<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: Artur Woszczyk</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by Artur Woszczyk (@artur_woszczyk).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/artur_woszczyk</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/artur_woszczyk"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>0̸ Knowledge</title>
      <dc:creator>Artur Woszczyk</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2026 10:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/artur_woszczyk/0-knowledge-h6f</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/artur_woszczyk/0-knowledge-h6f</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Un'applicazione gratuita per lavorare con la propria conoscenza attraverso l'intelligenza artificiale locale.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;0̸ Knowledge è un'applicazione in beta che integra una base di conoscenza documentale, una chat con l'intelligenza artificiale e strumenti per analizzare, confrontare e verificare i contenuti.&lt;br&gt;
Non è soltanto una chat collegata ai propri documenti. È un ambiente progettato per lavorare con le proprie fonti, interrogarle in linguaggio naturale e utilizzare modelli di IA in locale.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Cosa offre già oggi&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Chat con l'intelligenza artificiale&lt;/strong&gt;: puoi porre domande e sviluppare analisi a partire dalla tua base di conoscenza.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Più modelli disponibili&lt;/strong&gt;: puoi scegliere tra Qwen3 4B, Qwen3.5 4B e Qwen3.5 9B, in base alle risorse del computer.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Knowledge base personale&lt;/strong&gt;: puoi organizzare i tuoi documenti come riferimento per le conversazioni.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Fonti ed evidenze&lt;/strong&gt;: puoi consultare i contenuti recuperati e verificare gli estratti attraverso l'Inspector.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Analisi strutturate&lt;/strong&gt;: comandi dedicati permettono di orientare il lavoro e confrontare informazioni.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Applicazione installabile&lt;/strong&gt;: è pensata anche per computer non recenti, con prestazioni legate alla configurazione hardware e al modello scelto.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Il principio architetturale è preciso: &lt;strong&gt;il sistema determina, il modello interpreta&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Le operazioni eseguibili attraverso regole definite non devono necessariamente essere affidate alla generazione del modello. L'obiettivo è combinare elaborazione deterministica, recupero delle fonti e capacità interpretativa dell'IA.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Privacy by design&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
La privacy non è una modalità da attivare: è una scelta progettuale.&lt;br&gt;
I modelli vengono elaborati localmente e l'applicazione non integra telemetria d'utilizzo. Il progetto migliora anche grazie al feedback volontario degli utenti.&lt;br&gt;
I modelli locali permettono di lavorare senza dover necessariamente affidare i propri contenuti a servizi remoti, pur senza rendere automaticamente sicuri qualsiasi computer o documento.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Dalla beta alla versione 1.0&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
0̸ Knowledge è nato per uso personale e successivamente è diventato un'applicazione installabile disponibile anche agli altri.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Resterà gratuito anche dopo la beta&lt;/strong&gt;. Non è una versione di prova destinata a diventare un prodotto a pagamento.&lt;br&gt;
Con la versione 1.0 è previsto anche il rilascio open source della libreria core, per condividere con la comunità degli sviluppatori una parte fondamentale del lavoro.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Più controllo sui propri dati, più possibilità di scelta e strumenti concreti, senza promesse che non possano essere verificate.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;0̸ Knowledge — La tua conoscenza, sul tuo computer.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href="https://0knowledge.anonipro.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;https://0knowledge.anonipro.com/&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>ai</category>
      <category>privacy</category>
      <category>opensource</category>
      <category>rag</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I built a deterministic LLM evaluation engine without an LLM judge</title>
      <dc:creator>Artur Woszczyk</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2026 11:08:34 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/artur_woszczyk/i-built-a-deterministic-llm-evaluation-engine-without-an-llm-judge-15j9</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/artur_woszczyk/i-built-a-deterministic-llm-evaluation-engine-without-an-llm-judge-15j9</guid>
      <description>&lt;h1&gt;
  
  
  I built a deterministic LLM evaluation engine without an LLM judge
&lt;/h1&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Most current LLM evaluation workflows eventually face a version of the same problem:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;How do you evaluate the output of a model?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;One common approach is to use another LLM as the evaluator.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That can be useful, but it also introduces another model, another source of variability, and another layer of judgment into the evaluation process.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I wanted to explore a different approach.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So I built &lt;strong&gt;DIBER Core&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  What is DIBER?
