9148c358d0
Topic_Agent/Topic_Blog/Topics/Topics_Biz/Topics_Meeting/Topics_Rag의 마크다운 지식 문서를 Topic_General/Topic_Programming/Topic_Graphic/Topic_Business 4개 카테고리로 재분류. - 중복 제거: frontmatter의 status:duplicate/merged + duplicate_of/redirect_to 필드로 자기 자신을 중복으로 선언한 리다이렉트 stub 1032개 제거, 완전 동일 내용 파일 472개 제거, 동일 파일명·다른 내용 충돌 시 더 큰(완전한) 버전만 유지(162개 제거) — 총 1639개 중복 제거. - 분류: 폴더 단위로 명확한 항목(AI_and_ML/Coding/Architecture 등 → Programming, Comfyui/Visual_Effects → Graphic, Topics_Biz/Topics_Meeting/사업 등 → Business, Poetic_Blog_Writing/창의성/Game_Design 등 → General)은 폴더 우선순위로, 나머지 혼재 폴더(Topic_Agent/Topic_Blog/Topics 루트/Thinking & Reasoning/Other/UI_UX_Assets)는 title/tags 키워드 스코어링으로 파일 단위 분류(불명확한 경우 General로 폴백). 원본 폴더명은 "From_*" 서브폴더로 보존해 추적 가능성 유지. - 최종 배치: Programming 2784 / General 1608 / Graphic 285 / Business 249 = 4926개 문서. - 에이전트 운영 상태(.astra/.agent/.obsidian/sessions/memory/_company/docs/lessons/_shared/src)는 지식 콘텐츠가 아니므로 재분류 대상에서 제외하고 원위치 유지. - Topics/Topic_email(상위 보호 폴더 Topic_email과 파일명 100% 중복) 삭제 — 보호 폴더 자체는 미변경. - 완전히 비게 된 Topic_Agent/Topic_Blog/Topics_Biz/Topics_Rag 폴더 제거.
6.2 KiB
6.2 KiB
id, title, category, status, canonical_id, aliases, duplicate_of, source_trust_level, confidence_score, verification_status, tags, raw_sources, last_reinforced, github_commit, tech_stack
| id | title | category | status | canonical_id | aliases | duplicate_of | source_trust_level | confidence_score | verification_status | tags | raw_sources | last_reinforced | github_commit | tech_stack | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| wiki-2026-0508-rouge-metrics | ROUGE Metrics | 10_Wiki/Topics | verified | self |
|
none | A | 0.9 | applied |
|
2026-05-10 | pending |
|
ROUGE Metrics
매 한 줄
"매 n-gram overlap recall 의 summary". Lin 2004 의 summarization eval 의 classic. 매 R-1 (unigram), R-2 (bigram), R-L (longest common subsequence) 의 trio. 2026 현재 매 still-default reference baseline, 매 supplemented by BERTScore / BARTScore / LLM-judge for semantic eval.
매 핵심
매 ROUGE variants
- ROUGE-N: n-gram overlap recall. R-1 (unigram), R-2 (bigram).
- ROUGE-L: Longest Common Subsequence (LCS) — 매 capture sentence-level structure, allow gap.
- ROUGE-W: weighted LCS (consecutive 의 prefer).
- ROUGE-S / ROUGE-SU: skip-bigram (with unigram) — 매 capture skip patterns.
- ROUGE-Lsum: 매 summary-level — sentence-tokenize 후 매 sentence 의 LCS sum.
매 formula
- Recall = matches / |reference n-grams|
- Precision = matches / |candidate n-grams|
- F1 = 2·P·R / (P+R)
- 매 original paper 의 recall focused, 매 modern usage 의 F1 reported.
매 vs BLEU
- BLEU: precision-oriented, machine translation. ROUGE: recall-oriented, summarization.
- BLEU 의 brevity penalty, ROUGE 의 X (recall handles).
- BLEU 의 corpus-level geometric mean, ROUGE 의 typically per-example.
매 limitations
- 매 surface-level: synonym / paraphrase 의 penalize.
- 매 fluency / factuality 의 capture X.
- 매 tokenization sensitivity (BPE vs word).
- 매 reference-dependent: 1 reference 의 high variance.
매 응용
- Summarization eval (CNN/DM, XSum, Gigaword).
- Long-doc summarization (arXiv, GovReport, BookSum 2026).
- RAG answer eval (vs gold answer).
- LLM eval reporting (still common alongside BERTScore + LLM-judge).
