Skip to main content

Dashboard

Welcome back, John. Here's your annotation workload overview.

Pending Tasks

12
4 high priority Due today

Completed Today

8
+3 from yesterday

Quality Score

94.2%
+2.1% this week

Your Performance

Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun

Task Distribution

This week
42
Total Tasks
Model Comparison (60%)
Text Annotation (25%)
Quality Reviews (15%)

Recent Evaluation Projects

Project Type Tasks Deadline Status Action
GPT-4 vs Claude 3
Technical reasoning tasks
SxS Comparison 8/20 Jun 28, 2023 In Progress Continue
Content Moderation
Policy enforcement
Text Annotation 24/30 Jun 25, 2023 In Progress Continue
Multi-turn Dialogue
Customer support evaluation
SxS Comparison 16/16 Jun 22, 2023 Completed View
Factual Accuracy
Knowledge base responses
Quality Review 12/12 Jun 20, 2023 Completed View
Showing 4 of 12 projects

Evaluation Interface

Compare and evaluate responses from two AI models side by side.

GPT-4 vs Claude 3 - Technical Reasoning

Task 8 of 20 Time: 02:45

Original Prompt:

Explain how a quantum computer differs from a classical computer, and provide an example of a problem where quantum computing offers a significant advantage.

Model A Response

Anonymous

Quantum computers differ from classical computers in several fundamental ways:

1. Basic Unit of Information:
- Classical computers use bits, which can be either 0 or 1.
- Quantum computers use quantum bits or "qubits", which can exist in a superposition of both 0 and 1 simultaneously.

2. Processing Power:
- Classical computers process data sequentially, or in limited parallel operations.
- Quantum computers can process vast amounts of possibilities simultaneously through quantum superposition.

3. Computational Approach:
- Classical computers use Boolean logic and deterministic algorithms.
- Quantum computers use quantum algorithms that exploit superposition, entanglement, and interference.

Example of Quantum Advantage: Shor's Algorithm for Factorization

The most famous example of quantum advantage is in integer factorization using Shor's algorithm:

For a classical computer, factoring a large number (e.g., a 2048-bit number used in RSA encryption) would take billions of years using the best known algorithms. This computational difficulty is actually the foundation of modern cryptography.

However, a sufficiently powerful quantum computer running Shor's algorithm could theoretically factor such numbers in hours or days, potentially breaking much of the encryption that secures the internet today. This dramatic speedup is possible because quantum computers can explore many possible factors simultaneously rather than checking them one by one.

Model B Response

Anonymous

Quantum computers and classical computers differ in their fundamental operation and capabilities:

Classical computers operate using bits (0s and 1s) and follow Boolean logic. Each bit must be in a definite state - either 0 or 1. These computers excel at tasks like arithmetic, data processing, and running deterministic algorithms.

Quantum computers, on the other hand, use quantum bits or "qubits." These leverage two key quantum mechanical properties:

1. Superposition: Qubits can exist in multiple states simultaneously (both 0 and 1 at once)
2. Entanglement: Qubits can be connected in ways that the state of one instantly affects another, regardless of distance

These properties give quantum computers unique advantages for specific problems.

A prime example is database searching using Grover's algorithm. Consider searching an unsorted database with N entries:

- A classical computer would need to check an average of N/2 entries (and up to N in worst case)
- A quantum computer using Grover's algorithm can find the answer in approximately √N steps

For a database with 1 million entries, a classical computer might need 500,000 operations on average, while a quantum computer would need only about 1,000 operations - a dramatic speedup.

This quantum advantage scales even more impressively with larger datasets, though it's important to note that quantum computers won't be faster for all types of problems. They offer specific advantages for problems involving searching, optimization, simulation of quantum systems, and certain types of factorization.

Evaluation Criteria

1. Which response provides a more accurate explanation of quantum computing?

2. Which response provides a clearer, more understandable explanation?

3. Which example of quantum advantage is more relevant and well-explained?

4. Overall preference:

Instructions & Guidelines

Evaluation Process:

  1. Read the original prompt carefully
  2. Review both model responses without knowing which model generated which response
  3. Evaluate based on accuracy, clarity, helpfulness, and safety
  4. Provide a comparative rating for each evaluation criterion
  5. Include detailed reasoning for your evaluations when possible

Tips for Side-by-Side Evaluation:

  • Focus on content rather than formatting
  • Consider factual accuracy as a primary criterion
  • Evaluate clarity and communication effectiveness
  • Note any safety concerns or potential biases
  • Judge answers based on how well they address the specific question

Need help?

Contact your project manager or check the evaluation guide for detailed instructions.

Model Comparison

Compare performance metrics and evaluate different models across evaluation criteria.

Active Projects

3 Total

GPT-4 vs Claude 3

In Progress

Technical reasoning tasks evaluation

8/20 Tasks Completed Due: Jun 28, 2023

Llama 3 vs PaLM 2

In Progress

Creative writing and storytelling

15/30 Tasks Completed Due: Jun 30, 2023

Mixtral vs Gemini

Starting Soon

Mathematical problem solving

0/25 Tasks Completed Due: Jul 5, 2023

Performance Overview

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
Accuracy
Clarity
Helpfulness
Reasoning
Safety
Overall
GPT-4
Claude 3
Based on 8 completed evaluation tasks

Detailed Comparison Results

Task Type Prompt GPT-4 Claude 3 Preference Rater
Technical
Explain quantum computing differences
4.2
4.0
Slight preference
John D.
Technical
Explain blockchain technology
4.5
4.3
Slight preference
Sarah L.
Creative
Write a short story about AI
3.8
4.7
Strong preference
Alex P.
Reasoning
Solve this logical puzzle
4.8
4.0
Strong preference
Maria K.
Reasoning
Explain this ethical dilemma
4.2
4.6
Slight preference
David R.
Showing 5 of 8 tasks

Key Observations & Insights

GPT-4 Strengths:

  • Superior technical accuracy and factual correctness
  • More nuanced explanations for complex topics
  • Better at mathematical and logical reasoning tasks
  • More structured responses with clear organization

Claude 3 Strengths:

  • More natural, conversational writing style
  • Stronger performance in creative writing tasks
  • Better at ethical reasoning and nuanced discussions
  • Higher safety measures with fewer potentially harmful outputs

Suggested Areas for Improvement:

GPT-4
  • Improve creativity and storytelling capabilities
  • Reduce occasional verbose explanations
  • Enhance sensitivity to ethical nuances
Claude 3
  • Improve technical accuracy in specialized domains
  • Enhance mathematical problem-solving skills
  • More structured explanations for complex topics

Overall Recommendation:

Based on the current evaluation data, GPT-4 shows stronger performance in technical and analytical tasks, while Claude 3 excels in creative and ethical reasoning. For a balanced system, consider using GPT-4 for technical documentation, mathematical analysis, and structured explanations, while leveraging Claude 3 for creative content, conversational interfaces, and discussions involving ethical considerations.

Last updated: June 20, 2023 • 12:30 PM

Annotation Tools

Access tools and utilities for efficient annotation and data labeling.

Text Annotation

Label text segments, classify content, and annotate semantic entities.

SxS Comparison

Compare and evaluate model outputs side by side with detailed metrics.

Dialogue Annotation

Evaluate multi-turn conversations and annotate dialogue context.

Quality Assessment

Review and verify annotations with comprehensive quality metrics.

Multiturn Dialogue Evaluation

Setup Multiturn Evaluation

Initial Prompt

Preview Evaluation Interface

Configure the evaluation on the left panel to see a preview

Recent Annotation Templates

  • Technical Assistance SxS

    Last used: 2 days ago

  • Creative Writing Comparison

    Last used: 1 week ago

  • Factual Assessment Matrix

    Last used: 2 weeks ago

  • Safety Evaluation Protocol

    Last used: 3 weeks ago

Annotation Metrics

Daily Average

38

+12% from last week

Quality Score

92%

+3% from last week

Annotation Types

SxS Comparisons 62%
Text Annotations 24%
Multi-turn Dialogues 14%

Project Management

Manage annotation projects, track progress, and coordinate team efforts.

Active Projects

Project Name Type Progress Assigned To Deadline Status Actions
GPT-4 vs Claude 3
Technical reasoning tasks
SxS Comparison
40%
JD
AL
SK
+2
Jun 28, 2023 In Progress
Content Moderation
Policy enforcement
Text Annotation
80%
MR
TJ
+3
Jun 25, 2023 In Progress
Llama 3 vs PaLM 2
Creative writing
SxS Comparison
50%
AL
SK
JD
Jun 30, 2023 In Progress
Multi-turn Dialogue
Customer support
Dialogue Annotation
100%
MR
AL
Jun 22, 2023 Completed
Mixtral vs Gemini
Mathematical problem solving
SxS Comparison
0%
JD
TJ
SK
Jul 5, 2023 Starting Soon
Showing 5 of 12 projects

Project Timeline

Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
GPT-4 vs Claude 3
Technical reasoning tasks
Content Moderation
Policy enforcement
Llama 3 vs PaLM 2
Creative writing tasks
Multi-turn Dialogue
Customer support
Mixtral vs Gemini
Starting soon
Today

Project Summary

Total Projects

12

Active Projects

8

Completed

3

Pending

1

Project Types

SxS Comparison 60%
Text Annotation 20%
Dialogue Annotation 15%
Quality Review 5%

Project Status

53%
Overall Progress
In Progress
Starting Soon
Completed
Delayed

Team Members

  • JD
    John Doe
    Senior Annotator
    3 Projects
  • AL
    Alice Lee
    Lead Evaluator
    3 Projects
  • SK
    Sam Kim
    AI Specialist
    3 Projects
  • MR
    Maria Rodriguez
    Content Analyst
    2 Projects
  • TJ
    Tom Johnson
    Technical Writer
    2 Projects

Upcoming Deadlines

  • Content Moderation
    Policy enforcement
    2 days left
  • Llama 3 vs PaLM 2
    Creative writing
    7 days left
  • GPT-4 vs Claude 3
    Technical reasoning tasks
    7 days left
  • Mixtral vs Gemini
    Mathematical problem solving
    12 days left

Quality Metrics

Track annotation quality, consistency, and performance metrics.

Overall Quality

94.2%

Based on all annotations from the last 30 days

Target: 90% +4.2% above target

Consistency Score

91.8%

Inter-rater reliability across all projects

Target: 90% +1.8% above target

Accuracy Rate

96.5%

Comparison with ground truth samples

Target: 95% +1.5% above target

Throughput

38.2

Average annotations per rater per day

Target: 45 -6.8 below target

Quality Trends

100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
May 16
May 21
May 26
May 31
Jun 05
Jun 10
Overall Quality
Consistency
Accuracy

Top Performers

  • JD
    John Doe
    98.2%
    Senior Annotator
    +3.2%
  • AL
    Alice Lee
    97.5%
    Lead Evaluator
    +2.5%
  • MR
    Maria Rodriguez
    96.8%
    Content Analyst
    +1.8%
  • SK
    Sam Kim
    95.3%
    AI Specialist
    +0.3%
  • TJ
    Tom Johnson
    94.1%
    Technical Writer
    -0.9%

Project Quality Metrics

Project Quality Consistency Accuracy Issues
GPT-4 vs Claude 3
Technical reasoning
96.2%
+2.2%
92.1%
+1.1%
97.5%
+2.5%
2
Content Moderation
Policy enforcement
95.3%
+1.3%
93.7%
+2.7%
97.8%
+2.8%
1
Llama 3 vs PaLM 2
Creative writing
89.4%
-0.6%
87.2%
-2.8%
92.1%
-2.9%
7
Multi-turn Dialogue
Customer support
96.8%
+2.8%
95.3%
+4.3%
98.2%
+3.2%
0
Mixtral vs Gemini
Mathematical problem solving
N/A
Not started
N/A
Not started
N/A
Not started
0

Quality Issues Distribution

  • Inconsistent Ratings 25%
  • Missed Guidelines 20%
  • Incomplete Feedback 15%
  • Technical Issues 10%
  • Other Issues 30%
Based on 46 issues identified in the last 30 days

