Spaces:
Configuration error
Configuration error
Upload README.md
Browse files
README.md
ADDED
|
@@ -0,0 +1,468 @@
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
+
# Observability
|
| 2 |
+
|
| 3 |
+
**Tools, models, datasets, and open workflows for understanding how AI systems behave in production.**
|
| 4 |
+
|
| 5 |
+
Observability is an independent Hugging Face organization focused on **AI observability, LLM tracing, agent monitoring, evaluations, RAG diagnostics, model performance, reliability, cost analysis, and production debugging**.
|
| 6 |
+
|
| 7 |
+
The goal is simple:
|
| 8 |
+
|
| 9 |
+
> **See what your AI system is doing, understand why it behaves that way, and improve it with evidence.**
|
| 10 |
+
|
| 11 |
+
Modern AI systems are increasingly complex. A single application may involve prompts, models, tools, retrieval, agents, external APIs, memory, structured outputs, and multiple decision steps.
|
| 12 |
+
|
| 13 |
+
Observability helps make those systems easier to inspect, measure, debug, and improve.
|
| 14 |
+
|
| 15 |
+
---
|
| 16 |
+
|
| 17 |
+
## What Is AI Observability?
|
| 18 |
+
|
| 19 |
+
AI observability is the practice of collecting and analyzing the signals needed to understand the behavior of AI systems.
|
| 20 |
+
|
| 21 |
+
Depending on the application, this may include:
|
| 22 |
+
|
| 23 |
+
- prompts
|
| 24 |
+
- responses
|
| 25 |
+
- traces
|
| 26 |
+
- tool calls
|
| 27 |
+
- agent steps
|
| 28 |
+
- latency
|
| 29 |
+
- token usage
|
| 30 |
+
- model costs
|
| 31 |
+
- retrieval quality
|
| 32 |
+
- errors
|
| 33 |
+
- retries
|
| 34 |
+
- hallucinations
|
| 35 |
+
- evaluation scores
|
| 36 |
+
- model drift
|
| 37 |
+
- user feedback
|
| 38 |
+
- safety signals
|
| 39 |
+
- structured outputs
|
| 40 |
+
|
| 41 |
+
Traditional monitoring tells you **whether a system is running**.
|
| 42 |
+
|
| 43 |
+
AI observability should also help explain:
|
| 44 |
+
|
| 45 |
+
**what happened, why it happened, and where quality was lost.**
|
| 46 |
+
|
| 47 |
+
---
|
| 48 |
+
|
| 49 |
+
## Focus Areas
|
| 50 |
+
|
| 51 |
+
### π LLM Tracing
|
| 52 |
+
|
| 53 |
+
Tools for inspecting:
|
| 54 |
+
|
| 55 |
+
- prompts
|
| 56 |
+
- model responses
|
| 57 |
+
- chained calls
|
| 58 |
+
- tool usage
|
| 59 |
+
- retries
|
| 60 |
+
- latency
|
| 61 |
+
- token consumption
|
| 62 |
+
- structured outputs
|
| 63 |
+
- failure points
|
| 64 |
+
|
| 65 |
+
A useful trace should make a complex AI workflow understandable from end to end.
|
| 66 |
+
|
| 67 |
+
### π€ Agent Observability
|
| 68 |
+
|
| 69 |
+
AI agents introduce additional complexity.
|
| 70 |
+
|
| 71 |
+
Projects may focus on:
|
| 72 |
+
|
| 73 |
+
- agent trajectories
|
| 74 |
+
- planning steps
|
| 75 |
+
- tool selection
|
| 76 |
+
- tool execution
|
| 77 |
+
- memory usage
|
| 78 |
+
- loops
|
| 79 |
+
- failed actions
|
| 80 |
+
- execution time
|
| 81 |
+
- cost per task
|
| 82 |
+
- completion quality
|
| 83 |
+
|
| 84 |
+
### π RAG Observability
|
| 85 |
+
|
| 86 |
+
Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems require visibility into both retrieval and generation.
|
| 87 |
+
|
| 88 |
+
Possible metrics include:
|
| 89 |
+
|
| 90 |
+
- retrieved documents
|
| 91 |
+
- ranking quality
|
| 92 |
+
- context relevance
|
| 93 |
+
- answer groundedness
|
| 94 |
+
- citation coverage
|
| 95 |
+
- retrieval latency
|
| 96 |
+
- chunk quality
|
| 97 |
+
- missing context
|
| 98 |
+
- source usage
|
| 99 |
+
|
| 100 |
+
### π§ͺ Evaluations
|
| 101 |
+
|
| 102 |
+
Evaluation should be part of production AI workflows.
|
| 103 |
+
|
| 104 |
+
Possible projects may support:
|
| 105 |
+
|
| 106 |
+
- response quality
|
| 107 |
+
- task success
|
| 108 |
+
- factuality
|
| 109 |
+
- relevance
|
| 110 |
+
- groundedness
|
| 111 |
+
- safety
|
| 112 |
+
- instruction following
|
| 113 |
+
- structured-output validity
|
| 114 |
+
- regression testing
|
| 115 |
+
- human review
|
| 116 |
+
|
| 117 |
+
### π Model Monitoring
|
| 118 |
+
|
| 119 |
+
Observe model behavior over time using signals such as:
|
| 120 |
+
|
| 121 |
+
- latency
|
| 122 |
+
- error rates
|
| 123 |
+
- output distributions
|
| 124 |
+
- response length
|
| 125 |
+
- refusal rates
|
| 126 |
+
- token usage
|
| 127 |
+
- quality scores
|
| 128 |
+
- model version
|
| 129 |
+
- provider performance
|
| 130 |
+
|
| 131 |
+
### π° Cost Observability
|
| 132 |
+
|
| 133 |
+
AI costs can become difficult to understand across models and workflows.
|
| 134 |
+
|
| 135 |
+
Possible tools may track:
|
| 136 |
+
|
| 137 |
+
- input tokens
|
| 138 |
+
- output tokens
|
| 139 |
+
- model usage
|
| 140 |
+
- cost per request
|
| 141 |
+
- cost per user
|
| 142 |
+
- cost per workflow
|
| 143 |
+
- cost per successful task
|
| 144 |
+
- provider comparison
|
| 145 |
+
- caching impact
|
| 146 |
+
|
| 147 |
+
### β‘ Performance & Reliability
|
| 148 |
+
|
| 149 |
+
Useful metrics may include:
|
| 150 |
+
|
| 151 |
+
- time to first token
|
| 152 |
+
- total latency
|
| 153 |
+
- throughput
|
| 154 |
+
- error rate
|
| 155 |
+
- timeout rate
|
| 156 |
+
- retry rate
|
| 157 |
+
- availability
|
| 158 |
+
- provider failures
|
| 159 |
+
- fallback behavior
|
| 160 |
+
|
| 161 |
+
### π‘οΈ Safety Observability
|
| 162 |
+
|
| 163 |
+
Possible projects may help surface:
|
| 164 |
+
|
| 165 |
+
- unsafe outputs
|
| 166 |
+
- policy violations
|
| 167 |
+
- prompt injection
|
| 168 |
+
- jailbreak attempts
|
| 169 |
+
- sensitive-data exposure
|
| 170 |
+
- anomalous tool calls
|
| 171 |
+
- unexpected agent behavior
|
| 172 |
+
- moderation events
|
| 173 |
+
|
| 174 |
+
### π Model & Prompt Changes
|
| 175 |
+
|
| 176 |
+
AI applications change frequently.
|
| 177 |
+
|
| 178 |
+
Observability can help compare:
|
| 179 |
+
|
| 180 |
+
- model versions
|
| 181 |
+
- prompt versions
|
| 182 |
+
- retrieval pipelines
|
| 183 |
+
- system instructions
|
| 184 |
+
- tool configurations
|
| 185 |
+
- temperature settings
|
| 186 |
+
- provider changes
|
| 187 |
+
|
| 188 |
+
---
|
| 189 |
+
|
| 190 |
+
## Possible Spaces
|
| 191 |
+
|
| 192 |
+
### π LLM Trace Viewer
|
| 193 |
+
Visualize prompts, responses, tool calls, latency, and token usage for a single AI workflow.
|
| 194 |
+
|
| 195 |
+
### π€ Agent Trace Explorer
|
| 196 |
+
Inspect agent trajectories and understand which actions led to success or failure.
|
| 197 |
+
|
| 198 |
+
### π RAG Quality Checker
|
| 199 |
+
Evaluate retrieval relevance, context coverage, and answer grounding.
|
| 200 |
+
|
| 201 |
+
### π§ͺ Prompt Evaluation Dashboard
|
| 202 |
+
Compare prompt versions using consistent test cases and metrics.
|
| 203 |
+
|
| 204 |
+
### π Model Comparison
|
| 205 |
+
Compare multiple models across quality, latency, token usage, and cost.
|
| 206 |
+
|
| 207 |
+
### π° Token Cost Calculator
|
| 208 |
+
Estimate and compare LLM usage costs across models and workloads.
|
| 209 |
+
|
| 210 |
+
### β‘ Latency Analyzer
|
| 211 |
+
Analyze response times, bottlenecks, retries, and provider performance.
|
| 212 |
+
|
| 213 |
+
### π§ Hallucination Review Tool
|
| 214 |
+
Structure manual or automated review of unsupported model claims.
|
| 215 |
+
|
| 216 |
+
### π‘οΈ AI Safety Monitor
|
| 217 |
+
Track safety-related events and suspicious interactions.
|
| 218 |
+
|
| 219 |
+
### π Regression Test Runner
|
| 220 |
+
Run repeatable evaluation sets after model, prompt, or pipeline changes.
|
| 221 |
+
|
| 222 |
+
### π Drift Explorer
|
| 223 |
+
Compare output behavior across time periods, model versions, or datasets.
|
| 224 |
+
|
| 225 |
+
### π§° Observability Playground
|
| 226 |
+
Experiment with traces, metrics, evaluations, and monitoring workflows in one place.
|
| 227 |
+
|
| 228 |
+
---
|
| 229 |
+
|
| 230 |
+
## Why Observability Matters
|
| 231 |
+
|
| 232 |
+
AI systems can fail in ways that are difficult to detect with traditional application monitoring.
|
| 233 |
+
|
| 234 |
+
A request may return successfully while the actual result is:
|
| 235 |
+
|
| 236 |
+
- irrelevant
|
| 237 |
+
- incomplete
|
| 238 |
+
- hallucinated
|
| 239 |
+
- poorly grounded
|
| 240 |
+
- too expensive
|
| 241 |
+
- too slow
|
| 242 |
+
- based on the wrong document
|
| 243 |
+
- produced by an unintended tool sequence
|
| 244 |
+
|
| 245 |
+
That means operational health alone is not enough.
|
| 246 |
+
|
| 247 |
+
Teams need visibility into:
|
| 248 |
+
|
| 249 |
+
**quality + behavior + performance + cost + reliability**
|
| 250 |
+
|
| 251 |
+
---
|
| 252 |
+
|
| 253 |
+
## Metrics We Care About
|
| 254 |
+
|
| 255 |
+
### Quality
|
| 256 |
+
- task success
|
| 257 |
+
- relevance
|
| 258 |
+
- factuality
|
| 259 |
+
- groundedness
|
| 260 |
+
- completeness
|
| 261 |
+
- instruction adherence
|
| 262 |
+
|
| 263 |
+
### Retrieval
|
| 264 |
+
- context relevance
|
| 265 |
+
- source coverage
|
| 266 |
+
- ranking quality
|
| 267 |
+
- retrieval success
|
| 268 |
+
|
| 269 |
+
### Performance
|
| 270 |
+
- latency
|
| 271 |
+
- throughput
|
| 272 |
+
- time to first token
|
| 273 |
+
- timeout rate
|
| 274 |
+
|
| 275 |
+
### Reliability
|
| 276 |
+
- errors
|
| 277 |
+
- retries
|
| 278 |
+
- fallback usage
|
| 279 |
+
- failed tool calls
|
| 280 |
+
|
| 281 |
+
### Cost
|
| 282 |
+
- tokens
|
| 283 |
+
- request cost
|
| 284 |
+
- workflow cost
|
| 285 |
+
- cost per successful task
|
| 286 |
+
|
| 287 |
+
### Safety
|
| 288 |
+
- policy events
|
| 289 |
+
- injection attempts
|
| 290 |
+
- unsafe outputs
|
| 291 |
+
- sensitive information exposure
|
| 292 |
+
|
| 293 |
+
### User Experience
|
| 294 |
+
- ratings
|
| 295 |
+
- corrections
|
| 296 |
+
- retries
|
| 297 |
+
- abandonment
|
| 298 |
+
- feedback
|
| 299 |
+
|
| 300 |
+
---
|
| 301 |
+
|
| 302 |
+
## AI Evaluation Philosophy
|
| 303 |
+
|
| 304 |
+
A single score rarely tells the whole story.
