Breaking Down EvalGen: Who Validates the Validators?
May 13, 2024
auto_awesome
This podcast delves into the complexities of using Large Language Models for evaluation, highlighting the need for human validation in aligning LLM-generated evaluators with user preferences. Topics include developing criteria for acceptable LLM outputs, evaluating email responses, evolving evaluation criteria, template management, LLM validation, and the iterative process of building effective evaluation criteria.
44:47
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
EvalGen aligns LLM outputs with user preferences for efficient evaluation process.
Regular refinement of evaluation criteria based on observations ensures accurate outcomes and user alignment.
Deep dives
Overview of Eval Gen Framework
The podcast episode discusses a paper called Cunvality Sivalities which introduces the Eval Gen framework aimed at aligning the evaluation criteria of assisted emails with user preferences. The framework introduces an open source tool called Eval Gen to address challenges related to evaluating LM outputs efficiently due to the high volume of queries and manual efforts involved. The framework focuses on transparency and alignment with user goals to enhance the evaluation process.
Criteria-Based Evaluation Workflow
The current evaluation framework for LM assisted emails involves inputs, outputs, evaluator prompts, and test results. The paper suggests developing evaluators to assess LM outputs and validates their quality through alignment with user preferences. The framework emphasizes the importance of enhancing the evaluator for generating LM outputs by validating them based on user-defined criteria.
Importance of Iterative Criteria Refinement
Participants in the user study found the need to continually refine and reinterpret evaluation criteria based on observations during the grading process. This iterative approach allows users to adjust criteria, observe results, and fine-tune the evaluation process to ensure accurate and reliable outcomes. Regularly updating criteria is crucial to maintain relevance and alignment with evolving user expectations.
Enhancing User Interaction and Transparency
User feedback and customization of metrics play a significant role in aligning evaluations with user expectations, particularly for subjective or complex criteria. Participants expressed skepticism around using LM judges for evaluations, highlighting the need for transparent and user-controlled evaluation criteria. Enhancing user interaction and providing explanations for evaluation outcomes can improve trust and understanding in the evaluation process.
Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators often inherit the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation.
This week’s paper explores EvalGen, a mixed-initative approach to aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions with human preferences. EvalGen assists users in developing both criteria acceptable LLM outputs and developing functions to check these standards, ensuring evaluations reflect the users’ own grading standards.