Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences

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 simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions (be it prompts or code) with human requirements. Our interface, EvalGen, provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. While generating candidate implementations (Python functions, LLM grader prompts), EvalGen asks humans to grade a subset of LLM outputs; this feedback is used to select implementations that better align with user grades. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. In particular, we identify a phenomenon we dub \emph{criteria drift}: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria. What is more, some criteria appears \emph{dependent} on the specific LLM outputs observed (rather than independent criteria that can be defined \emph{a priori}), raising serious questions for approaches that assume the independence of evaluation from observation of model outputs. We present our interface and implementation details, a comparison of our algorithm with a baseline approach, and implications for the design of future LLM evaluation assistants.

Revisiting Prompt Engineering via Declarative Crowdsourcing

Large language models (LLMs) are incredibly powerful at comprehending and generating data in the form of text, but are brittle and error-prone. There has been an advent of toolkits and recipes centered around so-called prompt engineering-the process of asking an LLM to do something via a series of prompts. However, for LLM-powered data processing workflows, in particular, optimizing for quality, while keeping cost bounded, is a tedious, manual process. We put forth a vision for declarative prompt engineering. We view LLMs like crowd workers and leverage ideas from the declarative crowdsourcing literature-including leveraging multiple prompting strategies, ensuring internal consistency, and exploring hybrid-LLM-non-LLM approaches-to make prompt engineering a more principled process. Preliminary case studies on sorting, entity resolution, and imputation demonstrate the promise of our approach

Operationalizing Machine Learning: An Interview Study

Organizations rely on machine learning engineers (MLEs) to operationalize ML, i.e., deploy and maintain ML pipelines in production. The process of operationalizing ML, or MLOps, consists of a continual loop of (i) data collection and labeling, (ii) experimentation to improve ML performance, (iii) evaluation throughout a multi-staged deployment process, and (iv) monitoring of performance drops in production. When considered together, these responsibilities seem staggering -- how does anyone do MLOps, what are the unaddressed challenges, and what are the implications for tool builders? We conducted semi-structured ethnographic interviews with 18 MLEs working across many applications, including chatbots, autonomous vehicles, and finance. Our interviews expose three variables that govern success for a production ML deployment: Velocity, Validation, and Versioning. We summarize common practices for successful ML experimentation, deployment, and sustaining production performance. Finally, we discuss interviewees' pain points and anti-patterns, with implications for tool design.

Rethinking Streaming Machine Learning Evaluation

While most work on evaluating machine learning (ML) models focuses on computing accuracy on batches of data, tracking accuracy alone in a streaming setting (i.e., unbounded, timestamp-ordered datasets) fails to appropriately identify when models are performing unexpectedly. In this position paper, we discuss how the nature of streaming ML problems introduces new real-world challenges (e.g., delayed arrival of labels) and recommend additional metrics to assess streaming ML performance.