Evaluating large language models (LLMs) presents unique challenges. While automatic side-by-side evaluation, also known as LLM-as-a-judge, has become a promising solution, model developers and researchers face difficulties with scalability and interpretability when analyzing these evaluation outcomes. To address these challenges, we introduce LLM Comparator, a new visual analytics tool designed for side-by-side evaluations of LLMs. This tool provides analytical workflows that help users understand when and why one LLM outperforms or underperforms another, and how their responses differ. Through close collaboration with practitioners developing LLMs at Google, we have iteratively designed, developed, and refined the tool. Qualitative feedback from these users highlights that the tool facilitates in-depth analysis of individual examples while enabling users to visually overview and flexibly slice data. This empowers users to identify undesirable patterns, formulate hypotheses about model behavior, and gain insights for model improvement. LLM Comparator has been integrated into Google's LLM evaluation platforms and open-sourced.

Large language model (LLM) prompting is a promising new approach for users to create and customize their own chatbots. However, current methods for steering a chatbot’s outputs, such as prompt engineering and fine-tuning, do not support users in converting their natural feedback on the model’s outputs to changes in the prompt or model. In this work, we explore how to enable users to interactively refine model outputs through their feedback, by helping them convert their feedback into a set of principles (i.e. a constitution) that dictate the model’s behavior. From a formative study, we (1) found that users needed support converting their feedback into principles for the chatbot and (2) classified the different principle types desired by users. Inspired by these findings, we developed ConstitutionMaker, an interactive tool for converting user feedback into principles, to steer LLM-based chatbots. With ConstitutionMaker, users can provide either positive or negative feedback in natural language, select auto-generated feedback, or rewrite the chatbot’s response; each mode of feedback automatically generates a principle that is inserted into the chatbot’s prompt. In a user study with 14 participants, we compare ConstitutionMaker to an ablated version, where users write their own principles. With ConstitutionMaker, participants felt that their principles could better guide the chatbot, that they could more easily convert their feedback into principles, and that they could write principles more efficiently, with less mental demand. ConstitutionMaker helped users identify ways to improve the chatbot, formulate their intuitive responses to the model into feedback, and convert this feedback into specific and clear principles. Together, these findings inform future tools that support the interactive critiquing of LLM outputs.

Models are interpretable when machine learning (ML) practitioners can readily understand the reasoning behind their predictions. Ironically, little is known about the ML practitioners’ experience of discovering and adopting novel interpretability techniques in production settings. In a qualitative study with 18 practitioners at a large technology company working with text data, we found that despite varied tasks, practitioners experienced nearly identical challenges related to interpretability methods in model analysis workflows. These stem from problem formulation, the social nature of interpretability investigations, and non-standard practices in cross-functional organizational contexts. A follow-up examination of early-stage design probes with seven practitioners suggests that self-reported experts are “perpetual intermediates”, who can benefit from regular, responsive, and in-situ education about interpretability methods across workflows, regardless of prior experience with models, analysis tools, or interpretability techniques. From these findings, we emphasize the need for multi-stage support for learning of interpretability methods for real-world NLP applications.

Artificial intelligence (AI) presents new challenges for the user experience (UX) of products and services. Recently, practitioner-facing resources and design guidelines have become available to ease some of these challenges. However, little research has investigated if and how these guidelines are used, and how they impact practice. In this paper, we investigated how industry practitioners use the People + AI Guidebook. We conducted interviews with 31 practitioners (i.e., designers, product managers) to understand how they use human-AI guidelines when designing AI-enabled products. Our findings revealed that practitioners use the guidebook not only for addressing AI’s design challenges, but also for education, cross-functional communication, and for developing internal resources. We uncovered that practitioners desire more support for early phase ideation and problem formulation to avoid AI product failures. We discuss the implications for future resources aiming to help practitioners in designing AI products.

Prior work has explored the writing challenges experienced by people with dyslexia, and the potential for new spelling, grammar, and word retrieval technologies to address these challenges. However, the capabilities for natural language generation demonstrated by the latest class of large language models (LLMs) highlight an opportunity to explore new forms of human-AI writing support tools. In this paper, we introduce LaMPost, a prototype email-writing interface that explores the potential for LLMs to power writing support tools that address the varied needs of people with dyslexia. LaMPost draws from our understanding of these needs and introduces novel AI-powered features for email-writing, including: outlining main ideas, generating a subject line, suggesting changes, rewriting a selection. We evaluated LaMPost with 19 adults with dyslexia, identifying many promising routes for further exploration (including the popularity of the “rewrite” and “subject line” features), but also finding that the current generation of LLMs may not surpass the accuracy and quality thresholds required to meet the needs of writers with dyslexia. Surprisingly, we found that participants’ awareness of the AI had no effect on their perception of the system, nor on their feelings of autonomy, expression, and self-efficacy when writing emails. Our findings yield further insight into the benefits and drawbacks of using LLMs as writing support for adults with dyslexia and provide a foundation to build upon in future research.

A key challenge in developing and deploying Machine Learning (ML) systems is understanding their performance across a wide range of inputs. To address this challenge, we created the What-If Tool, an open-source application that allows practitioners to probe, visualize, and analyze ML systems, with minimal coding. The What-If Tool lets practitioners test performance in hypothetical situations, analyze the importance of different data features, and visualize model behavior across multiple models and subsets of input data. It also lets practitioners measure systems according to multiple ML fairness metrics. We describe the design of the tool, and report on real-life usage at different organizations.