-
EvalAssist: A Human-Centered Tool for LLM-as-a-Judge
Authors:
Zahra Ashktorab,
Elizabeth M. Daly,
Erik Miehling,
Werner Geyer,
Martin Santillan Cooper,
Tejaswini Pedapati,
Michael Desmond,
Qian Pan,
Hyo Jin Do
Abstract:
With the broad availability of large language models and their ability to generate vast outputs using varied prompts and configurations, determining the best output for a given task requires an intensive evaluation process, one where machine learning practitioners must decide how to assess the outputs and then carefully carry out the evaluation. This process is both time-consuming and costly. As p…
▽ More
With the broad availability of large language models and their ability to generate vast outputs using varied prompts and configurations, determining the best output for a given task requires an intensive evaluation process, one where machine learning practitioners must decide how to assess the outputs and then carefully carry out the evaluation. This process is both time-consuming and costly. As practitioners work with an increasing number of models, they must now evaluate outputs to determine which model and prompt performs best for a given task. LLMs are increasingly used as evaluators to filter training data, evaluate model performance, assess harms and risks, or assist human evaluators with detailed assessments. We present EvalAssist, a framework that simplifies the LLM-as-a-judge workflow. The system provides an online criteria development environment, where users can interactively build, test, and share custom evaluation criteria in a structured and portable format. We support a set of LLM-based evaluation pipelines that leverage off-the-shelf LLMs and use a prompt-chaining approach we developed and contributed to the UNITXT open-source library. Additionally, our system also includes specially trained evaluators to detect harms and risks in LLM outputs. We have deployed the system internally in our organization with several hundreds of users.
△ Less
Submitted 2 July, 2025;
originally announced July 2025.
-
Facilitating Human-LLM Collaboration through Factuality Scores and Source Attributions
Authors:
Hyo Jin Do,
Rachel Ostrand,
Justin D. Weisz,
Casey Dugan,
Prasanna Sattigeri,
Dennis Wei,
Keerthiram Murugesan,
Werner Geyer
Abstract:
While humans increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs), they are susceptible to generating inaccurate or false information, also known as "hallucinations". Technical advancements have been made in algorithms that detect hallucinated content by assessing the factuality of the model's responses and attributing sections of those responses to specific source documents. However, there is limite…
▽ More
While humans increasingly rely on large language models (LLMs), they are susceptible to generating inaccurate or false information, also known as "hallucinations". Technical advancements have been made in algorithms that detect hallucinated content by assessing the factuality of the model's responses and attributing sections of those responses to specific source documents. However, there is limited research on how to effectively communicate this information to users in ways that will help them appropriately calibrate their trust toward LLMs. To address this issue, we conducted a scenario-based study (N=104) to systematically compare the impact of various design strategies for communicating factuality and source attribution on participants' ratings of trust, preferences, and ease in validating response accuracy. Our findings reveal that participants preferred a design in which phrases within a response were color-coded based on the computed factuality scores. Additionally, participants increased their trust ratings when relevant sections of the source material were highlighted or responses were annotated with reference numbers corresponding to those sources, compared to when they received no annotation in the source material. Our study offers practical design guidelines to facilitate human-LLM collaboration and it promotes a new human role to carefully evaluate and take responsibility for their use of LLM outputs.
△ Less
Submitted 30 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
-
Multi-Level Explanations for Generative Language Models
Authors:
Lucas Monteiro Paes,
Dennis Wei,
Hyo Jin Do,
Hendrik Strobelt,
Ronny Luss,
Amit Dhurandhar,
Manish Nagireddy,
Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy,
Prasanna Sattigeri,
Werner Geyer,
Soumya Ghosh
Abstract:
Perturbation-based explanation methods such as LIME and SHAP are commonly applied to text classification. This work focuses on their extension to generative language models. To address the challenges of text as output and long text inputs, we propose a general framework called MExGen that can be instantiated with different attribution algorithms. To handle text output, we introduce the notion of s…
▽ More
Perturbation-based explanation methods such as LIME and SHAP are commonly applied to text classification. This work focuses on their extension to generative language models. To address the challenges of text as output and long text inputs, we propose a general framework called MExGen that can be instantiated with different attribution algorithms. To handle text output, we introduce the notion of scalarizers for mapping text to real numbers and investigate multiple possibilities. To handle long inputs, we take a multi-level approach, proceeding from coarser levels of granularity to finer ones, and focus on algorithms with linear scaling in model queries. We conduct a systematic evaluation, both automated and human, of perturbation-based attribution methods for summarization and context-grounded question answering. The results show that our framework can provide more locally faithful explanations of generated outputs.
△ Less
Submitted 21 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
