yash bhaskar commited on
Commit
d72cf5d
·
1 Parent(s): 5fa6e3c

updating README.md

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +7 -129
README.md CHANGED
@@ -1,132 +1,10 @@
1
- # Multi-Agent Open-Domain QnA with Cross-Source Reranking
2
-
3
- ---
4
-
5
- ## **Introduction**
6
-
7
- The objective of this project is to develop a multi-agent open-domain question-answering (ODQA) system capable of retrieving and synthesizing information from diverse sources. These sources include web searches, large language models (LLMs) such as **Llama 3**, and vision models for multi-modal retrieval. Leveraging datasets like **KILT**, **Natural Questions**, **HotspotQA**, **TriviaQA**, and **ELI5**, the system incorporates a **cross-source reranking model** to improve the selection of the most accurate answers. This project emphasizes scalability and reliability by addressing both context-free and context-based scenarios, even when confronted with an increasing volume of irrelevant documents.
8
-
9
- ---
10
-
11
- ## **Project Overview**
12
-
13
- - **Pipeline Development**: Created a multi-agent ODQA pipeline integrating specialized retrieval agents.
14
- - **Source Diversity**: Utilized web searches, LLMs, and vision models for retrieving information.
15
- - **Cross-Source Reranking**: Applied methods such as Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) to enhance answer accuracy.
16
- - **Scalability Evaluation**: Tested the system on datasets with varying ratios of relevant and irrelevant documents.
17
-
18
  ---
19
-
20
- ## **Pipeline**
21
-
22
- ### **Dataset Construction**
23
-
24
- - **Mini-Wiki Collection**:
25
- A condensed version of the Wikipedia dump was created by selecting a subset of documents relevant to the validation sets of **Natural Questions**, **HotspotQA**, **TriviaQA**, and **ELI5**.
26
-
27
- - **Document Ratio Variants**:
28
- To evaluate retrieval scalability, multiple datasets with different relevant-to-irrelevant document ratios were constructed:
29
- - **1:0**: Contains only 1000 relevant documents for 1000 queries.
30
- - **1:1**: Contains 1000 relevant documents and 1000 irrelevant documents.
31
- - **1:2**: Contains 1000 relevant documents and 2000 irrelevant documents.
32
-
33
- ---
34
-
35
- ## **Retrieval Models**
36
-
37
- To ensure robust and efficient retrieval, the project combined sparse and dense methods:
38
-
39
- ### **Sparse Retrieval Models**
40
-
41
- 1. **TF-IDF**:
42
- Measures the importance of terms in a document relative to the entire dataset.
43
- - Effective for small datasets.
44
- - Serves as a lightweight and interpretable baseline.
45
-
46
- 2. **BM25**:
47
- - Extends TF-IDF with term frequency normalization and length penalization.
48
- - Handles query-document term overlap better than TF-IDF.
49
-
50
- 3. **Bag of Words (BOW)**:
51
- - A simple vector-space model using term frequency vectors.
52
- - Acts as a baseline for comparison with more advanced methods.
53
-
54
- ---
55
-
56
- ### **Dense Retrieval Models**
57
-
58
- 1. **Text Embeddings (all-MiniLM-L6-v2)**:
59
- - A pre-trained sentence-transformer for generating compact, high-quality embeddings.
60
- - Captures semantic relationships between queries and documents.
61
- - Lightweight and suitable for large-scale datasets.
62
-
63
- 2. **Vision Embeddings (ViT)**:
64
- - Generates embeddings for image-based data, enabling multi-modal information retrieval.
65
- - Complements text-based retrieval for answering questions requiring visual context.
66
-
67
  ---
68
 
69
- ## **Agents for Context Generation**
70
-
71
- ### **Query Modification Agent**
72
- Refines user queries to optimize them for retrieval, ensuring that they are better suited for identifying relevant documents.
73
-
74
- ### **Keyword Extraction Agent**
75
- Extracts key terms from the query and passes them to a **Wiki Agent**, which uses n-grams to retrieve relevant Wikipedia pages.
76
-
77
- ### **Llama 3 Agent**
78
- Synthesizes context directly related to the user query, enriching the system’s ability to answer complex questions.
79
-
80
- ---
81
-
82
- ## **Post-Retrieval Process**
83
-
84
- 1. **Top-Ranked Document as Context**
85
- The highest-ranked document was used directly as context for QnA tasks.
86
-
87
- 2. **Iterative Use of Ranked Documents**
88
- Explored answers using documents ranked in descending order of relevance.
89
-
90
- 3. **Rank Fusion (RRF)**
91
- Combined rankings from multiple retrieval methods (e.g., BM25, TF-IDF, MiniLM) to improve robustness and accuracy.
92
-
93
- ---
94
-
95
- ## **Results and Evaluation**
96
-
97
- ### **Retrieval Model Scores**
98
-
99
- | **Method** | **Query Type** | **Ranking Scores** |
100
- |--------------------|----------------|---------------------|
101
- | **BOW** | Modified | 13.82 - 33.39 |
102
- | **BM25** | Modified | 736.74 - 785.09 |
103
- | **TF-IDF** | Modified | 730.61 - 788.87 |
104
- | **Vision** | Modified | 0.03 - 5.08 |
105
- | **MiniLM (Open)** | Modified | 827.92 - 849.79 |
106
-
107
- ### **Question Answering Model Scores**
108
-
109
- - **ROUGE Score**: Demonstrated improvements with RRF across most datasets.
110
- - **Cosine Similarity Score**: Highlighted semantic alignment in dense methods.
111
- - **BERT F1 Score**: Dense embeddings outperformed sparse methods.
112
-
113
- ---
114
-
115
- ## **Analysis**
116
-
117
- 1. **Sparse Models**:
118
- - Sparse methods like **BM25** and **TF-IDF** performed well on context-free datasets but struggled with context-based tasks.
119
- - **BOW** and **Vision** models were ineffective, worsening LLM performance compared to zero-shot baselines.
120
-
121
- 2. **Dense Models**:
122
- - Dense retrieval methods showed significant improvements in relevance and answer accuracy, especially when combining results with RRF.
123
-
124
- 3. **Cross-Source Reranking**:
125
- - RRF combining **BM25**, **TF-IDF**, and **MiniLM** yielded the best results.
126
- - Using LLMs as rerankers was less reliable, with a bias toward zero-shot outputs.
127
-
128
- ---
129
-
130
- ## **Conclusion**
131
-
132
- The multi-agent ODQA system successfully integrates sparse and dense retrieval methods, leveraging RRF for cross-source reranking. Dense methods and generative agents like **Llama 3** significantly enhance the system’s capability in open-domain settings. Future work can focus on improving multi-modal integration and reducing biases in LLM-based reranking.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
  ---
2
+ title: MultiAgent-QnA-ChatBot
3
+ emoji: 🏢
4
+ colorFrom: indigo
5
+ colorTo: green
6
+ sdk: gradio
7
+ pinned: false
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8
  ---
9
 
10
+ Edit this `README.md` markdown file to author your organization card.