Black-box Uncertainty Quantification Method for LLM-as-a-Judge

LLM-as-a-Judge is a widely used method for evaluating the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) across various tasks. We address the challenge of quantifying the uncertainty of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. While uncertainty quantification has been well-studied in other domains, applying it effectively to LLMs poses unique challenges due to their complex decision-making capabilities and computational demands. In this paper, we introduce a novel method for quantifying uncertainty designed to enhance the trustworthiness of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. The method quantifies uncertainty by analyzing the relationships between generated assessments and possible ratings. By cross-evaluating these relationships and constructing a confusion matrix based on token probabilities, the method derives labels of high or low uncertainty. We evaluate our method across multiple benchmarks, demonstrating a strong correlation between the accuracy of LLM evaluations and the derived uncertainty scores. Our findings suggest that this method can significantly improve the reliability and consistency of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations.

On Efficient and Statistical Quality Estimation for Data Annotation

Annotated datasets are an essential ingredient to train, evaluate, compare and productionalize supervised machine learning models. It is therefore imperative that annotations are of high quality. For their creation, good quality management and thereby reliable quality estimates are needed. Then, if quality is insufficient during the annotation process, rectifying measures can be taken to improve it. Quality estimation is often performed by having experts manually label instances as correct or incorrect. But checking all annotated instances tends to be expensive. Therefore, in practice, usually only subsets are inspected; sizes are chosen mostly without justification or regard to statistical power and more often than not, are relatively small. Basing estimates on small sample sizes, however, can lead to imprecise values for the error rate. Using unnecessarily large sample sizes costs money that could be better spent, for instance on more annotations. Therefore, we first describe in detail how to use confidence intervals for finding the minimal sample size needed to estimate the annotation error rate. Then, we propose applying acceptance sampling as an alternative to error rate estimation We show that acceptance sampling can reduce the required sample sizes up to 50% while providing the same statistical guarantees.

Ranking Large Language Models without Ground Truth

Evaluation and ranking of large language models (LLMs) has become an important problem with the proliferation of these models and their impact. Evaluation methods either require human responses which are expensive to acquire or use pairs of LLMs to evaluate each other which can be unreliable. In this paper, we provide a novel perspective where, given a dataset of prompts (viz. questions, instructions, etc.) and a set of LLMs, we rank them without access to any ground truth or reference responses. Inspired by real life where both an expert and a knowledgeable person can identify a novice our main idea is to consider triplets of models, where each one of them evaluates the other two, correctly identifying the worst model in the triplet with high probability. We also analyze our idea and provide sufficient conditions for it to succeed. Applying this idea repeatedly, we propose two methods to rank LLMs. In experiments on different generative tasks (summarization, multiple-choice, and dialog), our methods reliably recover close to true rankings without reference data. This points to a viable low-resource mechanism for practical use.

Explaining Knock-on Effects of Bias Mitigation

In machine learning systems, bias mitigation approaches aim to make outcomes fairer across privileged and unprivileged groups. Bias mitigation methods work in different ways and have known "waterfall" effects, e.g., mitigating bias at one place may manifest bias elsewhere. In this paper, we aim to characterise impacted cohorts when mitigation interventions are applied. To do so, we treat intervention effects as a classification task and learn an explainable meta-classifier to identify cohorts that have altered outcomes. We examine a range of bias mitigation strategies that work at various stages of the model life cycle. We empirically demonstrate that our meta-classifier is able to uncover impacted cohorts. Further, we show that all tested mitigation strategies negatively impact a non-trivial fraction of cases, i.e., people who receive unfavourable outcomes solely on account of mitigation efforts. This is despite improvement in fairness metrics. We use these results as a basis to argue for more careful audits of static mitigation interventions that go beyond aggregate metrics.

Iterative Reward Shaping using Human Feedback for Correcting Reward Misspecification

A well-defined reward function is crucial for successful training of an reinforcement learning (RL) agent. However, defining a suitable reward function is a notoriously challenging task, especially in complex, multi-objective environments. Developers often have to resort to starting with an initial, potentially misspecified reward function, and iteratively adjusting its parameters, based on observed learned behavior. In this work, we aim to automate this process by proposing ITERS, an iterative reward shaping approach using human feedback for mitigating the effects of a misspecified reward function. Our approach allows the user to provide trajectory-level feedback on agent's behavior during training, which can be integrated as a reward shaping signal in the following training iteration. We also allow the user to provide explanations of their feedback, which are used to augment the feedback and reduce user effort and feedback frequency. We evaluate ITERS in three environments and show that it can successfully correct misspecified reward functions.

Co-creating a globally interpretable model with human input

We consider an aggregated human-AI collaboration aimed at generating a joint interpretable model. The model takes the form of Boolean decision rules, where human input is provided in the form of logical conditions or as partial templates. This focus on the combined construction of a model offers a different perspective on joint decision making. Previous efforts have typically focused on aggregating outcomes rather than decisions logic. We demonstrate the proposed approach through two examples and highlight the usefulness and challenges of the approach.

Interpretable Differencing of Machine Learning Models

Understanding the differences between machine learning (ML) models is of interest in scenarios ranging from choosing amongst a set of competing models, to updating a deployed model with new training data. In these cases, we wish to go beyond differences in overall metrics such as accuracy to identify where in the feature space do the differences occur. We formalize this problem of model differencing as one of predicting a dissimilarity function of two ML models' outputs, subject to the representation of the differences being human-interpretable. Our solution is to learn a Joint Surrogate Tree (JST), which is composed of two conjoined decision tree surrogates for the two models. A JST provides an intuitive representation of differences and places the changes in the context of the models' decision logic. Context is important as it helps users to map differences to an underlying mental model of an AI system. We also propose a refinement procedure to increase the precision of a JST. We demonstrate, through an empirical evaluation, that such contextual differencing is concise and can be achieved with no loss in fidelity over naive approaches.

AutoDOViz: Human-Centered Automation for Decision Optimization

We present AutoDOViz, an interactive user interface for automated decision optimization (AutoDO) using reinforcement learning (RL). Decision optimization (DO) has classically being practiced by dedicated DO researchers where experts need to spend long periods of time fine tuning a solution through trial-and-error. AutoML pipeline search has sought to make it easier for a data scientist to find the best machine learning pipeline by leveraging automation to search and tune the solution. More recently, these advances have been applied to the domain of AutoDO, with a similar goal to find the best reinforcement learning pipeline through algorithm selection and parameter tuning. However, Decision Optimization requires significantly more complex problem specification when compared to an ML problem. AutoDOViz seeks to lower the barrier of entry for data scientists in problem specification for reinforcement learning problems, leverage the benefits of AutoDO algorithms for RL pipeline search and finally, create visualizations and policy insights in order to facilitate the typical interactive nature when communicating problem formulation and solution proposals between DO experts and domain experts. In this paper, we report our findings from semi-structured expert interviews with DO practitioners as well as business consultants, leading to design requirements for human-centered automation for DO with RL. We evaluate a system implementation with data scientists and find that they are significantly more open to engage in DO after using our proposed solution. AutoDOViz further increases trust in RL agent models and makes the automated training and evaluation process more comprehensible. As shown for other automation in ML tasks, we also conclude automation of RL for DO can benefit from user and vice-versa when the interface promotes human-in-the-loop.

On the Safety of Interpretable Machine Learning: A Maximum Deviation Approach

Interpretable and explainable machine learning has seen a recent surge of interest. We focus on safety as a key motivation behind the surge and make the relationship between interpretability and safety more quantitative. Toward assessing safety, we introduce the concept of maximum deviation via an optimization problem to find the largest deviation of a supervised learning model from a reference model regarded as safe. We then show how interpretability facilitates this safety assessment. For models including decision trees, generalized linear and additive models, the maximum deviation can be computed exactly and efficiently. For tree ensembles, which are not regarded as interpretable, discrete optimization techniques can still provide informative bounds. For a broader class of piecewise Lipschitz functions, we leverage the multi-armed bandit literature to show that interpretability produces tighter (regret) bounds on the maximum deviation. We present case studies, including one on mortgage approval, to illustrate our methods and the insights about models that may be obtained from deviation maximization.

Boolean Decision Rules for Reinforcement Learning Policy Summarisation

Explainability of Reinforcement Learning (RL) policies remains a challenging research problem, particularly when considering RL in a safety context. Understanding the decisions and intentions of an RL policy offer avenues to incorporate safety into the policy by limiting undesirable actions. We propose the use of a Boolean Decision Rules model to create a post-hoc rule-based summary of an agent's policy. We evaluate our proposed approach using a DQN agent trained on an implementation of a lava gridworld and show that, given a hand-crafted feature representation of this gridworld, simple generalised rules can be created, giving a post-hoc explainable summary of the agent's policy. We discuss possible avenues to introduce safety into a RL agent's policy by using rules generated by this rule-based model as constraints imposed on the agent's policy, as well as discuss how creating simple rule summaries of an agent's policy may help in the debugging process of RL agents.