Interview Bank

How to reason about it · think before answering

1. This screens for whether you have actually used it. People who have can name specific failure shapes with magnitudes; people who have not just say it might be inaccurate.
2. First, self-preference: when the judge and the evaluated agent share a model, it favours its own output — the same model has a consistent notion of what a good answer looks like, so asking it to review what it just wrote gets an approving verdict. Measured: on the same batch of deliberately degraded outputs, a same-model judge gave 14/15 while a different model gave 12/15, and the extra passes were exactly the borderline cases worth catching. This is not confined to judges — every model-grading-model position has it, and a Critic node is the same problem.
3. Second, length bias: judges reward longer answers. Measured: padding a correct 33-character reply with 141 characters of irrelevant pleasantries moved an impression-based rubric from 2 to 4 without changing a word of substance.
4. Third, rubric drift: scores shift wholesale when the judge prompt is tweaked. The same output scored 2 under one rubric and 5 under another. Hence the hard rule: scores are comparable only within one judge prompt, and cross-version comparison is meaningless.
5. Match each remedy to its failure rather than saying run it a few more times. Freeze and version the judge prompt — every score record carries its rubric version and judge model, which are its coordinates, and a dashboard that finds two rubrics mixed should refuse to aggregate rather than emit a meaningless average. Default to a different model as judge, as a default and not an option. Keep a small human-labelled calibration set and re-run it whenever the rubric changes, comparing verdicts (pass or fail) rather than score deltas — one point of drift is fine, a flipped verdict is an incident.
6. And one deeper fix: replace impressionistic criteria with a checkable list, which also dissolves length bias — counting items off a list gives padding nothing to earn. Measured, that padded reply scored 5 both before and after under the checklist rubric.
7. Expect: is a judge cheaper than humans? The judge's cost is the same order as the system being evaluated, so what a full evaluation run costs decides whether you run it per commit or nightly. Human cost is not money but latency — it cannot give you feedback at the speed of one prompt edit, which is why humans belong on the calibration set only.

分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

1. 这题筛的是「你是真用过，还是听说过」。用过的人能报出具体的失效形态和量级，没用过的人只会说「可能不准」。
2. 第一种，**同源偏差**：judge 和被评估的 Agent 用同一个模型时，它偏向认可自己的输出——同一个模型对「什么算好答案」的偏好是一致的，让它复核自己刚写的东西，它当然觉得没问题。实测数量级：同一批被改坏的产出，同源 judge 给 14/15，换个模型只给 12/15，被多放过去的正是最该抓的边缘产出。这个坑不止在 judge，**凡是「模型评模型」的位置都有**，Critic 节点是同一个问题。
3. 第二种，**长度偏好**：judge 倾向给篇幅大的答案更高分。实测：一条 33 字的正确回复灌上 141 字无关客套话，凭印象打分的提示词就从 2 分涨到 4 分，内容一个字没变。
4. 第三种，**评分提示词漂移**：judge 的评分随提示词微调整体移动。同一份产出，两套评分提示词一套给 2 分一套给 5 分。所以有条硬纪律——**分数只在同一套 judge 提示词内部可比**，跨版本比较是没有意义的。
5. 解药要一一对应，别笼统说「多测几次」：固定 judge 提示词并版本化（每条评分记录带上 rubric 版本与 judge 模型，那是它的坐标；面板发现混了两套口径应当直接拒绝聚合，而不是算出一个没含义的平均分）；默认用不同的模型当 judge，而且这该是默认值不是可选项；留一小批人工标注做校准集，每次改评分提示词拿它对一遍，**比的是结论（过或不过）而不是分数差**——差 1 分无所谓，结论翻了就是事故。
6. 还有一条更根本的：**把评分标准从主观印象换成可核对的清单**，它同时解掉长度偏好——照清单逐条数，灌水加不了分。实测那条灌水回复在清单口径下前后都是 5 分，纹丝不动。
7. 可以预期的追问：judge 便宜还是人工便宜？答：judge 的成本和被评估的系统本身一个量级，所以「跑一次全量评估多少钱」是你决定每次提交都跑还是每天跑一次的依据；而人工的成本不在钱在延迟——它给不了你改一次提示词就想看一次结果的反馈速度，所以人工只该用在校准集上。

How to reason about it · think before answering

1. The second half of the question is the discriminator. Plenty of people can name position, length, and self-preference bias; few can say how they prove the judge is trustworthy.
2. Pair each bias with its mitigation: position bias - score pointwise instead of pairwise, and if you must compare, swap the order and call disagreement a tie; length bias - decompose into claims and score a ratio, so a longer answer grows its own denominator; self-preference - judge with a different vendor or tier than the generator.
3. Add two prompt-level requirements: fixed rubric anchors (spell out what 1.0, 0.6 and 0.3 mean, or the same input scores differently on different days) and forced structured output that quotes the unsupported sentences verbatim, which is what makes human review possible.
4. Proving trust has exactly one route: human spot-checks and an agreement rate. Stratify ten to thirty items across types, hits and misses, high and low judge scores; answer one binary question only - is anything here not in the material - and compare. Below 0.8 the judge's scores cannot gate a merge.
5. A detail that scores points: a very high agreement rate may mean your spot-check was too easy. If all ten sampled answers copy the material verbatim, agreeing is trivial and 100% says nothing about the judge.
6. Expected follow-up: can the judge itself break? Add probes - fixed inputs with known verdicts, one faithful and one obviously fabricated, checked on every run. An evaluation system fails silently: the numbers keep coming, they just stop meaning anything.

分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

1. 这题的题眼在后半句。能背出「位置偏好、长度偏好、自我偏好」三个名词的人很多，能说出「怎么证明可信」的很少——面试官要的是后者。
2. 先把三个偏差和各自的缓解手段一一对应：位置偏好用逐条独立打分代替两两比较，非要比较就交换顺序跑两遍、结论不一致判平局；长度偏好用逐句判定加比例计分，写得越长分母越大，长度红利自动消失；自我偏好用跨供应商或跨档位的模型评判，生成和评判不同源。
3. 再补两条提示词层面的：给死评分锚点，1.0 / 0.6 / 0.3 各自是什么必须写明，否则同一份输入不同天给的分都不一样；强制结构化输出并要求把没支撑的句子原样列出，这是人工复核的抓手。
4. 证明可信只有一条路：人工抽检算一致率。分层抽十到三十条——各类型都要有、命中和没命中都要有、裁判给高分和低分都要有，只判一个二元问题（有没有材料外的内容），跟裁判的结论比对。低于 0.8 就不能拿它的分数做拦合并这类决策。
5. 一个能加分的细节：一致率很高不一定是好消息。如果抽的十条都是「答案原样抄自材料」的简单题，判对是理所当然的，这时候 100% 说明的是抽检没难度，不是裁判可靠。
6. 可预期的追问是「裁判本身会不会坏」。答案是给裁判写探针：喂几组已知正确答案的输入（照抄材料的、明显编造的），每次跑评估都验一遍——评估系统坏掉的方式最阴险，分数照常输出，只是不再有意义。