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;DIBER is an open-source deterministic evaluation engine for LLM outputs.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It does not ask an LLM to judge another LLM.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Instead, it works from an explicit evaluation structure:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;LLM run → Ground Truth → human-defined classifications → deterministic engine → audit report&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The engine performs the normalization, weighting, comparison and statistical calculations.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The same structured inputs produce the same report.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  It does not reduce everything to one score
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A model can cover a large amount of information while still producing significant errors.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It can also provide a technically correct answer while omitting important points.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So DIBER keeps different dimensions separate.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It evaluates things such as:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Coverage&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Quality&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Usable information&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Effective information&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Omissions&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Errors&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Mathematical errors&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Hallucinations&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Overclaims&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Inferences&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Extra unsupported claims&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Relation consistency&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The goal is to make the behavior visible rather than hiding it behind one aggregate number.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Ground Truth hallucinations and extra claims
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;One distinction I wanted to preserve was between two different situations.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A hallucination can occur while handling an expected Ground Truth point.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But a model can also introduce a claim that was never part of the Ground Truth.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;DIBER keeps these separate.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This makes it possible to inspect both the expected information structure and additional unsupported claims produced by the model.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Comparison is also part of the evaluation
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Another problem appears when comparing two model runs.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If the result changes, what actually changed?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;DIBER tracks experimental identity across:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;model&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;prompt&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;input&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;context&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;and classifies comparisons as:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;replication&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;single-variable change&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;multidimensional&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;indeterminate&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A comparison is not automatically considered controlled simply because two runs can be placed next to each other.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Repeated runs
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;DIBER can also group repeated runs with the same known experimental configuration.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It calculates statistics including:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;sample count&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;mean&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;minimum&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;maximum&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;range&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;standard deviation&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;confidence interval&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This makes it possible to examine not only the result of a run, but also the stability of a configuration across repeated runs.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  It is designed to be used as software
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;DIBER Core is available as an npm package:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight shell"&gt;&lt;code&gt;npm &lt;span class="nb"&gt;install&lt;/span&gt; @anonipro/diber-core
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;It includes a CLI:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight shell"&gt;&lt;code&gt;npx diber evaluate &lt;span class="se"&gt;\&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="nt"&gt;--truth&lt;/span&gt; ./tests/gt.json &lt;span class="se"&gt;\&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="nt"&gt;--evals&lt;/span&gt; ./tests/runs.json &lt;span class="se"&gt;\&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="nt"&gt;--out&lt;/span&gt; ./report.json
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;and deterministic quality gates:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight shell"&gt;&lt;code&gt;npx diber assert &lt;span class="se"&gt;\&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="nt"&gt;--max-hallucination&lt;/span&gt; 0.02 &lt;span class="se"&gt;\&lt;/span&gt;
  &lt;span class="nt"&gt;--min-quality&lt;/span&gt; 0.90 &lt;span class="se"&gt;\&lt;/span&gt;
  ./report.json
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;



&lt;p&gt;It can also be integrated directly into Node.js applications and test suites, or used in the browser.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  The visual layer
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I also built a browser-based showcase around the Core.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It takes a synthetic experiment, runs the actual DIBER engine and visualizes the resulting metrics.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The point of the showcase is not to create another dashboard score.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It is to make the underlying evaluation structure visible:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;What changed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Which points changed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Which failure modes changed?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Was the comparison controlled?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Was the result stable across repeated runs?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://diber.anonipro.com/en/showcase" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;https://diber.anonipro.com/en/showcase&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Open source
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;DIBER Core is released under the MIT License.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;GitHub:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://github.com/ANONIPRO/diber-core" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;https://github.com/ANONIPRO/diber-core&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;npm:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.npmjs.com/package/@anonipro/diber-core" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;https://www.npmjs.com/package/@anonipro/diber-core&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I'm interested in technical feedback, especially around the evaluation methodology, metrics and comparison model.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If you work on LLM evaluation, model testing, QA, benchmarking, AI research or developer tooling, I'd be interested in seeing how you approach the same problem.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Try it, inspect the code, and tell me where the methodology breaks.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>ai</category>
      <category>opensource</category>
      <category>llm</category>
      <category>javascript</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
