Uber engineers Soumya Gupta (ML Engineer) and Jai Chopra (Product Manager) describe how Uber built evaluations for a food-photography enhancement agent on Uber Eats, which edits dish images to better present offerings from smaller merchants. The talk covers the challenges of keeping outputs faithful to the original dish while preserving merchant branding and packaging, navigating reward hacking, combining offline and online signals into a closed feedback loop, and balancing creativity against safety guardrails at scale in a domain with no existing multimodal eval playbook. Aimed at ML and applied AI practitioners working on multimodal systems, agentic pipelines, or eval design. # Channel Identity Observations — Video: "Building Closed-Loop Evals for a Multimodal Agent at Scale" ## Explicit Self-Description Evidence - **Speaker affiliation stated directly**: "My name is Jay and I'm here with Sonya. We are part of the computer vision team at Aruba [Uber]." (Transcript opening.) - **Stated topic scope**: "We're going to talk to you today about a real world production use case and specifically we're going to dive into how we design the e-bows [evals] and the e-bow loops [eval loops]." - **Talk format**: A two-speaker conference-style presentation ("I'm going to now hand over to Somya… Now, I'll pass it on back to Jay"), ending with applause — observable evidence of a live conference talk context. ## Intended Audience - **Practitioners building AI agents and evals**. The speakers explicitly frame content for builder relevance: > "When you think through these goals, you might actually be thinking through, you know, your own agents that you're building yourself." - **Audience assumed familiar with ML fundamentals**: "Here we have a confusion matrix. You know, many of you are probably pretty familiar with this." - **Audience spanning technical and non-technical roles** is discussed as a stakeholder group (not necessarily viewers): "anyone, be it non-technical uh technical um folks on engineering product, can actually dive in." ## Claimed Scope / Depth of Content - **Large-scale production AI system at Uber Eats**: "$90 billion run rate per year," "millions of items… every month," "growing at 20% year-on-year," "operate in 10,000 cities globally." (Creator-stated figures, not independently verifiable from this material.) - **End-to-end agent architecture coverage**: routing agent, image editing agent, QA agent, post-processing/publish QA, logging, diagnoser, auto-tuning pipeline — each described with concrete failure examples. - **Explicit limits on disclosure**: "we're not going to dive into too much of the details here cuz this is kind of like proprietary stuff" — indicating the channel/presentation shares applied practice, not full methodology. ## Demonstrated Presentation Patterns - **Concrete failure-mode walkthroughs with visual examples**: cheeseburger false positive, chicken-wing count mismatch, shrimp hallucination, removed sauce, reward hacking example, plate-covering-sauce example, wonton count ambiguity. - **Named techniques and metrics**: confusion matrix, precision/recall, "pass at K," pairwise comparison, Swiss cheese model, guardrail metrics, human labeling as "golden source of truth." - **Cross-functional framing**: "we have to make sure that we're aligning with product, design, policy, legal." - **Collaboration with frontier model teams**: "sometimes will coordinate with the frontier teams and and let them know about these problems and work together with them." - **Emphasis on safety and scale as recurring themes**: "We want to ship safely, and this is going to be an important theme throughout the talk." ## Notes on Distinguishing Claims vs. Demonstration - Scale figures ($90B, 10,000 cities, 20% YoY) are **creator claims** presented without external verification in this material. - The depth of technical detail, worked examples, and multi-agent system description constitute **demonstrated expertise** in production multimodal agent evaluation, independent of the claims above. - Transcription artifacts ("Aruba," "e-bows," "Sonya/Somya") suggest an auto-generated transcript; speaker name spellings vary and should not be treated as authoritative. # Delivery Observation Report ## Overview A two-speaker conference talk (Jai/Jay and Soumya/Sonya) on evaluation loops for a multimodal image agent at Uber. Delivery is conversational, technical, and example-driven, alternating between presenters at clear handoff points. ## Tone & Register - **Conversational-technical**: casual fillers alongside precise ML terminology. > "Um but a meaningful fraction of uh consumers actually distrust anything that is AI-generated." - **Direct audience address**: repeatedly frames points as advice to listeners. > "When you think through these goals, you might actually be thinking through, you know, your own agents that you're building yourself." ## Recurring Phrases & Verbal Habits - **"So," as a sentence opener** — extremely frequent, appears dozens of times across both speakers: > "So, agents are actually really well-suited to solve this problem." > "So, what we do is we sample production data at regular cadence..." - **"Right?" as a check-in tag** (Jai): > "...we can't leave that unconstrained, right?" - **"Kind of / sort of" hedges** (both speakers, heavily): > "there are three themes that kind of emerge" > "So, here's a similar sort of workflow pattern here." - **"Actually" as an intensifier** — used very frequently: > "So, agents are actually really well-suited..." > "And this is actually incredibly useful for the entire team..." ## Teaching Habits - **Spectrum/balancing framing** to build intuition: > "if you imagine a spectrum, on the one side, you've got something that's more deterministic... Imagine the other side..." > "We're threading the needle here." - **Concrete failure walkthroughs with image pairs** — both speakers explain via left/right examples: > "On your left you see a very good image of cheeseburger. Uh on the right you notice that the routing agent actually failed this." > "On your left, you see a bowl of sweet potato fries. We send it up for the first iteration and our QA agent rejects it..." - **Numbered/listed structure** for goals and steps: > "it's about one, preserving authenticity and trust. Two, improving the quality..." > "there are three themes that kind of emerge. Lack of time, lack of know-how, and costs" - **Analogy use**: the "Swiss cheese model" for redundant QA: > "The reason is because we think of this like a Swiss cheese model." - **Meta-commentary on the lesson**, especially Soumya: > "So the meta point I'm trying to get here is you've trained your offline model, but... the static model will not work in the real system." ## Speaker Differences - **Jai**: more filler-dense, self-repairs mid-sentence ("we we have", "to to to to under um describe"), uses audience-inclusive "you know" often; had an AV stumble at the open ("You hear me now?"). - **Soumya**: more linear, procedural delivery ("So we start with a target agent, and we've already got these unseen eval samples..."). ## Delivery Context Notes - Speaker names appear inconsistently in the transcript ("Jay/Jai", "Sonya/Somya") and the company as "Aruba/Rue Ba" — likely ASR artifacts, so exact name spellings are uncertain. - Shared vocabulary across both speakers: "golden dataset," "guardrail metrics," "human in the loop," "pass at K," "closed-loop system" — consistent team terminology, suggesting rehearsed joint delivery. # Observation Record: Building Closed-Loop Evals for a Multimodal Agent at Scale **Speakers:** Jai (Jay) Chopra and Soumya (Sonya/Somya) Gupta, computer vision team at Uber ("Aruba"/"Rue Ba" per transcript phonetics). Note: transcript renders names phonetically; exact spellings come from video title metadata. ## Context & Use Case (Jai) - **Uber Eats marketplace scale:** ~90 billion run rate per year; millions of items added monthly; 20% YoY growth; 10,000 cities globally. Jai claims the delivery marketplace is "just as big as the mobility side" of Uber. - **Problem:** Smaller independent merchants lack photo quality reflecting what eaters receive. Merchant themes: **lack of time, lack of know-how, cost** of professional shoots. - **Constraint/tension:** Consumers want authentic photos, but "a meaningful fraction of consumers distrust anything AI-generated." Jai frames the design as "threading the needle": stay faithful to the original, preserve merchant brand, avoid sameness — a single prompt for every photo "collapses" marketplace diversity. Long-tail distribution of input quality exists globally (poor sharpness, composition, colors). ## Design Goals (Jai) - Preserve authenticity and trust - Improve quality **selectively**; optimize globally without cannibalizing merchants - Ship safely (recurring theme) - Learn continuously; operate at scale cost-efficiently - Agents fit a **spectrum** from deterministic/rules-based (control but brittle) to high-agency creative agents — they "lean into" the latter but constrained by guardrails. ## Agent Architecture (Jai) 1. **Image understanding & routing agent:** LLM describes the photo → structured output → router decides **enhance vs. skip** (skip keeps original). 2. **Image editing agent:** runs in a loop with feedback from a **QA agent**, self-correcting; if it fails after several loops, not published. 3. **Post-processing & publish-ready QA:** final gate before publishing to the menu. 4. **Logging:** all agents logged in one flat JSON structure, usable by technical and non-technical staff. Jai: start with logging — "if you don't start with it, you have nothing to optimize for." They use internal tooling ("we use our eyes" — transcript unclear). ## Router Evals (Jai) - Evaluated as a traditional **classifier** with a confusion matrix, measuring precision/recall. - More sophisticated routers (e.g., routing to lower-latency smaller models to save cost at a quality trade-off) could use an **n×n matrix** per routing branch. ## Human Alignment & First Shipment (Soumya) - **Human labels are the golden source of truth.** Representative dataset across cuts, geographies, dish types, image quality; objective guidelines to reduce labeler subjectivity/noise. - Loop: get agent output → compare to golden dataset → ship if guardrail metrics met, else tune and iterate. - **Routing guardrail metric: recall** — no bad image should slip through. ### Failure examples (Soumya) - **False-positive routing of a good burger image:** sends a high-quality image to enhancement — wasted compute for zero lift plus risk of degrading it. - **Recall miss:** image shows six chicken wings; dish name says eight pieces; routing agent approved it. Risk: enhancement model may **hallucinate two extra wings** to match the description — tied to the **faithfulness** metric. ## Drift Handling & Auto-Tuning (Soumya) - Meta point: "the static model will not work in the real system"; prompts, agents, and system must evolve. Every component can self-tune for online drift. - **Loop:** sample production data at regular cadence → human labelers (same guidelines) → compare agent output vs. labels → mismatch triggers a **diagnosis agent** (localizes the issue) → **auto-tuning pipeline** → benchmark against golden dataset → ship if pass, else iterate. - **No human in the loop**; fully config-driven; diagnoser agent writes config and triggers tuning. Observability on guardrails and quick rollback built in. - **Auto-tuning internals:** mismatch/match analysis → **prompt optimizer agent** with two sub-agents: **reflect** (denoise mismatches, find systemic issues) and **synthesize** (updates agent config from feedback, re-benchmarks). If passed, new agent version registered in an agent store and picked up by next production run. ## Enhancement Step (Soumya) - Three steps: (1) generate image-specific prompt from description + routing directives; (2) enhance; (3) **multi-dimensional QA gate** (plating, faithfulness, colors). On failure, QA feedback loops back to prompt generation. - Outcomes: pass at iteration K and publish, or take a **coverage hit** (never enhanced). - Example: sweet potato fries rejected at iteration 1 (portion size incorrect, unrealistic plating), passed at iteration 2. - **Metric: pass@K** — pass rate at the Kth iteration; expected to increase with more feedback. ## Pairwise Comparison & Failure Modes (Jai) - Eval uses **pairwise comparison** of input vs. output image assessing "better." Definition of "better" is proprietary at a high level: alignment with **product, design, policy, legal**; criteria include faithful, complete, natural, realistic. Output: yes / no / **unsure**. ### Failure examples (Jai) - **Faithfulness failure:** shrimp added that shouldn't be. - **Completeness failure:** sauce under sushi removed. - **Reward hacking:** creative edit rejected by QA, then agent over-corrects to an overly conservative generic ceramic bowl — a nugatory change despite large pixel differences. - **Frontier-model leakage:** plate covering sauce in output; object coherence / physics plausibility issues shared with frontier model teams. - **Multimodal uncertainty:** can't count eight wonton pieces in input or output → "unsure" → **rejected in production**. ## Final QA & Feedback Loops (Jai) - **Publish-ready QA** adds policy and quality checks despite redundancy — a **Swiss cheese model** to reduce chance of failures reaching production; also flags things upstream should have caught. - Multiple feedback loops beyond the model loop: internal **dogfooding** (thumbs up/down, free-form feedback from merchants, design, product teams), replaying flagged examples, benchmarking, then pushing new config. - **Diagnoser:** higher-level abstraction that takes any feedback-loop input, reflects on which agent(s) need optimization, and routes configuration fixes. - **Production metrics:** marketplace quality/health metrics, e.g., **conversion** (add-to-cart, order completion); data sliceable by geo, device, dish type, enabling segment-level tuning. ## Unresolved / Qualified Points - Jai explicitly withholds eval details as **proprietary**, describing "better" only at a high level. - Tension preserved: AI-generated look is distrusted by consumers even as the system auto-edits images — resolved only via the stated goals of faithfulness and authenticity, not eliminated. - Transcript contains speaker name inconsistencies (Jay/Jai; Sonya/Somya) and audio glitches ("we use our eyes"); attribution here follows context and video title metadata. # Speaker Attribution & Provenance Record ## Video **Title:** Building Closed-Loop Evals for a Multimodal Agent at Scale — Soumya Gupta & Jai Chopra, Uber **Video ID:** `01a15ca8-3caf-79de-b6f2-182b7e3914da` ## Speakers & Roles | Speaker | Role | Evidence | |---|---|---| | **Jai ("Jay")** | **Co-presenter / creator-side speaker**; member of Uber's computer vision team | *"My name is Jay and I'm here with Sonya. We are part of the computer vision team at Aruba [Uber]"* | | **Soumya ("Sonya"/"Somya")** | **Co-presenter / creator-side speaker**; member of Uber's computer vision team | Handoff: *"I'm going to now hand over to Somya"*; *"Jay is going to spend more time on the diagnosis side"*; *"I'll pass it on back to Jay"* | ### Speaking structure - **Jai:** Opening, use case overview (Uber Eats marketplace stats, agent goals, orchestration flow, router evals/confusion matrix), pairwise comparison evals, failure-mode examples, post-processing/publish-ready QA, feedback loops, production metrics, closing. - **Soumya:** Human-label golden dataset, guardrail metrics (recall), routing failure examples, drift handling, auto-tuning pipeline (reflect/synthesize agents), enhancement loop, pass-at-K metric, sweet potato fries example. ### Other audio - **Audience:** applause at end (no speaking role). - **No narrator, guest, or third-party interviewee**; both speakers present their own work. ## Provenance Facts - **Referenced sources/claims:** Uber Eats stats cited by Jai (e.g., ~$90B run rate/year, 20% YoY growth, 10,000 cities, millions of items added monthly) — presented as first-party company claims, no external citation given. - **Third-party claims:** Jai notes coordination with **frontier model teams** regarding object coherence/physics plausibility issues leaking into their use case. - **Proprietary content flagged:** Pairwise comparison rubric details deliberately withheld: *"this is kind of like proprietary stuff."* - **Human labelers** referenced as golden source of truth (internal annotation, not external source). - **Transcript quality note:** "Aruba"/"Rue Ba" are apparent transcription artifacts of "Uber"; "e-bows"/"vowels" for "evals." ## Promotional Segments - None identified; talk is a technical case-study presentation of the speakers' own Uber work (self-referential, not promotional for third parties). ## Comment Availability - No comment metadata supplied; **availability unknown**. \>\> My name is Jay and I'm here with Sonya. We are part of the computer vision team at Aruba. We're going to talk to you about a real world production use. Oh, my son done. Okay. Try again. Okay. Don't worry. I'll I'll manage. You hear me now? Okay, so we're going to talk to you today about a real world production use case and specifically we're going to dive into how we design the e-bows and the e-bow loops. So All right, cool. So just before we get into the agent design, we're going to talk about a little bit about the use case. So our delivery marketplace Uber Eats, we do about 90 billion run rate per year at the moment. We were adding millions of items to the marketplace each and every year. Sorry, every every month. We're growing at 20% year-on-year and and we operate in 10,000 cities globally. So not many people actually know this but our delivery marketplace is just as big as the mobility side on Uber today. Visual content actually plays a really important role for the user experience. So a photo is quite often the first signal that a customer gets that gives them that initial impression about a merchant. So a good photo can make the difference between someone scrolling through the feed and actually clicking on an item and adding to the cart. And more and more we're seeing different modalities on Uber Eats uh especially video content. But this is a problem. So, our smaller independent merchants simply just don't have the level of quality for their photos that reflect what the eater is actually going to get. And when we speak to our merchants, there are three themes that kind of emerge. Lack of time, lack of know-how, and costs cuz these professional um photo shoots actually cost a lot of money. And this can be especially \[snorts\] problematic if the merchant is updating their menu over time. So, this problem is actually pretty challenging to solve for at scale, right? Because our consumers, they want authentic, real-looking photos, um but a meaningful fraction of uh consumers actually distrust anything that is AI-generated. So, if you open up the Uber Eats app, the last thing that you want is to be scrolling through uh you know, food photography that looks like AI's lock. So, we're threading the needle here. We need to be able to stay faithful to the original image, preserve the brand of the merchant, and avoid everything looking the same. If we have the same prompt for every photo that we're editing, the diversity of the marketplace is going to collapse. We also, because we operate globally, we also have this long-tail distribution of different quality that we see it across the marketplace. Um so, we've got some examples here. You might see food photography that, you know, has poor sharpness, poor composition, not centered, uh or or poor colors as well. We also have a wide range of spectrum of user-generated content on the platform as well. So, what are our goals when we're designing these agents? When you think through these goals, you might actually be thinking through, you know, your own agents that you're building yourself. But for us, it's about one, preserving authenticity and trust. Two, improving the quality when we need to. So, we want to be able to improve quality selectively. We want to optimize globally for for the entire marketplace. We don't cannibalize certain merchants. We want to ship safely, and this is going to be an important theme throughout the talk. We want to learn continuously, and we want to operate at scale in a cost-efficient manner. So, agents are actually really well-suited to solve this problem. So, if you imagine a spectrum, on the one side, you've got something that's more deterministic. It's more rules-based. Um and uh you you have more control over it, but it's fairly it's a brittle system. It's not actually going to be able to scale for the entire marketplace. Imagine the other side, you provide an agent with obviously a lot of creativity, it has a lot of agency. Um and that's actually what we want to lean into, but we can't leave that unconstrained, right? Cuz we have certain safety and certain guardrails in place that we need to adhere to. So, we want to find a balancing act. Uh and that's kind of set the principle for the way that we think and design around agents and evals. So, now we're going to actually like dive a little bit deeper into a simplified but representative