# Benchmarks We use the [repliqa](https://huggingface.co/datasets/ServiceNow/repliqa) dataset for the evaluation of `haiku.rag`. You can perform your own evaluations with the Typer CLI in `src/evaluations/benchmark.py`, for example `cd src && python -m evaluations.benchmark repliqa`. The evaluation flow is orchestrated with [`pydantic-evals`](https://github.com/pydantic/pydantic-ai/tree/main/libs/pydantic-evals), which we leverage for dataset management, scoring, and report generation. ## Recall In order to calculate recall, we load the `News Stories` from `repliqa_3` (1035 documents) and index them. Subsequently, we run a search over the `question` field for each row of the dataset and check whether we match the document that answers the question. Questions for which the answer cannot be found in the documents are ignored. The recall obtained is ~0.79 for matching in the top result, raising to ~0.91 for the top 3 results with the "bare" default settings (Ollama `qwen3`, `mxbai-embed-large` embeddings, no reranking). | Embedding Model | Document in top 1 | Document in top 3 | Reranker | |---------------------------------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------------------| | Ollama / `qwen3-embedding` | 0.81 | 0.95 | None | | Ollama / `qwen3-embedding` | 0.91 | 0.98 | `mxbai-rerank-base-v2` | | Ollama / `mxbai-embed-large` | 0.79 | 0.91 | None | | Ollama / `mxbai-embed-large` | 0.90 | 0.95 | `mxbai-rerank-base-v2` | | Ollama / `nomic-embed-text-v1.5` | 0.74 | 0.90 | None | ## Question/Answer evaluation Again using the same dataset, we use a QA agent to answer the question. `pydantic-evals` runs each case and coordinates an LLM judge (Ollama `qwen3`) to determine whether the answer is correct. The obtained accuracy is as follows: | Embedding Model | QA Model | Accuracy | Reranker | |------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------|------------------------| | Ollama / `qwen3-embedding. ` | Ollama / `gpt-oss` | 0.93 | None | | Ollama / `mxbai-embed-large` | Ollama / `qwen3` | 0.85 | None | | Ollama / `mxbai-embed-large` | Ollama / `qwen3` | 0.87 | `mxbai-rerank-base-v2` | | Ollama / `mxbai-embed-large` | Ollama / `qwen3:0.6b` | 0.28 | None | Note the significant degradation when very small models are used such as `qwen3:0.6b`. ## Wix dataset We also track retrieval performance on [WixQA](https://huggingface.co/datasets/Wix/WixQA), a dataset of real customer support questions paired with curated answers from Wix. The benchmark follows the evaluation protocol described in the [WixQA paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08643) and gives us a view into how the system handles conversational, product-specific support queries. For recall, we index the reference answer passages shipped with the dataset and run retrieval against each user question. Each sample supplies one or more relevant passage URIs; we count how many of those URIs land inside the top *k* retrieved documents, divide by the number of relevant passages for that query, and average across all queries. The results for recall using the `WixQA` dataset are as follows: | Embedding Model | Document in top 1 | Document in top 3 | Reranker | |----------------------------|-------------------|-------------------|------------------------| | `qwen3-embedding` | 0.36 | 0.57 | `mxbai-rerank-base-v2` | And for QA accuracy, | Embedding Model | QA Model | Accuracy | Reranker | |----------------------------|-----------|----------|------------------------| | `qwen3-embedding` | `gpt-oss` | 0.75 | `mxbai-rerank-base-v2` |