headroom/tests/test_memory_eval.py

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

319 lines
10 KiB
Python
Raw Permalink Normal View History

"""Tests for the memory evaluation framework."""
from headroom.evals.memory.judge import _parse_judge_response, simple_judge
from headroom.evals.memory.locomo import (
LOCOMO_CATEGORIES,
DialogueTurn,
LoCoMoCase,
LoCoMoConversation,
Session,
get_locomo_stats,
)
class TestLoCoMoDataStructures:
"""Test LoCoMo data structures."""
def test_dialogue_turn_from_dict(self):
"""Test DialogueTurn parsing."""
data = {
"speaker": "Alice",
"text": "Hello Bob!",
"dia_id": "D1:1",
}
turn = DialogueTurn.from_dict(data)
assert turn.speaker == "Alice"
assert turn.text == "Hello Bob!"
assert turn.dia_id == "D1:1"
assert turn.image_url is None
def test_dialogue_turn_with_image(self):
"""Test DialogueTurn with image."""
data = {
"speaker": "Bob",
"text": "Check this out",
"dia_id": "D1:2",
"img_file": "http://example.com/img.jpg",
"blip_caption": "A beautiful sunset",
}
turn = DialogueTurn.from_dict(data)
assert turn.image_url == "http://example.com/img.jpg"
assert turn.image_caption == "A beautiful sunset"
def test_dialogue_turn_to_message_format(self):
"""Test message format conversion."""
turn = DialogueTurn(
speaker="Alice",
text="I love Python",
dia_id="D1:1",
)
msg = turn.to_message_format()
assert msg == "Alice: I love Python"
# With image
turn_img = DialogueTurn(
speaker="Bob",
text="Look at this",
dia_id="D1:2",
image_url="http://example.com/img.jpg",
image_caption="A dog playing",
)
msg_img = turn_img.to_message_format()
assert "[shares image: A dog playing]" in msg_img
def test_session_properties(self):
"""Test Session properties."""
dialogues = [
DialogueTurn(speaker="Alice", text="Hi", dia_id="D1:1"),
DialogueTurn(speaker="Bob", text="Hello", dia_id="D1:2"),
]
session = Session(session_num=1, datetime="2024-01-15", dialogues=dialogues)
assert session.num_turns == 2
assert "Alice: Hi" in session.text
assert "Bob: Hello" in session.text
def test_locomo_case_properties(self):
"""Test LoCoMoCase properties."""
case = LoCoMoCase(
question="What is Alice's favorite color?",
answer="Blue",
category=1,
evidence=["D1:5", "D2:3"],
conversation_id="sample_1",
)
assert case.category_name == "single_hop"
assert case.is_answerable is True
# Test unanswerable case
case_na = LoCoMoCase(
question="What is unknown?",
answer="N/A",
category=5,
evidence=[],
conversation_id="sample_1",
)
assert case_na.is_answerable is False
def test_locomo_categories(self):
"""Test category definitions."""
assert LOCOMO_CATEGORIES[1] == "single_hop"
assert LOCOMO_CATEGORIES[2] == "temporal"
assert LOCOMO_CATEGORIES[3] == "multi_hop"
assert LOCOMO_CATEGORIES[4] == "open_domain"
assert LOCOMO_CATEGORIES[5] == "adversarial"
class TestLoCoMoStats:
"""Test LoCoMo statistics."""
def test_get_stats_empty(self):
"""Test stats with empty list."""
stats = get_locomo_stats([])
assert stats["num_conversations"] == 0
assert stats["num_qa_pairs"] == 0
def test_get_stats_with_data(self):
"""Test stats calculation."""
# Create mock conversation
dialogues = [
DialogueTurn(speaker="A", text="Hello", dia_id="D1:1"),
DialogueTurn(speaker="B", text="Hi there", dia_id="D1:2"),
]
session = Session(session_num=1, datetime="2024-01-15", dialogues=dialogues)
qa_cases = [
LoCoMoCase(question="Q1", answer="A1", category=1, evidence=[], conversation_id="s1"),
LoCoMoCase(question="Q2", answer="A2", category=2, evidence=[], conversation_id="s1"),
]
conv = LoCoMoConversation(
sample_id="s1",
speaker_a="Alice",
speaker_b="Bob",
sessions=[session],
qa_cases=qa_cases,
)
stats = get_locomo_stats([conv])
assert stats["num_conversations"] == 1
assert stats["num_sessions"] == 1
assert stats["num_turns"] == 2
assert stats["num_qa_pairs"] == 2
assert "single_hop" in stats["questions_by_category"]
assert "temporal" in stats["questions_by_category"]
class TestJudge:
"""Test LLM judge functions."""
def test_parse_judge_response_standard(self):
"""Test parsing standard judge response."""
response = """Reasoning: The prediction captures the main point.
