Welcome back! In the previous lesson, we explored different prompting styles and their impact on the performance of large language models (LLMs) in question-answering (QA) tasks. We learned how zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot prompting can influence the accuracy of model responses. As a reminder, these prompting styles help provide context to the model, which can significantly affect its ability to generate accurate answers.

In this lesson, we will address a common challenge in evaluating QA systems: the limitations of exact match evaluation. Often, correct answers are not counted due to minor variations in wording or phrasing. For example, if the expected answer is "New York City" and the model responds with "NYC," an exact match evaluation would mark this as incorrect, even though the response is valid. To overcome this, we will introduce the concept of fuzzy matching, which allows for more flexible and reliable evaluation by considering the similarity between responses.

For this unit, you will not need to call the model, as we will prepare the results for you. Your task will be to evaluate these results using the techniques discussed.

Similarity scoring is a technique used to measure how closely two pieces of text resemble each other. This approach is particularly useful in QA evaluations, where minor variations in wording can lead to incorrect assessments. By using similarity scoring, we can increase the reliability of our evaluations and ensure that valid responses are recognized.

In Python, one of the tools we can use for similarity scoring is the SequenceMatcher from the difflib library. This tool compares two strings and returns a ratio indicating their similarity. A ratio closer to 1 means the strings are very similar, while a ratio closer to 0 indicates they are quite different. By setting a threshold, we can determine what level of similarity is acceptable for considering two responses as equivalent.

Let's dive into the implementation of fuzzy matching using Python. We will use the SequenceMatcher from the difflib library to compare the model's response with the expected answer. Additionally, we'll include a simple visualization to represent the fuzzy accuracy as a percentage bar. Here's the code snippet from the solution.py file:

In this code, we define a function is_similar that takes two strings, a and b, and a similarity threshold. The function uses SequenceMatcher to calculate the similarity ratio between the two strings, ignoring case differences. If the ratio exceeds the threshold, the function returns True, indicating that the strings are similar enough to be considered equivalent. We then iterate over the question-answer pairs from the TriviaQA dataset, using the pre-prepared model responses, and use the function to evaluate the response. The fuzzy accuracy is calculated by counting the number of similar responses.

Let's walk through an example of evaluating the TriviaQA dataset using fuzzy matching. Suppose we have a question-answer pair where the question is "What is the capital of France?" and the expected answer is "Paris." If the model responds with "The capital of France is Paris," an exact match evaluation would mark this as incorrect. However, using fuzzy matching, the is_similar function would likely return True, as the response is sufficiently similar to the expected answer.

By running the provided code, you will see an output indicating the fuzzy accuracy of the model. This metric reflects the number of responses that were considered similar to the expected answers, providing a more reliable assessment of the model's performance.

In this lesson, we addressed the limitations of exact match evaluation in QA systems and introduced the concept of fuzzy matching. We explored how similarity scoring can improve evaluation reliability by considering variations in phrasing. By implementing fuzzy matching in Python, we demonstrated how to evaluate model responses more accurately.

As you move forward, practice these concepts with the exercises provided. Experiment with different similarity thresholds and observe how they affect the evaluation accuracy. This hands-on experience will reinforce your understanding and prepare you for more advanced evaluation techniques in future lessons. Remember, mastering fuzzy matching is key to enhancing the reliability of QA evaluations and achieving better results in real-world applications.