example of what we have in production. And we're going to go through each stage and how we eval it, and then talk through some continuous learning loops as well. So, first up, we have what we call an image understanding and routing agents. So, this is where multimodality is is pretty important. We actually ask the LLM to describe what it sees in the photo. Um and then we we create a structured output from that, and we send it to a router. The router will then determine, do we enhance it, or do we skip it? We skip it, we will keep the original. If we enhance it, we send it to our next agent, which is an image editing agent. And this can actually run in a loop. So, it gets feedback from a QA agent. Um it can edit uh in the in this loop and self-correct and fix things um as it goes. If it goes through a number of loops and it still fails, we we don't publish it. Then we actually send it to a final post-processing and QA step. If that's all good, we'll publish it to the menu. And the last thing that's really critical is we log everything. Just a quick note about logging. Don't know if you can actually read the JSON here, but you might notice that all of the agents in this end-to-end orchestration is within one It's It's basically a flat structure in this JSON. Um and so, this is actually incredibly useful for the entire team because anyone, be it non-technical uh technical um folks on engineering product, can actually dive in um and look at specific cases to diagnose and also roll up things to look in aggregates. Um and it's important to note here that, you know, we think this is important to start with. You want to start with your logging cuz if you don't start with it, you have nothing to optimize for, let alone set up a self-learning loop. And at Uber, we um we use our eyes. Cool. We're going to dive um a bit deeper into the router. So, the router's actually pretty straightforward. If you remember, we you know, we have this multimodality input. We look at certain text description metadata, the image itself. We ask it to to to to under um describe what it's seeing. We create structured output from that. With that structured output, we can then grade against a rubric. So, we have these pass and fail criteria. The last step is we want to decide whether or not we should enhance or skip. How do we actually eval this? This is you could think of this as a more sort of traditional classifier. So, here we we have a confusion matrix. You know, many of you are probably pretty familiar with this. Um but we can look at things like the true positive cases, the false negative negative cases, and so on and so forth. Essentially, what we're doing is we're measuring the precision recall. In practice, your routers might actually be much more sophisticated. So, for example, we might want to route an image to a lower latency smaller model to be able to save on cost and improve the user experience at the trade-off of quality. And if that's the case, instead of having a 2 by 2 matrix for your confusion matrix, you might actually have an n by n matrix. Where each grid is actually telling you whether or not you're correctly routing to that specific branch. So, I'm going to now hand over to Somya who's going to dive a little bit deeper into how we handle drift and human alignment. \>\> So, now that we spoke about how we eval the routing, I want to talk about how do you get the first version of the model out. For our use case, we consider human labels as the golden source of truth. And this is what we want to align our models to. The way we do about this is we go collect a dataset which is representative. So, you know, different cuts, geographies, dish type, image quality type. Send it to our human labelers and give them a very objective guideline to label on. This is to remove any subjective biases or any noise coming in from human labelers. Once we've got that system set up is when we start tuning our model. We take our agent, we go ahead get output from the agent, compare it to your golden dataset, evaluate if it's good enough to ship, if it meets your guardrail metrics, you go ahead and ship it. If not, then you go tune and you keep doing this until you meet your guardrail metrics. For routing, our guardrail metric is recall. We don't want any bad image to slip through our system. Here are some examples of the failures we've seen. Uh on your left you see a very good image of cheeseburger. Uh on the right you notice that the routing agent actually failed this. It said the technical is low ball and it will go send this image for enhancement. Now there's two challenges when you send this image for enhancement. Firstly, you pay the compute cost for a zero quality lift from this image. And secondly, uh there is a risk of degrading this image given it's already such a high quality image. And on the other end of the spectrum, you have a recall miss. So on your left you have an image with six chicken wings and on your right if you notice the dish name, it says eight pieces chicken wings. And your routing agent approved this image. That means So now there's a risk here if you send up send this image for enhancement and you only see six chicken wings, there's a chance your model's going to hallucinate these two extra wings to to match the description. And that's also an that's a the cut we take at our faithfulness metric that Jay earlier showed us. So the meta point I'm trying to get here is you've trained your offline model, but there will be long cases where your model is going to continue to fail and the static model will not work in the real system. You need a way such that your prompts, agents, system itself is evolving over time. And that's what we've done uh for our system as well. And I'm talking more from the routing perspective, but every component in our system is able to tune itself uh for any drift online. So what we do is we sample production data at regular cadence, uh send this to the human labelers with the same guidelines that we have seen before. Once you've got that data, we compare our agents' output with the output we got from the labelers and see if there's a mismatch. If there's a mismatch, we have an umbrella diagnosis agent which takes in the feedback, localizes where this issue is happening, and and and triggers our auto-tuning pipeline. Once we tune this agent, we go and benchmark it against our golden data set that we saw earlier, and if we pass our golden data set on the metrics that we had designed, we go ahead and ship this model. Uh if not, then you kind of keep iterating. And this happens on a regular basis on production data set. Um the beauty of this is this is completely config driven and doesn't require human in the loop. Your diagnoser agent can write your config and trigger the auto-tuning pipeline here. And this is what will keep your model sharp over time. You will have one static model with the offline, but this is what is going to keep your system alive. Um so Jay is going to spend more time on the diagnosis side of it. What I want to do is zoom into the auto-tuning bit. And again, we're looking at routing, but this is how we tune every agent in our system. Uh so we start with a target agent, and we've already got these uh unseen eval samples from our humans. We go find out the mismatch and matches and call a prompt optimizer agent. Now, this itself is two sub-agents. There's the reflect agent and the up synthesize agent. What reflect does is it it just looks at the mismatches, tries to find remove any noise, find any systemic issues that might be in your data set, and reflect on it and send that feedback to the synthesize agent. Now, the synthesize agent takes this feedback. It has your agent config. It goes and updates your agent with the new config based on the feedback it's getting. And goes and benchmarks again. If this benchmark is passed, you actually register this new agent in the new agent store. And next time your production runs, you pick up the new version of the agent. And this is a closed-loop system as I mentioned, no human in the loop. We definitely have observability on the guardrails, quick rollback built in in case of any issues with the system itself. Moving on to the next step of our orchestration flow. So we spoke about routing, moving on to the enhancement bit of it. It's a three-step process. What we do is the first step, we generate a prompt specific to this image. We take in the description, we take in the directives we were getting from our routing agent, and we go ahead and generate a prompt for this image. What needs improvement in this image specifically? And we go ahead and enhance this image. Then you've got the QA gate, which is a multi-dimensional gate, looks at multiple things like plating, faithfulness, colors. And if it passes is when you actually go ahead and publish this. If it doesn't pass, you take the feedback back from the QA gate, push it back to your generate prompt along with the initial inputs you sent it, and go ahead and enhance it again. So, there's two end results here. You either keep enhancing for K iterations and you pass your QA gate and you publish, or you take a coverage hit and you never enhance this image. Here's an example. On your left, you see a bowl of sweet potato fries. We send it up for the first iteration and our QA agent rejects it because the portion size is incorrect, the plating is very unrealistic. We take that feedback in, go for the second iteration, and we're actually able to pass it the second iteration. So, the metric we are measuring here is pass at K. Pass at K is essentially the pass rate at Kth iteration. And ideally with the more the iterations, your pass rate will increase because you're getting more feedback in. Now, I'll pass it on back to Jay to cover the rest of this. \>\> Thanks Thanks, Somya. Um So, yeah, just before we end here on the um on on the generation of the vowels, we use what's called pairwise comparison, right, for our pass at K. So, it's looking at the input image and the the output image, and it's assessing whether or not it's better. But how do we actually find what's better? So, um we're not going to dive into too much of the details here cuz this is kind of like proprietary stuff, and so we'll just mention it at a higher level that this is where you sort of For least for us at Rue Ba, we have to make sure that we're aligning with product, design, policy, legal. And this is where we're baking in what we define as a better image on the platform into our Evals. Um so, examples here, is it faithful? Is it complete? Is it natural? Is it realistic? And there's a bunch of other things as well. The output