Spaces:
Running
Running
File size: 14,188 Bytes
e33977d | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 | """Self-reflection β the act β critique β revise loop.
This is what makes NaijaTaste AI an agent rather than a one-shot pipeline.
After a first-pass output, the agent critiques its own work against the
persona and, if the critique finds problems, revises.
Two public entry points:
reflect_on_review(...) β Task A: critique + refine a generated review
reflect_on_recommendations(...) β Task B: critique + refine a top-N list
Each runs at most `max_iterations` revise cycles (default 2). The loop
stops early once the critique passes (no blocking issues). Every cycle is
logged so the paper can report how often refinement triggered and what it
changed.
Reference: Madaan et al. 2023, "Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with
Self-Feedback"; Shinn et al. 2023, "Reflexion".
"""
from __future__ import annotations
import logging
from dataclasses import dataclass, field
from typing import Optional
from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
from core.llm import LLMClient
from core.persona import UserPersona
log = logging.getLogger(__name__)
# ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
# Critique schemas
# ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
class ReviewCritique(BaseModel):
"""The critique LLM's assessment of a generated review (Task A)."""
rating_text_consistent: bool = Field(
description="True if the review text matches the star rating "
"(e.g. a 4-star review doesn't read like a 2-star pan)"
)
voice_match: bool = Field(
description="True if the review sounds like THIS user β their length, "
"register, vocabulary, and quirks"
)
on_topic: bool = Field(
description="True if the review is about the actual item, not generic filler"
)
issues: str = Field(
description="If any check failed, a specific 1-2 sentence description of what "
"to fix. If all passed, the string 'none'."
)
@property
def passed(self) -> bool:
return self.rating_text_consistent and self.voice_match and self.on_topic
class RecommendationCritique(BaseModel):
"""The critique LLM's assessment of a top-N recommendation list (Task B)."""
titles_are_real: bool = Field(
description="True if the recommended items look like real products, "
"not review-headline fragments"
)
well_matched: bool = Field(
description="True if the picks genuinely fit the persona's tastes"
)
reasoning_grounded: bool = Field(
description="True if each pick's reasoning cites specific persona signals, "
"not generic filler"
)
diverse_enough: bool = Field(
description="True if the list isn't 10 near-identical items"
)
issues: str = Field(
description="If any check failed, a specific 1-2 sentence description of what "
"to fix. If all passed, the string 'none'."
)
@property
def passed(self) -> bool:
return (self.titles_are_real and self.well_matched
and self.reasoning_grounded and self.diverse_enough)
# ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
# Reflection trace (for logging / paper reporting)
# ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
@dataclass
class ReflectionTrace:
"""Record of what the reflection loop did β useful for the paper."""
iterations_run: int = 0
critiques: list[str] = field(default_factory=list) # issues found each cycle
passed_final: bool = False
refined: bool = False # True if at least one revision happened
# ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
# Task A β review reflection
# ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
def _critique_review(llm: LLMClient, persona: UserPersona,
item_title: str, item_domain: str,
rating: float, review: str) -> ReviewCritique:
"""One critique pass over a generated review."""
prompt = (
f"You are a strict editor checking whether an AI-generated review "
f"faithfully imitates a specific user. Be critical β your job is to "
f"catch problems, not to be nice.\n\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"THE USER\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"{persona.to_prompt_block()}\n\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"ITEM REVIEWED\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"Domain: {item_domain}\n"
f"Title: {item_title}\n\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"THE GENERATED REVIEW (check this)\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"Rating: {rating}\u2605\n"
f"Review: {review}\n\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"YOUR CHECKS\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"1. rating_text_consistent: Does the review TEXT match the {rating}-star "
f"rating? A 4-5 star review should read positive; a 1-2 star review should "
f"read negative; a 3 should read mixed.\n"
f"2. voice_match: Does it sound like THIS user? Check their typical review "
f"length ({persona.avg_review_length:.0f} words avg), tone ({persona.tone}), "
f"and quirks. A terse user given a long essay = fail. A user who writes in "
f"all-caps given lowercase = fail.\n"
f"3. on_topic: Is the review about the actual item, or is it generic filler "
f"that could apply to anything?\n\n"
f"If any check fails, describe specifically what to fix in 'issues'. "
f"If all pass, set 'issues' to 'none'."
)
return llm.structured(
prompt, ReviewCritique, model="reasoning",
system="You are a meticulous editor. Catch every inconsistency.",
)
def _refine_review(llm: LLMClient, persona: UserPersona,
item_title: str, item_domain: str,
prev_rating: float, prev_review: str,
critique_issues: str) -> tuple[float, str]:
"""Regenerate a review given critique feedback. Returns (rating, review)."""
class RefinedReview(BaseModel):
rating: float = Field(description="Star rating 1.0-5.0")
review: str = Field(description="The improved review in the user's voice")
prompt = (
f"You previously wrote a review imitating a specific user, but an editor "
f"found problems. Rewrite the review to fix them.\n\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"THE USER\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"{persona.to_prompt_block()}\n\n"
f"ITEM: [{item_domain}] {item_title}\n\n"
f"YOUR PREVIOUS ATTEMPT:\n"
f" Rating: {prev_rating}\u2605\n"
f" Review: {prev_review}\n\n"
f"EDITOR'S FEEDBACK β fix these specific issues:\n"
f" {critique_issues}\n\n"
f"Rewrite the review addressing the feedback. Keep what worked; fix what "
f"the editor flagged. Stay in the user's authentic voice."
)
result = llm.structured(
prompt, RefinedReview, model="reasoning",
system="You are an expert behavioral simulator revising your work based on feedback.",
)
return result.rating, result.review
def reflect_on_review(llm: LLMClient, persona: UserPersona,
item_title: str, item_domain: str,
rating: float, review: str,
max_iterations: int = 2) -> tuple[float, str, ReflectionTrace]:
"""Critique a generated review and refine it if needed.
Returns: (final_rating, final_review, trace)
The loop:
1. Critique the current review.
2. If it passes β stop, return as-is.
3. If it fails β refine using the critique, then critique again.
4. Stop after max_iterations even if still imperfect.
"""
trace = ReflectionTrace()
cur_rating, cur_review = rating, review
for i in range(max_iterations):
try:
critique = _critique_review(llm, persona, item_title, item_domain,
cur_rating, cur_review)
except Exception as e:
log.warning(f"Review critique failed ({type(e).__name__}); "
f"keeping current review")
break
trace.iterations_run = i + 1
if critique.passed:
trace.critiques.append("passed")
trace.passed_final = True
log.info(f"Review reflection: passed on iteration {i + 1}")
break
trace.critiques.append(critique.issues)
log.info(f"Review reflection iter {i + 1}: issues = {critique.issues}")
# Refine
try:
cur_rating, cur_review = _refine_review(
llm, persona, item_title, item_domain,
cur_rating, cur_review, critique.issues,
)
trace.refined = True
except Exception as e:
log.warning(f"Review refine failed ({type(e).__name__}); "
f"keeping pre-refine review")
break
return cur_rating, cur_review, trace
# ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
# Task B β recommendation reflection
# ββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
def _critique_recommendations(llm: LLMClient, persona: UserPersona,
recommendations: list[dict],
mode: str) -> RecommendationCritique:
"""One critique pass over a recommendation list."""
rec_block = "\n".join(
f" #{i+1} [{r['domain']}] {r['title']}\n Why: {r['reasoning']}"
for i, r in enumerate(recommendations)
)
prompt = (
f"You are a strict reviewer checking the quality of a recommendation "
f"list. Be critical β catch problems.\n\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"THE USER\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"{persona.to_prompt_block()}\n\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"THE RECOMMENDATIONS (mode: {mode})\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"{rec_block}\n\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"YOUR CHECKS\n"
f"{'=' * 55}\n"
f"1. titles_are_real: Do these look like real product titles? FAIL if any "
f"are review-headline fragments like 'Fast paced great read' or 'An "
f"enjoyable read' or 'Loved it!'.\n"
f"2. well_matched: Do the picks genuinely fit this user's tastes?\n"
f"3. reasoning_grounded: Does each 'Why' cite specific persona signals, "
f"or is it generic filler?\n"
f"4. diverse_enough: Is there real variety, or are these 10 near-identical "
f"items?\n\n"
f"If any check fails, describe specifically what to fix in 'issues' "
f"(e.g. 'items #4, #7, #9 have review-headline titles β replace them'). "
f"If all pass, set 'issues' to 'none'."
)
return llm.structured(
prompt, RecommendationCritique, model="reasoning",
system="You are a meticulous recommendation-quality auditor.",
)
def reflect_on_recommendations(llm: LLMClient, persona: UserPersona,
recommendations: list[dict], mode: str,
refine_fn,
max_iterations: int = 2,
) -> tuple[list[dict], ReflectionTrace]:
"""Critique a recommendation list and refine if needed.
Unlike review reflection, refinement here can't just rewrite text β it
needs to re-run reranking with feedback. So the caller passes a
`refine_fn(issues: str) -> list[dict]` that re-runs the rerank with the
critique injected, and this function orchestrates the loop.
Returns: (final_recommendations, trace)
"""
trace = ReflectionTrace()
cur_recs = recommendations
for i in range(max_iterations):
try:
critique = _critique_recommendations(llm, persona, cur_recs, mode)
except Exception as e:
log.warning(f"Recommendation critique failed ({type(e).__name__}); "
f"keeping current list")
break
trace.iterations_run = i + 1
if critique.passed:
trace.critiques.append("passed")
trace.passed_final = True
log.info(f"Recommendation reflection: passed on iteration {i + 1}")
break
trace.critiques.append(critique.issues)
log.info(f"Recommendation reflection iter {i + 1}: issues = {critique.issues}")
# Refine via the caller-supplied function
try:
refined = refine_fn(critique.issues)
if refined:
cur_recs = refined
trace.refined = True
except Exception as e:
log.warning(f"Recommendation refine failed ({type(e).__name__}); "
f"keeping pre-refine list")
break
return cur_recs, trace
|