|
| 305 |
+
|
| 306 |
+
Good evaluation should combine multiple signals:
|
| 307 |
+
|
| 308 |
+
**automated metrics + model-based evaluation + deterministic checks + human review**
|
| 309 |
+
|
| 310 |
+
Different tasks require different evaluation methods.
|
| 311 |
+
|
| 312 |
+
For example:
|
| 313 |
+
|
| 314 |
+
- JSON output β schema validation
|
| 315 |
+
- retrieval β relevance evaluation
|
| 316 |
+
- summarization β completeness and factuality
|
| 317 |
+
- agents β task completion and action quality
|
| 318 |
+
- classification β precision and recall
|
| 319 |
+
- customer support β resolution quality and user feedback
|
| 320 |
+
|
| 321 |
+
---
|
| 322 |
+
|
| 323 |
+
## OpenTelemetry & Open Standards
|
| 324 |
+
|
| 325 |
+
Where useful, projects may explore interoperability with open standards and common telemetry formats.
|
| 326 |
+
|
| 327 |
+
Potential areas include:
|
| 328 |
+
|
| 329 |
+
- traces
|
| 330 |
+
- spans
|
| 331 |
+
- metrics
|
| 332 |
+
- logs
|
| 333 |
+
- OpenTelemetry
|
| 334 |
+
- distributed tracing
|
| 335 |
+
- structured events
|
| 336 |
+
- trace context
|
| 337 |
+
- model metadata
|
| 338 |
+
|
| 339 |
+
The goal is to make AI observability easier to integrate into existing engineering workflows.
|
| 340 |
+
|
| 341 |
+
---
|
| 342 |
+
|
| 343 |
+
## Technology
|
| 344 |
+
|
| 345 |
+
Projects may use:
|
| 346 |
+
|
| 347 |
+
- Hugging Face Transformers
|
| 348 |
+
- Hugging Face Datasets
|
| 349 |
+
- Hugging Face Spaces
|
| 350 |
+
- open-weight models
|
| 351 |
+
- OpenTelemetry
|
| 352 |
+
- tracing systems
|
| 353 |
+
- vector databases
|
| 354 |
+
- evaluation frameworks
|
| 355 |
+
- structured logging
|
| 356 |
+
- Python
|
| 357 |
+
- JavaScript
|
| 358 |
+
- browser-based visualization
|
| 359 |
+
- SQL / analytics pipelines
|
| 360 |
+
- dashboards
|
| 361 |
+
- custom metrics
|
| 362 |
+
|
| 363 |
+
Not every observability problem requires AI.
|
| 364 |
+
|
| 365 |
+
Where deterministic checks or conventional telemetry are more reliable, they should be preferred.
|
| 366 |
+
|
| 367 |
+
---
|
| 368 |
+
|
| 369 |
+
## Principles
|
| 370 |
+
|
| 371 |
+
### ποΈ Make Behavior Visible
|
| 372 |
+
AI systems should not operate as unexplained black boxes.
|
| 373 |
+
|
| 374 |
+
### π Measure What Matters
|
| 375 |
+
Collect metrics that reflect real application quality, not just infrastructure health.
|
| 376 |
+
|
| 377 |
+
### π Preserve Context
|
| 378 |
+
Traces should connect prompts, retrieval, tools, models, and outputs.
|
| 379 |
+
|
| 380 |
+
### π§ͺ Evaluate Continuously
|
| 381 |
+
Evaluation should happen before deployment and continue in production.
|
| 382 |
+
|
| 383 |
+
### π° Track Cost Alongside Quality
|
| 384 |
+
A more expensive model is not automatically a better production choice.
|
| 385 |
+
|
| 386 |
+
### π Protect Sensitive Data
|
| 387 |
+
Observability data can contain prompts, user input, business data, or personal information.
|
| 388 |
+
|
| 389 |
+
Data collection should be minimized, protected, and documented.
|
| 390 |
+
|
| 391 |
+
### π Prefer Evidence Over Guessing
|
| 392 |
+
Debugging should be based on traces, metrics, evaluations, and reproducible examples.
|
| 393 |
+
|
| 394 |
+
---
|
| 395 |
+
|
| 396 |
+
## Who Is Observability For?
|
| 397 |
+
|
| 398 |
+
This organization may be useful for:
|
| 399 |
+
|
| 400 |
+
- AI engineers
|
| 401 |
+
- ML engineers
|
| 402 |
+
- LLM application developers
|
| 403 |
+
- agent developers
|
| 404 |
+
- MLOps teams
|
| 405 |
+
- platform engineers
|
| 406 |
+
- reliability engineers
|
| 407 |
+
- evaluation teams
|
| 408 |
+
- AI safety teams
|
| 409 |
+
- data scientists
|
| 410 |
+
- startups
|
| 411 |
+
- enterprise AI teams
|
| 412 |
+
- researchers
|
| 413 |
+
- developers building AI infrastructure
|
| 414 |
+
|
| 415 |
+
---
|
| 416 |
+
|
| 417 |
+
## Responsible Use
|
| 418 |
+
|
| 419 |
+
Observability systems may capture sensitive information.
|
| 420 |
+
|
| 421 |
+
Projects should consider:
|
| 422 |
+
|
| 423 |
+
- data minimization
|
| 424 |
+
- access control
|
| 425 |
+
- retention
|
| 426 |
+
- redaction
|
| 427 |
+
- encryption
|
| 428 |
+
- prompt privacy
|
| 429 |
+
- user consent
|
| 430 |
+
- regulatory requirements
|
| 431 |
+
- model-provider policies
|
| 432 |
+
|
| 433 |
+
Monitoring should improve reliability without creating unnecessary privacy risk.
|
| 434 |
+
|
| 435 |
+
---
|
| 436 |
+
|
| 437 |
+
## Important Notice
|
| 438 |
+
|
| 439 |
+
Tools, models, and datasets published here are provided for **research, development, testing, monitoring, and technical experimentation**.
|
| 440 |
+
|
| 441 |
+
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, they do not guarantee:
|
| 442 |
+
|
| 443 |
+
- model correctness
|
| 444 |
+
- production reliability
|
| 445 |
+
- security
|
| 446 |
+
- regulatory compliance
|
| 447 |
+
- privacy compliance
|
| 448 |
+
- complete detection of failures
|
| 449 |
+
- complete detection of hallucinations
|
| 450 |
+
- complete detection of unsafe behavior
|
| 451 |
+
|
| 452 |
+
AI observability should support qualified engineering and operational review.
|
| 453 |
+
|
| 454 |
+
---
|
| 455 |
+
|
| 456 |
+
## Independent Organization
|
| 457 |
+
|
| 458 |
+
**Observability is an independent Hugging Face community organization.**
|
| 459 |
+
|
| 460 |
+
It is not an official Hugging Face organization, standards body, monitoring vendor, or certification authority.
|
| 461 |
+
|
| 462 |
+
The name **Observability** describes the thematic focus of the organization and its projects.
|
| 463 |
+
|
| 464 |
+
---
|
| 465 |
+
|
| 466 |
+
# Observability
|
| 467 |
+
|
| 468 |
+
**Trace behavior. Measure quality. Improve AI systems.**
|