@stephen-lord/docs 1.0.0 → 1.0.1

package/dist-docs/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering/skills/advanced-evaluation/references/bias-mitigation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+# Bias Mitigation Techniques for LLM Evaluation
+
+This reference details specific techniques for mitigating known biases in LLM-as-a-Judge systems.
+
+## Position Bias
+
+### The Problem
+
+In pairwise comparison, LLMs systematically prefer responses in certain positions. Research shows:
+- GPT has mild first-position bias (~55% preference for first position in ties)
+- Claude shows similar patterns
+- Smaller models often show stronger bias
+
+### Mitigation: Position Swapping Protocol
+
+```python
+async def position_swap_comparison(response_a, response_b, prompt, criteria):
+    # Pass 1: Original order
+    result_ab = await compare(response_a, response_b, prompt, criteria)
+    
+    # Pass 2: Swapped order
+    result_ba = await compare(response_b, response_a, prompt, criteria)
+    
+    # Map second result (A in second position → B in first)
+    result_ba_mapped = {
+        'winner': {'A': 'B', 'B': 'A', 'TIE': 'TIE'}[result_ba['winner']],
+        'confidence': result_ba['confidence']
+    }
+    
+    # Consistency check
+    if result_ab['winner'] == result_ba_mapped['winner']:
+        return {
+            'winner': result_ab['winner'],
+            'confidence': (result_ab['confidence'] + result_ba_mapped['confidence']) / 2,
+            'position_consistent': True
+        }
+    else:
+        # Disagreement indicates position bias was a factor
+        return {
+            'winner': 'TIE',
+            'confidence': 0.5,
+            'position_consistent': False,
+            'bias_detected': True
+        }
+```
+
+### Alternative: Multiple Shuffles
+
+For higher reliability, use multiple position orderings:
+
+```python
+async def multi_shuffle_comparison(response_a, response_b, prompt, criteria, n_shuffles=3):
+    results = []
+    for i in range(n_shuffles):
+        if i % 2 == 0:
+            r = await compare(response_a, response_b, prompt, criteria)
+        else:
+            r = await compare(response_b, response_a, prompt, criteria)
+            r['winner'] = {'A': 'B', 'B': 'A', 'TIE': 'TIE'}[r['winner']]
+        results.append(r)
+    
+    # Majority vote
+    winners = [r['winner'] for r in results]
+    final_winner = max(set(winners), key=winners.count)
+    agreement = winners.count(final_winner) / len(winners)
+    
+    return {
+        'winner': final_winner,
+        'confidence': agreement,
+        'n_shuffles': n_shuffles
+    }
+```
+
+## Length Bias
+
+### The Problem
+
+LLMs tend to rate longer responses higher, regardless of quality. This manifests as:
+- Verbose responses receiving inflated scores
+- Concise but complete responses penalized
+- Padding and repetition being rewarded
+
+### Mitigation: Explicit Prompting
+
+Include anti-length-bias instructions in the prompt:
+
+```
+CRITICAL EVALUATION GUIDELINES:
+- Do NOT prefer responses because they are longer
+- Concise, complete answers are as valuable as detailed ones
+- Penalize unnecessary verbosity or repetition
+- Focus on information density, not word count
+```
+
+### Mitigation: Length-Normalized Scoring
+
+```python
+def length_normalized_score(score, response_length, target_length=500):
+    """Adjust score based on response length."""
+    length_ratio = response_length / target_length
+    
+    if length_ratio > 2.0:
+        # Penalize excessively long responses
+        penalty = (length_ratio - 2.0) * 0.1
+        return max(score - penalty, 1)
+    elif length_ratio < 0.3:
+        # Penalize excessively short responses
+        penalty = (0.3 - length_ratio) * 0.5
+        return max(score - penalty, 1)
+    else:
+        return score
+```
+
+### Mitigation: Separate Length Criterion
+
+Make length a separate, explicit criterion so it's not implicitly rewarded:
+
+```python
+criteria = [
+    {"name": "Accuracy", "description": "Factual correctness", "weight": 0.4},
+    {"name": "Completeness", "description": "Covers key points", "weight": 0.3},
+    {"name": "Conciseness", "description": "No unnecessary content", "weight": 0.3}  # Explicit
+]
+```
+
+## Self-Enhancement Bias
+
+### The Problem
+
+Models rate outputs generated by themselves (or similar models) higher than outputs from different models.
+
+### Mitigation: Cross-Model Evaluation
+
+Use a different model family for evaluation than generation:
+
+```python
+def get_evaluator_model(generator_model):
+    """Select evaluator to avoid self-enhancement bias."""
+    if 'gpt' in generator_model.lower():
+        return 'claude-4-5-sonnet'
+    elif 'claude' in generator_model.lower():
+        return 'gpt-5.2'
+    else:
+        return 'gpt-5.2'  # Default
+```
+
+### Mitigation: Blind Evaluation
+
+Remove model attribution from responses before evaluation:
+
+```python
+def anonymize_response(response, model_name):
+    """Remove model-identifying patterns."""
+    patterns = [
+        f"As {model_name}",
+        "I am an AI",
+        "I don't have personal opinions",
+        # Model-specific patterns
+    ]
+    anonymized = response
+    for pattern in patterns:
+        anonymized = anonymized.replace(pattern, "[REDACTED]")
+    return anonymized
+```
+
+## Verbosity Bias
+
+### The Problem
+
+Detailed explanations receive higher scores even when the extra detail is irrelevant or incorrect.
+
+### Mitigation: Relevance-Weighted Scoring
+
+```python
+async def relevance_weighted_evaluation(response, prompt, criteria):
+    # First, assess relevance of each segment
+    relevance_scores = await assess_relevance(response, prompt)
+    
+    # Weight evaluation by relevance
+    segments = split_into_segments(response)
+    weighted_scores = []
+    for segment, relevance in zip(segments, relevance_scores):
+        if relevance > 0.5:  # Only count relevant segments
+            score = await evaluate_segment(segment, prompt, criteria)
+            weighted_scores.append(score * relevance)
+    
+    return sum(weighted_scores) / len(weighted_scores)
+```
+
+### Mitigation: Rubric with Verbosity Penalty
+
+Include explicit verbosity penalties in rubrics:
+
+```python
+rubric_levels = [
+    {
+        "score": 5,
+        "description": "Complete and concise. All necessary information, nothing extraneous.",
+        "characteristics": ["Every sentence adds value", "No repetition", "Appropriately scoped"]
+    },
+    {
+        "score": 3,
+        "description": "Complete but verbose. Contains unnecessary detail or repetition.",
+        "characteristics": ["Main points covered", "Some tangents", "Could be more concise"]
+    },
+    # ... etc
+]
+```
+
+## Authority Bias
+
+### The Problem
+
+Confident, authoritative tone is rated higher regardless of accuracy.
+
+### Mitigation: Evidence Requirement
+
+Require explicit evidence for claims:
+
+```
+For each claim in the response:
+1. Identify whether it's a factual claim
+2. Note if evidence or sources are provided
+3. Score based on verifiability, not confidence
+
+IMPORTANT: Confident claims without evidence should NOT receive higher scores than 
+hedged claims with evidence.
+```
+
+### Mitigation: Fact-Checking Layer
+
+Add a fact-checking step before scoring:
+
+```python
+async def fact_checked_evaluation(response, prompt, criteria):
+    # Extract claims
+    claims = await extract_claims(response)
+    
+    # Fact-check each claim
+    fact_check_results = await asyncio.gather(*[
+        verify_claim(claim) for claim in claims
+    ])
+    
+    # Adjust score based on fact-check results
+    accuracy_factor = sum(r['verified'] for r in fact_check_results) / len(fact_check_results)
+    
+    base_score = await evaluate(response, prompt, criteria)
+    return base_score * (0.7 + 0.3 * accuracy_factor)  # At least 70% of score
+```
+
+## Aggregate Bias Detection
+
+Monitor for systematic biases in production:
+
+```python
+class BiasMonitor:
+    def __init__(self):
+        self.evaluations = []
+    
+    def record(self, evaluation):
+        self.evaluations.append(evaluation)
+    
+    def detect_position_bias(self):
+        """Detect if first position wins more often than expected."""
+        first_wins = sum(1 for e in self.evaluations if e['first_position_winner'])
+        expected = len(self.evaluations) * 0.5
+        z_score = (first_wins - expected) / (expected * 0.5) ** 0.5
+        return {'bias_detected': abs(z_score) > 2, 'z_score': z_score}
+    
+    def detect_length_bias(self):
+        """Detect if longer responses score higher."""
+        from scipy.stats import spearmanr
+        lengths = [e['response_length'] for e in self.evaluations]
+        scores = [e['score'] for e in self.evaluations]
+        corr, p_value = spearmanr(lengths, scores)
+        return {'bias_detected': corr > 0.3 and p_value < 0.05, 'correlation': corr}
+```
+
+## Summary Table
+
+| Bias | Primary Mitigation | Secondary Mitigation | Detection Method |
+|------|-------------------|---------------------|------------------|
+| Position | Position swapping | Multiple shuffles | Consistency check |
+| Length | Explicit prompting | Length normalization | Length-score correlation |
+| Self-enhancement | Cross-model evaluation | Anonymization | Model comparison study |
+| Verbosity | Relevance weighting | Rubric penalties | Relevance scoring |
+| Authority | Evidence requirement | Fact-checking layer | Confidence-accuracy correlation |
+

package/dist-docs/Agent-Skills-for-Context-Engineering/skills/advanced-evaluation/references/implementation-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,315 @@
+# LLM-as-Judge Implementation Patterns
+
+This reference provides detailed implementation patterns for building production-grade LLM evaluation systems.
+
+## Pattern 1: Structured Evaluation Pipeline
+
+The most reliable evaluation systems follow a structured pipeline that separates concerns:
+
+```
+Input Validation → Criteria Loading → Scoring → Bias Mitigation → Output Formatting
+```
+
+### Input Validation Layer
+
+Before evaluation begins, validate:
+
+1. **Response presence**: Non-empty response to evaluate
+2. **Prompt presence**: Original prompt for context
+3. **Criteria validity**: At least one criterion with name and description
+4. **Weight normalization**: Weights sum to 1.0 (or normalize them)
+
+```python
+def validate_input(response, prompt, criteria):
+    if not response or not response.strip():
+        raise ValueError("Response cannot be empty")
+    if not prompt or not prompt.strip():
+        raise ValueError("Prompt cannot be empty")
+    if not criteria or len(criteria) == 0:
+        raise ValueError("At least one criterion required")
+    
+    # Normalize weights
+    total_weight = sum(c.get('weight', 1) for c in criteria)
+    for c in criteria:
+        c['weight'] = c.get('weight', 1) / total_weight
+```
+
+### Criteria Loading Layer
+
+Criteria should be loaded from configuration, not hardcoded:
+
+```python
+class CriteriaLoader:
+    def __init__(self, rubric_path=None):
+        self.rubrics = self._load_rubrics(rubric_path)
+    
+    def get_criteria(self, task_type):
+        return self.rubrics.get(task_type, self.default_criteria)
+    
+    def get_rubric(self, criterion_name):
+        return self.rubrics.get(criterion_name, {}).get('levels', [])
+```
+
+### Scoring Layer
+
+The scoring layer handles the actual LLM call:
+
+```python
+async def score_response(response, prompt, criteria, rubric, model):
+    system_prompt = build_system_prompt(criteria, rubric)
+    user_prompt = build_user_prompt(response, prompt, criteria)
+    
+    result = await generate_text(
+        model=model,
+        system=system_prompt,
+        prompt=user_prompt,
+        temperature=0.3  # Lower temperature for consistency
+    )
+    
+    return parse_scores(result.text)
+```
+
+### Bias Mitigation Layer
+
+For pairwise comparison, always include position swapping:
+
+```python
+async def compare_with_bias_mitigation(response_a, response_b, prompt, criteria, model):
+    # First pass: A first
+    pass1 = await compare_pair(response_a, response_b, prompt, criteria, model)
+    
+    # Second pass: B first
+    pass2 = await compare_pair(response_b, response_a, prompt, criteria, model)
+    
+    # Map pass2 winner back
+    pass2_mapped = map_winner(pass2.winner)  # A→B, B→A, TIE→TIE
+    
+    # Check consistency
+    if pass1.winner == pass2_mapped:
+        return {
+            'winner': pass1.winner,
+            'confidence': (pass1.confidence + pass2.confidence) / 2,
+            'consistent': True
+        }
+    else:
+        return {
+            'winner': 'TIE',
+            'confidence': 0.5,
+            'consistent': False
+        }
+```
+
+## Pattern 2: Hierarchical Evaluation
+
+For complex evaluations, use a hierarchical approach:
+
+```
+Quick Screen (cheap model) → Detailed Evaluation (expensive model) → Human Review (edge cases)
+```
+
+### Quick Screen Implementation
+
+```python
+async def quick_screen(response, prompt, threshold=0.7):
+    """Fast, cheap screening for obvious passes/fails."""
+    result = await generate_text(
+        model='gpt-5.2',  # Cheaper model
+        prompt=f"Rate 0-1 if this response adequately addresses the prompt:\n\nPrompt: {prompt}\n\nResponse: {response}",
+        temperature=0
+    )
+    score = float(result.text.strip())
+    return score, score > threshold
+```
+
+### Detailed Evaluation
+
+```python
+async def detailed_evaluation(response, prompt, criteria):
+    """Full evaluation for borderline or important cases."""
+    result = await generate_text(
+        model='gpt-5.2',  # More capable model
+        system=DETAILED_EVALUATION_PROMPT,
+        prompt=build_detailed_prompt(response, prompt, criteria),
+        temperature=0.3
+    )
+    return parse_detailed_scores(result.text)
+```
+
+## Pattern 3: Panel of LLM Judges (PoLL)
+
+For high-stakes evaluation, use multiple models:
+
+```python
+async def poll_evaluation(response, prompt, criteria, models):
+    """Aggregate judgments from multiple LLM judges."""
+    results = await asyncio.gather(*[
+        score_with_model(response, prompt, criteria, model)
+        for model in models
+    ])
+    
+    # Aggregate scores
+    aggregated = aggregate_scores(results)
+    
+    # Calculate agreement
+    agreement = calculate_agreement(results)
+    
+    return {
+        'scores': aggregated,
+        'agreement': agreement,
+        'individual_results': results
+    }
+
+def aggregate_scores(results):
+    """Aggregate scores using median (robust to outliers)."""
+    scores = {}
+    for criterion in results[0]['scores'].keys():
+        criterion_scores = [r['scores'][criterion] for r in results]
+        scores[criterion] = {
+            'score': statistics.median(criterion_scores),
+            'std': statistics.stdev(criterion_scores) if len(criterion_scores) > 1 else 0
+        }
+    return scores
+```
+
+## Pattern 4: Confidence Calibration
+
+Confidence scores should be calibrated to actual reliability:
+
+```python
+def calibrate_confidence(raw_confidence, position_consistent, evidence_count):
+    """Calibrate confidence based on multiple signals."""
+    
+    # Base confidence from model output
+    calibrated = raw_confidence
+    
+    # Position consistency is a strong signal
+    if not position_consistent:
+        calibrated *= 0.6  # Significant reduction
+    
+    # More evidence = higher confidence
+    evidence_factor = min(evidence_count / 3, 1.0)  # Cap at 3 pieces
+    calibrated *= (0.7 + 0.3 * evidence_factor)
+    
+    return min(calibrated, 0.99)  # Never 100% confident
+```
+
+## Pattern 5: Output Formatting
+
+Always return structured outputs with consistent schemas:
+
+```python
+@dataclass
+class ScoreResult:
+    criterion: str
+    score: float
+    max_score: float
+    justification: str
+    evidence: List[str]
+    improvement: str
+
+@dataclass
+class EvaluationResult:
+    success: bool
+    scores: List[ScoreResult]
+    overall_score: float
+    weighted_score: float
+    summary: Dict[str, Any]
+    metadata: Dict[str, Any]
+
+def format_output(scores, metadata) -> EvaluationResult:
+    """Format evaluation results consistently."""
+    return EvaluationResult(
+        success=True,
+        scores=scores,
+        overall_score=sum(s.score for s in scores) / len(scores),
+        weighted_score=calculate_weighted_score(scores),
+        summary=generate_summary(scores),
+        metadata=metadata
+    )
+```
+
+## Error Handling Patterns
+
+### Graceful Degradation
+
+```python
+async def evaluate_with_fallback(response, prompt, criteria):
+    try:
+        return await full_evaluation(response, prompt, criteria)
+    except RateLimitError:
+        # Fall back to simpler evaluation
+        return await simple_evaluation(response, prompt, criteria)
+    except ParseError as e:
+        # Return partial results with error flag
+        return {
+            'success': False,
+            'partial_results': e.partial_data,
+            'error': str(e)
+        }
+```
+
+### Retry Logic
+
+```python
+async def evaluate_with_retry(response, prompt, criteria, max_retries=3):
+    for attempt in range(max_retries):
+        try:
+            result = await evaluate(response, prompt, criteria)
+            if is_valid_result(result):
+                return result
+        except TransientError:
+            await asyncio.sleep(2 ** attempt)  # Exponential backoff
+    
+    raise EvaluationError("Max retries exceeded")
+```
+
+## Testing Patterns
+
+### Unit Tests for Parsing
+
+```python
+def test_score_parsing():
+    raw_output = '{"scores": [{"criterion": "Accuracy", "score": 4}]}'
+    result = parse_scores(raw_output)
+    assert result.scores[0].criterion == "Accuracy"
+    assert result.scores[0].score == 4
+
+def test_malformed_output():
+    raw_output = 'Invalid JSON'
+    with pytest.raises(ParseError):
+        parse_scores(raw_output)
+```
+
+### Integration Tests with Real API
+
+```python
+@pytest.mark.integration
+async def test_full_evaluation_pipeline():
+    result = await evaluate(
+        response="Water boils at 100°C at sea level.",
+        prompt="At what temperature does water boil?",
+        criteria=[{"name": "Accuracy", "description": "Factual correctness", "weight": 1}]
+    )
+    
+    assert result.success
+    assert len(result.scores) == 1
+    assert result.scores[0].score >= 4  # Should score high for accurate response
+```
+
+### Bias Detection Tests
+
+```python
+async def test_position_bias_mitigation():
+    # Same response in both positions should tie
+    result = await compare(
+        response_a="Same response",
+        response_b="Same response",
+        prompt="Test prompt",
+        criteria=["quality"],
+        swap_positions=True
+    )
+    
+    assert result.winner == "TIE"
+    assert result.consistent == True
+```
+