Re-ranking lab
Debug truncated candidates and exact-ID misses
Page 5 advances one concrete hybrid retrieve-and-rerank pipeline: explain the decision, run the code, inspect failure, measure evidence, and keep only what is ready to ship.
Before you start
Why this matters
Predict the exact failure class you will see when you inject exact SKU miss or silent duplicate candidates into the smallest fixture. What incorrect fix would hide the bug without restoring the invariant?
1Learn the idea
Read
Build focus
Break the artifact on purpose. The most important failure family is exact SKU miss or silent duplicate candidates. Reproduce one failure with the smallest possible input, inspect the intermediate values, and fix the boundary or algorithm rather than catching every exception. Retrying deterministic bad input only repeats the same mistake; a retry is justified only for a transient dependency.
Duplicates and truncated text silently ruin rerankers. Deduplicate by chunk ID, preserve lexical exact matches, batch pairs, and on timeout fall back to fused retrieval—not an empty answer and not an unfiltered crawl of the corpus.
The artifact's user-facing goal is specific: put the most query-relevant evidence first for mixed exact-ID and paraphrase questions. Its accepted input is a query string plus lexical and vector candidate lists with stable chunk IDs. Those statements are intentionally narrower than “build an AI system.” Narrow scope lets us inspect every input and expected result, and it prevents a toy result from being presented as a production claim. System shape for this chapter: a lexical retriever preserves exact identifiers such as ERR-502, a vector retriever catches paraphrases, reciprocal-rank fusion creates twenty unique candidates, and a cross-encoder jointly reads each query-chunk pair before the prompt receives the best five. Keep model calls behind adapters, keep authorization and validation in deterministic code, and carry stable IDs and versions through every response. That separation lets you decide whether a bad result came from input handling, retrieval, inference, validation, or deployment. This page's job is the debugging step: break the artifact on purpose. Setup baseline for the chapter (run once per machine, not secrets in git):
python -m venv .venv && source .venv/bin/activate
pip install sentence-transformers rank-bm25 numpy
If hardware or a hosted provider differs, preserve the interface and expected behavior. Do not present provider syntax as universal—when a vendor adapter is unavoidable, keep it behind a thin boundary and test with a fake first. The deliverable is not “it ran once”; it is a reproducible artifact another developer can inspect, including expected output and one deliberate failure related to exact SKU miss or silent duplicate candidates. Operationally, write down the owner of this stage, the command you ran, the observed output, and the next page's dependency on that output. If you cannot point to a file, fixture, metric, or config key, the stage is not done. Prefer small, reviewable increments: one contract, one path, one metric, one failure, one gate. When tradeoffs appear—latency versus quality, hit rate versus false hits, local privacy versus cloud quality—record both numbers instead of moving the threshold until the report looks green. The chapter ships only when evidence for nDCG@5 improves by at least 0.05 versus vector-only while added p95 latency stays under 120 ms and a rehearsed recovery path exist beside cross-encoder re-ranker with canary traffic and RERANK_ENABLED kill switch.
Read
Run the example
Save this as lesson.py and run python3 lesson.py. Prefer the standard library or the pinned packages from the setup block so the example stays reproducible.
def prepare(candidates):
seen=set(); uniq=[]
for c in candidates:
if not c.get("text") or c["id"] in seen: continue
seen.add(c["id"]); uniq.append(c)
return uniq or {"status":"fallback_empty"}
print(prepare([{"id":"a","text":"x"},{"id":"a","text":"x"},{"id":"b","text":"y"}]))
Expected output: deduped candidate list with ids a and b. Exact floating-point formatting may vary slightly, but the asserted behavior must not. Read the output as evidence about this stage, not merely proof that the interpreter started.
Read
Debug the stage
Reproduce exact SKU miss or silent duplicate candidates as a fixture. Fix one cause at a time. Do not catch broad exceptions and return an apparently successful answer. At the debugging stage, save the smallest failing fixture beside the expected result. Change one cause at a time and rerun the exact command printed above; that makes the repair reviewable and keeps this chapter's progressive artifact reproducible.
Read
Evaluate before continuing
Record latency and failure class for each injected fault. Clear degradation beats a wrong success. For this debugging page, preserve the fixture and result as evidence for the next page. Label observations separately from conclusions: a passing assertion establishes the behavior it names, while broader usefulness requires the chapter's full evaluation set and stated operating limits. Primary metrics for the chapter remain nDCG@5 improves by at least 0.05 versus vector-only while added p95 latency stays under 120 ms.
Continue learning · glossary & guides
- [ ] Can I reproduce the failure with one minimal input?
- [ ] Did I fix the first broken invariant instead of masking the exception?
- [ ] Does a neighboring valid case still pass?
- [ ] Do I recognize exact SKU miss or silent duplicate candidates in logs?
Glossary: re-ranking · Glossary: cross-encoder · Cheatsheet: rerank patterns