Recent Quality Alerts

  • Inconsistent Ratings Alert
    5 annotators have shown inconsistency in the Llama 3 vs PaLM 2 project
    2 hours ago
  • Guideline Compliance Warning
    3 annotators need additional training on evaluation guidelines
    Yesterday
  • Quality Improvement Detected
    Multi-turn Dialogue project achieved 98.2% accuracy this week
    2 days ago

Quality Improvement Recommendations

High Priority

  • Conduct refresher training for team members working on Llama 3 vs PaLM 2 project to address inconsistency issues
  • Review and update creative writing evaluation guidelines to improve inter-rater reliability
  • Implement additional quality checks for projects with below-target consistency scores

Medium Priority

  • Develop improved annotation templates for creative writing projects to enhance consistency
  • Schedule biweekly calibration sessions to align evaluation criteria understanding
  • Create a knowledge base of common annotation challenges and best practices

Ongoing Improvements

  • Analyze successful annotation patterns from Multi-turn Dialogue project to apply to other projects
  • Continue peer review program to maintain high annotation quality
  • Develop advanced certification program for specialized annotation types

User Settings

Manage your profile, preferences, and account settings.

Profile

JD

Expertise

Technical Content Creative Writing Model Comparison RLHF Content Moderation NLP

Account

Account Information

Role changes require manager approval

Password

Password must be at least 8 characters and include a number, an uppercase letter, and a special character.

Two-Factor Authentication

Two-factor authentication is enabled

Your account is protected with authenticator app

Linked Accounts

GitHub

Connected as johndoe

Google

Connected as john.doe@gmail.com

Twitter

Not connected

Appearance

Theme

Dark
Light
System Default

Accent Color

Indigo
Blue
Green
Purple
Amber
Red

Font Size

A A

Adjusts UI font size across the platform

Interface Density

Compact
Default
Comfortable

Notifications

Email Notifications

Off On
Project Assignments

Notifications when you're assigned to a new project

Project Updates

Changes to projects you're working on

Deadline Reminders

Notifications for upcoming deadlines

Quality Feedback

Receive feedback on your annotations

Team Announcements

Company-wide and team announcements

Push Notifications

Off On
Urgent Tasks

High-priority tasks requiring immediate attention

Direct Messages

Messages sent directly to you

Task Completions

Notifications when team members complete tasks

Notification Schedule

From
To

During quiet hours, only critical notifications will be sent

Help Center

Find resources, documentation, and support for using the annotation platform.

Documentation

Comprehensive guides and documentation for all platform features

Browse Documentation

Video Tutorials

Step-by-step video guides for common annotation tasks

Watch Tutorials

FAQs

Answers to commonly asked questions about the platform

Read FAQs

Support

Contact our support team for personalized assistance

Get Support

Popular Articles

Getting Started with SxS Evaluation

Learn the basics of conducting side-by-side model comparisons

Updated 2 days ago 5 min read

How to Evaluate Multi-turn Conversations

Comprehensive guide for evaluating multi-turn dialogue models

Updated 1 week ago 8 min read

Best Practices for AI Model Evaluation

Expert tips for consistent and accurate model comparisons

Updated 2 weeks ago 12 min read

Understanding Evaluation Metrics

Detailed explanation of quality metrics and how they're calculated

Updated 3 weeks ago 10 min read

Troubleshooting Common Issues

Solutions for frequently encountered problems during annotation

Updated 1 month ago 7 min read

Upcoming Training

  • SxS Evaluation Masterclass

    Jun 25

    Advanced techniques for model comparison

    10:00 AM - 11:30 AM (EST)
  • Multi-turn Dialogue Evaluation

    Jun 28

    Best practices for conversation assessment

    2:00 PM - 3:30 PM (EST)
  • Annotation Quality Workshop

    Jul 2

    Techniques for consistent annotation quality

    11:00 AM - 12:30 PM (EST)

Frequently Asked Questions

For side-by-side model comparisons, focus on accuracy, helpfulness, coherence, and safety. Each task may have specific evaluation criteria, which will be provided in the project details. Always document your reasoning for each preference to ensure transparency and consistency.

Contact Support

Need personalized assistance? Our support team is here to help with any questions or issues you encounter.