JamesPolk.net

When chatting with a set of documents using an LLM, there are several layers of metadata you can collect in addition to the transcript of the conversation

When chatting with a set of documents using a Hugging Face LLM deployed in a Docker container, there are several layers of metadata you can collect in addition to the transcript of the conversation. Capturing rich metadata provides traceability, enables reproducibility, and can allow future LLMs to learn from past sessions even if their architectures differ.

Types of Metadata You Can Capture

1. Document-Level Metadata

  • File names, paths, and formats

  • Timestamps (upload time, last modified)

  • Document source (e.g., URL, user upload, database)

  • Chunking details: how documents were segmented (e.g., paragraph-level, page-level, token-limited)

2. Chunk-Level Metadata

  • Chunk ID / Hash (for traceability)

  • Token range / position

  • Embedding vector (from sentence-transformers or similar)

  • Cross-references: linking chunks to source page or section numbers

3. Retrieval Metadata (RAG context)

  • Similarity scores (per chunk)

  • Ranking position during retrieval

  • LLM prompt context (which chunks were included in a prompt)

  • Top-k chunk selection strategy used (e.g., cosine similarity, MMR, hybrid search)

  • Which chunks were ultimately selected and responded to

4. Interaction Metadata

  • User question

  • LLM response

  • Session ID, User ID

  • LLM version (name, commit hash, config, model card URL)

  • Response latency

  • Token usage (input/output)

  • Prompt template used

5. Reasoning Metadata (If available or inferred)

  • Trace of reasoning paths (e.g., which chunks contributed to which parts of an answer)

  • Attention weights (if model allows introspection)

  • Chain-of-thought prompts or intermediate steps (if used)

How to Use This Metadata Later

If you were to spin up a new Docker container with a different LLM, this metadata becomes extremely valuable:

1. Reconstruction and Replay

  • Reconstruct full prompt/response cycles from original context windows.

  • Evaluate how the new model compares on the same queries and chunk sets.

2. Comparison and Evaluation

  • Run A/B testing between models using the same inputs and retrieved documents.

  • Evaluate new model’s reasoning and ranking strategies compared to previous metadata (e.g., if new model draws on different documents).

3. Transfer of Insights

  • Transfer learned “importance scores” or inferred topic-to-chunk mappings.

  • Use past metadata to fine-tune retrieval strategies or embed feedback into a retriever reranker.

4. Bootstrap Chat Memory

  • Import previous session context so a new LLM can continue the conversation intelligently.

  • Avoid re-processing all documents; use previous chunk usage stats to cache high-value content.

5. Analytics and Logging

  • Aggregate insights into which documents get queried most often.

  • Identify “unanswered” vs. “successfully answered” questions and retrain based on those.

How to Capture This in Practice

In Docker:

  • Mount a persistent volume to log interactions.

  • Use OpenTelemetry, JSONL, or a lightweight SQLite DB to store metadata.

  • Create middleware around your retriever and LLM to intercept and log relevant data.

With Hugging Face:

  • If using transformers, consider wrapping your generation call to log:

    • model.config, model_name_or_path

    • Prompt construction inputs

  • If using a RAG setup with Haystack, LangChain, or LlamaIndex, they often emit this metadata already.

✅ Summary

Yes, you can — and should — save rich metadata about document interaction beyond the chat transcript. You can log how the LLM used different chunks, what documents contributed to which parts of the conversation, and how the LLM reasoned (if exposed). This metadata becomes a powerful tool when reusing the same document base with a different LLM later, enabling transfer of insights, fair comparison, and reuse of contextual memory.