docs(architect): weekly KB update — 106 files refreshed (2026-04)
Updates across all 5 skills: ms-ai-advisor, ms-ai-engineering, ms-ai-governance, ms-ai-security, ms-ai-infrastructure. Key changes: - Language Services (Custom Text Classification, Text Analytics, QnA): retirement warning 2029-03-31, migration guides to Foundry/GPT-4o - Agentic Retrieval: 50M free reasoning tokens/month (Public Preview) - Computer Use: Claude Sonnet 4.5 (preview) + OpenAI CUA models - Agent Registry: Risks column (M365 E7), user-shared/org-published types - Declarative agents: schema v1.5 → v1.6, Store validation requirements - MLflow 3: 13 built-in LLM judges, production monitoring, Genie Code - AG-UI HITL: ApprovalRequiredAIFunction (C#) + @tool(approval_mode) (Python) - Entra ID Ignite 2025: Agent ID Admin/Developer RBAC roles, Conditional Access - Security Copilot: 400 SCU/month per 1000 M365 E5 licenses, auto-provisioned - Fast Transcription API: phrase lists, 14-language multi-lingual transcription - Azure Monitor Workbooks: Bicep support, RBAC specifics - Power Platform Copilot: data residency (Norway/Europe → EU DB, Bing → USA) - RAG security-rbac: 4-approach table (GA + 3 preview access control methods) - IaC MLOps: Well-Architected OE:05 principles, Bicep/Terraform patterns - Translator: image file batch translation Preview (JPEG/PNG/BMP/WebP) All 106 files: Last updated 2026-04 | Verified: MCP 2026-04 Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
0eb30fa853
commit
6645e93205
104 changed files with 1986 additions and 520 deletions
|
|
@ -1,11 +1,14 @@
|
|||
# A/B Testing and Experimentation for AI Models
|
||||
|
||||
**Last updated:** 2026-02
|
||||
**Verified:** MCP 2026-04
|
||||
**Status:** GA
|
||||
**Category:** MLOps & GenAIOps
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Verified:** MCP 2026-04
|
||||
|
||||
## Introduksjon
|
||||
|
||||
A/B-testing og eksperimentering er kritiske teknikker for å validere og optimalisere AI-modeller i produksjon. I motsetning til tradisjonell programvareutvikling, hvor funksjonalitet er binær (fungerer/fungerer ikke), er AI-modeller probabilistiske — ytelsen deres varierer med data, kontekst og bruksmønster. A/B-testing gjør det mulig å sammenligne modelversjoner, fine-tuning-strategier, prompt-varianter eller RAG-konfigurasjoner under reelle forhold, med ekte brukere og reell trafikk.
|
||||
|
|
@ -438,3 +441,35 @@ Krever:
|
|||
- Shadow deployment patterns
|
||||
|
||||
**Antall unike kilder:** 7 (Microsoft Learn) + 3 (baseline concepts) = **10 kilder**
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
### A/B Testing with Azure ML Managed Online Endpoints + MLflow 3 (2026)
|
||||
|
||||
**Traffic splitting via managed online endpoints**:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Deploy challenger model with 10% traffic
|
||||
az ml online-deployment create --name challenger --endpoint my-endpoint
|
||||
az ml online-endpoint update --name my-endpoint --traffic control=90 challenger=10
|
||||
|
||||
# Monitor with MLflow 3 scorers — same metrics for both variants
|
||||
# Use RelevanceToQuery, Correctness, custom business scorers
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**MLflow 3 A/B evaluation pattern**:
|
||||
- Use `mlflow.genai.evaluate()` on traces from each variant
|
||||
- Compare scorers: `Correctness`, `RelevanceToQuery`, `ToolCallEfficiency`
|
||||
- Statistical significance: MLflow tracks Cohen's Kappa against human baseline
|
||||
- Aliases in Prompt Registry: `@control` and `@challenger` for prompt A/B testing
|
||||
|
||||
**Azure ML safe rollout progression**:
|
||||
1. **Shadow testing**: Mirror X% of traffic to new model (no user impact)
|
||||
2. **Canary**: Route 10% live traffic, monitor bake time (hours/days)
|
||||
3. **Progressive**: 10% → 50% → 100% with health gate at each step
|
||||
4. **Rollback trigger**: Automatic halt on health signal degradation
|
||||
|
||||
**Evaluation metrics for LLM A/B tests**:
|
||||
- Quality: Groundedness, Relevance, Correctness (MLflow judges)
|
||||
- Latency: P50, P90, P99 response times
|
||||
- Cost: Token usage per request
|
||||
- Business: Task completion rate, user satisfaction
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue