-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 151
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
probe: ruby package hallucination #851
Merged
erickgalinkin
merged 8 commits into
leondz:main
from
arjun-krishna1:feature/ruby_package_hallucination
Aug 28, 2024
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
33707b0
add ruby package hallucination probe
arjun-krishna1 24c6efe
add ruby package hallucination detector
arjun-krishna1 49bba0c
add ruby gems dataset
arjun-krishna1 150345d
add ruby to package hallucination probe test
arjun-krishna1 4086078
add ruby tp package hallucination detectors test
arjun-krishna1 4aa6b59
inherit ruby class from python
arjun-krishna1 1c5701a
Update garak/probes/packagehallucination.py
arjun-krishna1 d9e31ec
move to garak-llm HF org
leondz File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Given cases like
langchainrb
where thegem
andrequire
param have different names, could it make sense to only use one of these? A downside I can imagine is that LLM output might only include one or the other term.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @leondz , we can remove requires and only keep gem_requires
Since gem will always use the package name from rubygems.org
But require could use something different
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe it would be reasonable to limit to
gem*
form for an initial detector.In the future another detector that digs deeper could be added or the dataset could be expanded to also include any top level module names inside each gem to be able to spot invalid
require*
statements.Thoughts @leondz?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Taking a look at the data, existing prompts request both libraries to perform a task as well as code to perform a task, so I guess without going and separating this, we don't have a strong answer. I'm ambivalent, though I think I lean toward merging as-is and dealing with the distinction between library names in later work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@leondz that makes sense! I like merging as-is and dealing with the distinction in a follow-up pr
(I don't have the permissions to hit merge)