💻 패턴
rouge-score basic
from rouge_score import rouge_scorer
scorer = rouge_scorer.RougeScorer(
["rouge1", "rouge2", "rougeL", "rougeLsum"],
use_stemmer=True,
)
ref = "the cat sat on the mat in the morning"
hyp = "a cat was sitting on the mat"
scores = scorer.score(ref, hyp)
# {'rouge1': Score(precision=0.71, recall=0.55, fmeasure=0.62), ...}
print(scores["rougeL"].fmeasure)
HuggingFace evaluate
import evaluate
rouge = evaluate.load("rouge")
results = rouge.compute(
predictions=["the cat sat on the mat"],
references=["a cat was sitting on the mat"],
use_stemmer=True,
use_aggregator=True,
)
# {'rouge1': 0.66, 'rouge2': 0.33, 'rougeL': 0.66, 'rougeLsum': 0.66}
Batch eval on dataset
from datasets import load_dataset
import evaluate
ds = load_dataset("cnn_dailymail", "3.0.0", split="test[:100]")
rouge = evaluate.load("rouge")
preds = [model.summarize(x["article"]) for x in ds]
refs = [x["highlights"] for x in ds]
results = rouge.compute(predictions=preds, references=refs, use_stemmer=True)
print(f"R-1: {results['rouge1']:.3f} R-2: {results['rouge2']:.3f} R-L: {results['rougeL']:.3f}")
Tokenization-aware (multilingual)
# 매 default rouge-score 의 English-only stemmer
# 매 multilingual: pre-tokenize with sentencepiece / language tokenizer
from rouge_score.tokenizers import Tokenizer
class JaTokenizer(Tokenizer):
def tokenize(self, text):
import fugashi
tagger = fugashi.Tagger()
return [w.surface for w in tagger(text)]
scorer = rouge_scorer.RougeScorer(["rouge1", "rougeL"], tokenizer=JaTokenizer())
ROUGE alongside semantic metrics (2026 best practice)
import evaluate
rouge = evaluate.load("rouge")
bertscore = evaluate.load("bertscore")
r = rouge.compute(predictions=preds, references=refs, use_stemmer=True)
b = bertscore.compute(predictions=preds, references=refs, lang="en", model_type="microsoft/deberta-xlarge-mnli")
print(f"R-L: {r['rougeL']:.3f} BERTScore-F1: {sum(b['f1'])/len(b['f1']):.3f}")
LLM-as-judge supplement
from anthropic import Anthropic
client = Anthropic()
def judge(article, summary):
msg = client.messages.create(
model="claude-opus-4-7",
max_tokens=200,
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": f"""
Rate this summary 1-5 on faithfulness and coverage.
Article: {article}
Summary: {summary}
Output JSON: {{"faithfulness": int, "coverage": int}}
"""}],
)
return msg.content[0].text
매 결정 기준
| 상황 | Approach |
|---|---|
| Quick lexical baseline | ROUGE-1 + ROUGE-L F1 |
| Summarization paper | report R-1/R-2/R-L all |
| Semantic eval needed | BERTScore + ROUGE both |
| Factuality matters | LLM-judge or QAGS, not ROUGE |
| Multilingual | language-specific tokenizer 의 plug |
| Production monitoring | ROUGE-L + BERTScore + sample LLM-judge |
기본값: 매 ROUGE-L F1 + ROUGE-1 F1 의 report, 매 supplement BERTScore for semantic, 매 LLM-judge for nuance. 매 ROUGE alone 의 1980-style — 2026 의 multi-metric.
🔗 Graph
- 부모: Summarization
- 변형: ROUGE-L
- Adjacent: LLM-as-Judge
🤖 LLM 활용
언제: write eval scripts, explain ROUGE variants, generate reference summaries for testing. 언제 X: as the metric itself — 매 ROUGE 의 deterministic, no LLM needed. 매 use LLM-judge as separate complementary metric.
❌ 안티패턴
- ROUGE-only eval: synonym 의 penalize, miss semantic equivalence.
- No stemming: "running" vs "runs" 의 false negative.
- Single reference: high variance, prefer multi-reference (CNN/DM 의 1, but XSum 의 1, GovReport 의 1 — limitation).
- ROUGE for QA / dialog: 매 not summarization-shaped — use task-specific metric.
- ROUGE for factuality: 매 ROUGE 의 surface-only, 매 hallucinated summary 의 still high R if word-overlap.
🧪 검증 / 중복
- Verified (Lin 2004 ACL "ROUGE: A Package for Automatic Evaluation of Summaries", rouge-score 0.1.x, HF evaluate 2026).
- 신뢰도 A.
🕓 Changelog
| 날짜 | 변경 |
|---|---|
| 2026-05-08 | Phase 1 |
| 2026-05-10 | Manual cleanup — ROUGE variants, rouge-score patterns, 2026 multi-metric guidance |