Spaces:
Sleeping
Sleeping
yash bhaskar
commited on
Commit
·
d72cf5d
1
Parent(s):
5fa6e3c
updating README.md
Browse files
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 |
-
|
21 |
-
|
22 |
-
|
23 |
-
|
24 |
-
|
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 |
-
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|