AI evaluation and human-feedback practice (RLHF/RLAIF style)
Produced instruction-following and preference-labeling style assessments of model outputs, supporting RLHF/RLAIF-aligned training feedback. Identified subtle hallucinations, logical flaws, and factuality issues across math, science, coding, and reasoning prompts. Generated evaluation notes and rubric-driven judgments to strengthen high-quality human feedback for model improvement. • Checked helpfulness, on-topic relevance, and completeness against the user query. • Flagged unsafe or misaligned content via red-teaming and adversarial prompt testing concepts. • Rated and compared multi-response outputs using nuanced quality criteria. • Logged recurring error patterns for downstream dataset and training refinements.