← All speakers

Bio, Work & Ideas

Deanna Emery

Conference affiliation: Quotient · 2025

Deanna Emery is an AI researcher at Databricks and the former founding AI researcher at Quotient AI, specializing in the reliability of language models, search systems, and AI agents. She led the development of HalluMix, an open benchmark that tests whether hallucination detectors recognize unsupported claims amid the ambiguous, noisy information encountered by real applications.

Emery began her research career in astrophysics at Harvard and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, leading research into a galaxy-cluster collision surrounding the radio galaxy 3C 438. At Aon, she became a principal data scientist, leading work on language models for intellectual-property valuation and contributing to a patent application for dataset-distinctiveness modeling. She completed the University of California, Berkeley’s Master of Information and Data Science program in 2023, collaborating on SignSense, an American Sign Language translation project.

  • HalluMix and hallucination detection. Emery was the lead author of the HalluMix research paper, which introduced a 6,500-example benchmark spanning healthcare, law, science, and news. Its public dataset tests detectors across question answering, summarization, inference, distracting documents, and varying context lengths, exposing meaningful tradeoffs between precision and recall.
  • Evaluation-driven retrieval optimization. Emery demonstrated how targeted experiments can improve retrieval-augmented generation by adjusting document chunking, retrieval windows, embedding models, reranking, and hybrid search over sparse and dense vectors. Her results distinguished retrieving necessary evidence from introducing irrelevant context: larger chunks improved evidence coverage while reducing faithfulness, whereas smaller chunks, broader retrieval, and reranking produced more grounded answers.

In 2026, Emery joined Databricks through its acquisition of Quotient AI, extending her work on continuous production evaluation and more dependable enterprise AI agents.

Read the topics behind these talks

2 conference talks

Key ideas

Scroll to read ↓

Dynamic datasets, reference-free metrics, and access to retrieved evidence turn search evaluation from a provider leaderboard into a way to diagnose failures.

  • Two inputs you cannot control
    0:16 ↗
  • Correct for which source, time, and user?
    2:30 ↗
  • Keep static benchmarks, refresh the questions
    4:05 ↗
  • Generate questions with an evidence trail
    6:34 ↗
  • Changing the benchmark changes the ranking
    10:21 ↗
  • The expected answer is not the whole response
    12:43 ↗
  • Three checks without a reference answer
    13:42 ↗
  • Completeness tracks performance; documents explain it
    14:58 ↗
  • Relevant evidence does not prevent unsupported claims
    17:04 ↗
  • Use the metric combination to choose an investigation
    18:40 ↗
  • Let evaluation inform the next decision
    19:26 ↗

Key ideas

Scroll to read ↓

A documentation question-answering system improves through ten experiments that separate missing evidence from noisy context, then use reranking and hybrid search to address distinct failures.

  • Start with the simplest retrieval pipeline
    0:53 ↗
  • An incorrect answer can begin upstream
    3:10 ↗
  • Improve what enters the context
    4:58 ↗
  • Choose changes with evidence
    6:34 ↗
  • Build an evaluation around the documents
    7:55 ↗
  • Distinguish missing evidence from noisy evidence
    9:59 ↗
  • Separate chunk size from retrieval window
    11:01 ↗
  • Change models, then inspect individual failures
    12:31 ↗
  • Retrieve broadly, then rerank
    13:39 ↗
  • Recover evidence that reranking cannot find
    14:53 ↗
  • Keep the experiment loop tied to the application
    16:18 ↗

References