Skip to content

About

No description, website, or topics provided.

Resources

Stars

1 star

Watchers

0 watching

Forks

Latest commit

 

History

6 Commits

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date
 
 

Repository files navigation

Typing SVG


👩‍💻 About me

I'm working on evaluating AI systems and the data behind them: designing rubrics and evaluation sets, collecting and checking human labels, and comparing LLM autograders with human ratings to see where they can be relied on.

  • 🎯 Focus: evaluating conversational AI, LLMs, and speech systems
  • 💡 Principle: a metric is only useful if it predicts real-world quality and people trust it
  • 🔁 Approach: measure → diagnose failures → fix → re-measure → gate the release
  • ✍️ Writing: notes on evaluation and data quality on Substack

🧭 What I bring

Area What it involves
🤖 LLM autograders & rubrics Rubric design, evaluation set development, and calibrating an LLM autograder against human ratings
📊 Metrics that mean something Cohen's kappa for human–LLM agreement (including the kappa paradox), error rates, and checking that findings hold on larger, harder samples
📚 Grounded, factual responses Groundedness, citation accuracy, and hallucination rate for retrieval-based (RAG) answers
🎙️ Conversational & speech quality Intent, transcription, and speaker annotation, plus speech recognition accuracy
✅ Quality gates Golden sets, sampling audits, annotator scorecards, and CI quality gates (GitHub Actions) that block regressions before release

🔬 Featured work: annotation-eval-lab

An end-to-end lab for building trustworthy evaluation, from human annotation to automated grading and release gates.

Layer What it covers
Human annotation Image, audio/voice, text, and video labeling with clear guidelines and QA checks
Speech evaluation Comparing automatic transcripts with human ones (WER)
LLM evaluation Rubric ratings, preference judgments, and a Claude autograder calibrated against human ratings with Cohen's kappa, then re-tested on harder prompts
RAG evaluation Groundedness, citation accuracy, and hallucination rate
Translation quality Human error annotation compared with automatic scores
Quality framework Golden sets, sampling audits, annotator scorecards, and CI quality gates with GitHub Actions
Red teaming (separate repo) Find failures, fix, re-scan, and lock in regression tests

Built mainly with Python and Label Studio.

About

No description, website, or topics provided.

Resources

Stars

1 star

Watchers

0 watching

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors