on lines 47 to 48
RAGEvaluationMetric.ANSWER_FAITHFULNESS: FaithfulnessEvaluator(raise_on_failure=False),
RAGEvaluationMetric.CONTEXT_RELEVANCE: ContextRelevanceEvaluator(raise_on_failure=False),
Copy link
Contributor

@shadeMe shadeMe Jun 19, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You'll have to use partial, like with the SASEvaluator.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jun 19, 2024

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9584200896

Details

  • 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage remained the same at 98.238%

Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 9566512204: 0.0%
Covered Lines: 725
Relevant Lines: 738

💛 - Coveralls

@davidsbatista davidsbatista merged commit 252e9d1 into main Jun 20, 2024
5 checks passed
@davidsbatista davidsbatista deleted the make-LLM-based-evaluators-raise_on_failure_False branch June 20, 2024 10:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants