[HN Gopher] Evaluating RAG for large scale codebases
___________________________________________________________________
Evaluating RAG for large scale codebases
Author : GavCo
Score : 35 points
Date : 2025-02-14 08:29 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.qodo.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.qodo.ai)
| jimminyx wrote:
| Conceptually, LLM-as-a-judge doesn't feel like it should work --
| it's like asking a student to grade their own homework. it's very
| unintuitive for me that it actually seems to work pretty well
| petesergeant wrote:
| LLM as a judge isn't telling you if something is right or
| wrong, it's telling you if a given generation is normal or an
| aberration, according solely to the data the model was trained
| on. This is one reason LLMs prefer their answers to answers
| from other LLMs.
|
| "LLMs as a judge" is more about addressing the failure mode of
| auto-regressive (one-token at a time) generation letting an LLM
| lead itself astray due to its previous choices, rather than
| telling you any general truth.
|
| Finally I'd note that in every maths challenge I ever completed
| as a student, you were _strongly_ advised to go back and check
| your own work at the end if you had time left over, and for me
| this usually led to me catching things I 'd missed the first
| time.
| taurknaut wrote:
| > Using LLMs to judge correctness
|
| It seems their pr is willing to make much stronger claims
| than you will.
| procaryote wrote:
| PR's view of truth is "can I convince legal we probably
| won't lose if we're sued for saying this", which is a
| fairly weak form of truth
| tinco wrote:
| No, it's like a teacher's assistant using a answer sheet
| provided by the professor to grade exams. A common practice at
| the university I went to and accurate enough in most cases.
|
| The problem of matching an answer to a given answer is a lot
| simpler than generating an answer. Especially for an LLM which
| has language transformation as one of its core competences.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| ...pretty well according to student.
|
| It's student writing judge evaluation questions for himself as
| judge, judging judge (himself) and evaluating himself later
| using own judgement (as judge).
|
| 1 student all the way down.
|
| If it thinks eating concrete makes you stronger, it's going to
| think that and give green light end to end.
| dinfinity wrote:
| One of the most effective things to do in coding (and many
| other things) is to always do a self-review: Before you turn
| over a changeset for review, review it as if you were reviewing
| some one else's code.
|
| It sounds superfluous, but it works very well as it saves time
| and frustration by allowing you to quickly fix the stuff that
| wouldn't pass review anyway.
|
| The LLM as a judge-concept works in a similar way. Instead of
| "give a good answer", the task and perspective is "does this
| make sense?", which is very different.
| namanyayg wrote:
| Who's data are they training on? Are they storing and using all
| customer data?
| mirekrusin wrote:
| It's mentioned in the article that they used their own repos.
| 33a wrote:
| If the self evaluation makes it better, then why not do the self
| evaluation as part of the normal RAG workflow?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-14 23:01 UTC)