Score: 4"""
score, reasoning = _parse_judge_response(response)
assert score == 4.0
assert "main point" in reasoning
def test_parse_judge_response_with_decimal(self):
"""Test parsing score with decimal."""
response = """Reasoning: Partially correct.
Score: 3.5"""
score, reasoning = _parse_judge_response(response)
assert score == 3.5
def test_parse_judge_response_clamping(self):
"""Test score clamping to valid range."""
# Score too high
response = "Reasoning: Perfect\nScore: 10"
score, _ = _parse_judge_response(response)
assert score == 5.0
# Score too low
response = "Reasoning: Terrible\nScore: 0"
score, _ = _parse_judge_response(response)
assert score == 1.0
fix(evals): default unparseable judge scores below pass threshold (#1892) ## Description `_parse_judge_response` in `headroom/evals/memory/judge.py` defaulted the score to `3.0` whenever it couldn't find a parseable `Score:` line in the judge's raw text. `before_after.py`'s `GroundTruthEvaluator` treats `judge_score >= 3.0` as "contains ground truth" (`contains_gt = judge_score >= 3.0`). Because `3.0` is exactly the pass threshold, any judge response the parser couldn't understand (malformed output, missing `Score:` line, a refusal, truncated text, etc.) silently counted as a pass instead of surfacing as a scoring failure, biasing BFCL/ground-truth eval accuracy upward with no visibility into how often it happened. The fix tracks whether a real score was actually parsed out of the response. If nothing parseable was found, the score now defaults to `0.0` (a hard fail, below the `>= 3.0` threshold) and a `logger.warning` is emitted with the raw judge text so the failure is visible instead of silent. Refs #1890. ## Type of Change - [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change that fixes an issue) - [ ] New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality) - [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change) - [ ] Documentation update - [ ] Performance improvement - [ ] Code refactoring (no functional changes) ## Changes Made - `headroom/evals/memory/judge.py`: `_parse_judge_response` now tracks whether a `Score:` line was successfully parsed; on failure it defaults to `0.0` instead of `3.0` and logs a warning with the raw response text. - `tests/test_memory_eval.py`: added `TestJudge.test_parse_judge_response_unparseable_defaults_to_failing_score`, asserting an unparseable response scores below the `3.0` pass threshold. ## Testing - [x] Unit tests pass (`uv run pytest tests/test_memory_eval.py -k judge`) - [x] Linting passes (`uv run ruff check headroom/evals/memory/judge.py headroom/evals/runners/before_after.py tests/test_memory_eval.py && uv run ruff format --check headroom/evals/memory/judge.py headroom/evals/runners/before_after.py tests/test_memory_eval.py`) - [ ] Type checking passes (`uv run mypy headroom`) — not run; not part of this repo's local validation loop for this change - [x] New tests added for new functionality when applicable - [x] Manual testing performed ### Test Output ```text tests\test_memory_eval.py ....... [ 77%] tests\test_verbosity_learn.py .. [100%] 9 passed $ uv run ruff check headroom/evals/memory/judge.py headroom/evals/runners/before_after.py tests/test_memory_eval.py && uv run ruff format --check headroom/evals/memory/judge.py headroom/evals/runners/before_after.py tests/test_memory_eval.py 3 files already formatted ``` ## Real Behavior Proof - Environment: Windows 11, Python (uv-managed venv), no LLM provider calls needed — `_parse_judge_response` is a pure text-parsing function. - Exact command / steps: checked out the pre-fix version of `_parse_judge_response` (default `score = 3.0`) and ran the new regression test against an unparseable response (`"The model's response looks reasonable overall."`, no `Score:` line). Confirmed it failed with `assert 3.0 < 3.0`. Restored the fix and reran — passes, with `score == 0.0`. - Observed result: pre-fix, an unparseable judge response scored `3.0` and would have passed `contains_gt = judge_score >= 3.0` in `before_after.py`. Post-fix, the same input scores `0.0`, fails the threshold, and logs a warning naming the raw response text. - Not tested: the live `create_openai_judge`/`create_anthropic_judge`/`create_litellm_judge` call paths (require provider API keys) and the end-to-end `GroundTruthEvaluator.evaluate` flow in `before_after.py` — only the pure parsing function and its documented contract with the `>= 3.0` threshold were exercised. ## Review Readiness - [x] I have performed a self-review - [x] This PR is ready for human review ## Checklist - [x] My code follows the project's style guidelines - [x] I have performed a self-review of my code - [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [x] My changes generate no new warnings - [x] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works - [x] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes - [ ] I have updated the CHANGELOG.md if applicable ## Additional Notes - CHANGELOG.md is intentionally left untouched — this repo's release pipeline generates it from conventional commits. - No user-facing docs describe the parse-failure default, so no documentation changes were needed. - Kept the change minimal and localized to the parsing function; didn't touch `before_after.py`'s threshold or comments since its `>= 3.0` semantics for successfully-parsed scores are unchanged and correct. --------- Co-authored-by: JerrettDavis <mxjerrett@gmail.com>
2026-07-08 22:31:25 -04:00
def test_parse_judge_response_unparseable_defaults_to_failing_score(self):
"""Unparseable judge output must default below the pass threshold.
Regression test for #1890: a missing/garbled "Score:" line used to
default to 3.0, which is exactly the `judge_score >= 3.0` pass
threshold in before_after.py, silently marking unparseable judge
responses as passing.
"""
response = "The model's response looks reasonable overall."
score, _ = _parse_judge_response(response)
assert score < 3.0
def test_simple_judge_exact_match(self):
"""Test simple judge with exact match."""
score, reasoning = simple_judge(
"What color?",
"Blue",
"Blue",
)
assert score == 5.0
assert "Exact match" in reasoning
def test_simple_judge_high_overlap(self):
"""Test simple judge with high F1."""
score, reasoning = simple_judge(
"What happened?",
"Alice went to the store to buy groceries",
"Alice went to the store for groceries",
)
assert score >= 4.0
assert "F1" in reasoning
def test_simple_judge_no_overlap(self):
"""Test simple judge with no overlap."""
score, reasoning = simple_judge(
"What color?",
"Blue",
"The weather is nice",
)
assert score == 1.0
assert "Very low" in reasoning
class TestMemoryEvalConfig:
"""Test MemoryEvalConfig."""
def test_default_config(self):
"""Test default configuration."""
from headroom.evals.memory import MemoryEvalConfig
config = MemoryEvalConfig()
assert config.n_conversations is None
assert config.skip_adversarial is True
assert config.top_k_memories == 10
assert config.llm_judge_enabled is False
assert config.f1_threshold == 0.5
def test_custom_config(self):
"""Test custom configuration."""
from headroom.evals.memory import MemoryEvalConfig
config = MemoryEvalConfig(
n_conversations=5,
categories=[1, 2],
top_k_memories=20,
llm_judge_enabled=True,
f1_threshold=0.7,
)
assert config.n_conversations == 5
assert config.categories == [1, 2]
assert config.top_k_memories == 20
assert config.llm_judge_enabled is True
assert config.f1_threshold == 0.7
class TestMemoryEvalResult:
"""Test MemoryEvalResult and MemoryEvalSuiteResult."""
def test_eval_result_to_dict(self):
"""Test result serialization."""
from headroom.evals.memory.runner import MemoryEvalResult
case = LoCoMoCase(
question="What color?",
answer="Blue",
category=1,
evidence=[],
conversation_id="s1",
)
result = MemoryEvalResult(
case=case,
predicted_answer="Blue",
retrieved_memories=["Memory 1", "Memory 2"],
retrieval_scores=[0.9, 0.8],
f1_score=1.0,
exact_match=True,
is_correct=True,
)
d = result.to_dict()
assert d["question"] == "What color?"
assert d["ground_truth"] == "Blue"
assert d["predicted"] == "Blue"
assert d["f1_score"] == 1.0
assert d["is_correct"] is True
def test_suite_result_summary(self):
"""Test suite result summary generation."""
from headroom.evals.memory.runner import MemoryEvalSuiteResult
suite_result = MemoryEvalSuiteResult(
total_cases=100,
correct_cases=75,
accuracy=0.75,
avg_f1_score=0.82,
exact_match_rate=0.5,
avg_llm_judge_score=4.2,
metrics_by_category={
"single_hop": {"count": 30, "accuracy": 0.9, "avg_f1": 0.88, "correct": 27},
"temporal": {"count": 25, "accuracy": 0.7, "avg_f1": 0.75, "correct": 18},
},
total_duration_seconds=120.5,
avg_retrieval_latency_ms=15.3,
avg_generation_latency_ms=250.0,
)
summary = suite_result.summary()
assert "100" in summary
assert "75" in summary # Accuracy percentage
assert "0.820" in summary # F1 score
assert "single_hop" in summary
assert "temporal" in summary