of this is then uh a yes, no, or unsure. So, here are some examples of failure modes. So, input and output on the right. The inputs on the left, outputs on the right-hand side. This might be a little bit uh difficult to to see at the first pass. We actually added shrimp here and we shouldn't be. So, we failed faithfulness. This is where we go the other way. So, the input um has some source at the bottom of the sushi. We actually remove it. So, we failed completeness. Here's actually a pretty interesting example where the agent actually attempted a more creative edit in the first iteration. Um and then the QA said, "Nope, it's not good enough." Uh and then it actually oversteers the other other way. And it becomes overly conservative. Sort of falls back to this generic ceramic plate uh ceramic bowl, sorry. So, this is an example of a reward hacking actually. And and this is a nugatory change, but something that we don't think is a meaningful or influential change despite the actual raw pixels of the input and output being pretty different. Here's another example where in the output the plate is covering the sauce. This is an example where for some some of the frontier models that we're using for the actual image editing, some of their um some of their problems will actually sort of leak up into our applied use case. Um and so, so object coherence and physics plausibility of the Evals that sometimes will coordinate with the frontier teams and and let them know about these problems and work together with them. Here's uh an example of why multimodality is is pretty important. In the input and the output, we we can't actually see that there are eight pieces here of of the wontons. So, we're not confident, actually. We're not sure. And so, this is an example where we would actually reject it in production and and it wouldn't it wouldn't go through. So, the last step after all of that is a post-processing and what we refer to as the publish-ready QA. This is the final gate before we decide we want to publish something to production. Here, we do some policy checks. We also do some more quality checks. Um and you might be wondering, like, we've already done some QA. Like, why are we going to do another step of QA? The reason is because we think of this like a Swiss cheese model. So, we want to try and optimize for reducing the chance of a failure getting into production. And so, there is some redundancy here or there. And that's okay. Um and so, this QA gate is is a little bit more holistic. It captures more things. But, it also will will try and flag things that we should have caught upstream, as well. All right. So, we've talked about a couple of uh feedback loops here. So, to summarize, we talked about predominantly this first one here, which is the model loop. And this is accounting for drifts and aligning with human labeled data set that we have and we've established offline. But, we actually have more feedback loops. So, we we have that Uber what we we have is a is a great sort of dog dog feeding culture. Um we will test apps before they go live. Um but, we also have when it goes live in production, how do we get that feedback back into our agent to be able to steer it appropriately? So, as we're adding more of these feedback loops, we want to be able to generalize the system. So, this is where we've actually created um a higher level of abstraction on top, which we call the diagnoser. So, the diagnoser can take in any input from these different feedback loops that we're we're capturing. It can reflect on what actual agent within the overall system needs to be optimized, and it can route that agent to be able to fix that configuration specifically. It could be one agent, it could be multiple agents. So, here's an example of internal dog fooding. You might see these in sort of different apps that you've got where you got the thumbs down and the thumbs up. We also take some free form feedback as well. Uh and this is actually great cuz we'll get feedback from merchants directly. We'll get feedback from, you know, design teams, other product teams uh at Uber. And we'll incorporate that feedback back into our diagnosis step and tune the system over time. Again, similar sort of workflow pattern here. We'll replay the examples that we know are those ones that have been flagged, be it good examples, be it bad examples, uh and then we'll benchmark the metrics before we push the latest config version. The last step is is actually getting this into production. And and this is where we're looking for a whole heap of different metrics we track for for the marketplace quality and health. Uh I've just called out one here, which is conversion. So, we're looking for improvements in people adding to cart, converting, completing their orders. Um I think this one's actually an interesting one to call out because now at I mean, at least at Uber, but especially in production um settings at scale, you have a wide um uh you have a lot of data that you can actually slice and dice. So, in this area as opposed to the others, what we can do is sort of slice by geos, by device type, by dish type, etc. And we can look at where things are improving in different segments and actually tune on certain segments as well. Cool, and that's it for our presentation. Appreciate it. \>\> \[applause\]