The Metrics of Intelligence: A Holistic Framework for Evaluating Modern AI Systems

Posted on by uplatzblog

Executive Summary

The evaluation of Artificial Intelligence, specifically Large Language Models (LLMs) and autonomous agentic systems, has entered a period of profound transformation. We are currently witnessing a decoupling between traditional performance metrics and real-world utility, a phenomenon often described as the “evaluation gap.” As generative models transition from research curiosities to critical infrastructure in healthcare, software engineering, and enterprise decision-making, the methodologies used to assess them have failed to keep pace. The historical reliance on static, static-state benchmarks—such as the Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) or simplistic accuracy scores—has proven dangerously insufficient for measuring the capabilities of systems that now reason, plan, and interact with dynamic environments.

This report provides an exhaustive, expert-level analysis of the emerging multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks designed to close this gap. It posits that the industry is shifting from a paradigm of “leaderboard engineering”—where models are optimized for specific, often contaminated datasets—to a paradigm of “holistic evaluation.” This new approach, exemplified by frameworks like HELM (Holistic Evaluation of Language Models) and AI for IMPACTS, prioritizes transparency, reasoning stability, and socio-technical safety over single-number scores. It recognizes that a model’s ability to answer a multiple-choice question about biology is distinct from its ability to diagnose a patient, which requires maintaining logical consistency, avoiding hallucinations, and adhering to safety protocols under uncertainty.

The analysis synthesizes insights from over 160 distinct research sources to construct a comprehensive roadmap for measuring what truly matters. It explores the nuances of probabilistic reasoning metrics like G-Pass@k, which penalize instability in thought processes; RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) assessment protocols that mathematically dissect the relationship between retrieved evidence and generated answers; and agentic benchmarks like WebArena and SWE-bench that test functional execution in realistic digital environments. Furthermore, it delves into the adversarial landscape, detailing automated red-teaming frameworks like SafeSearch that simulate malicious actors to stress-test model defenses.

Ultimately, this document serves as a definitive guide for researchers, engineers, and policymakers. It argues that trust in AI systems cannot be derived from a single metric but must be built upon a layered stack of evaluations that interrogate the model’s logic, verify its facts, constrain its behaviors, and validate its utility in the messy, unstructured reality of human interaction.

1. The Crisis of Static Benchmarking: Why Traditional Metrics Fail

The foundations of AI evaluation were laid in an era where models were significantly less capable than they are today. Benchmarks like GLUE and SuperGLUE were designed to test specific linguistic competencies—sentiment analysis, textual entailment, and grammatical correctness. As models scaled, the community adopted more challenging datasets like MMLU (measuring world knowledge), HellaSwag (commonsense reasoning), and GSM8K (grade school math). For a time, these served as effective north stars, driving architectural innovations and training scaling laws. However, the rapid ascent of frontier models has rendered these static benchmarks increasingly obsolete, creating a crisis of measurement that obscures true progress and risk.1

1.1 The Saturation and Contamination Problem

The primary driver of this crisis is the saturation of benchmarks. Modern frontier models frequently achieve human or super-human performance on datasets like MMLU, scoring upwards of 90%.2 When the margin for error becomes negligible, the benchmark loses its discriminative power. It becomes impossible to distinguish whether a marginal improvement of 0.5% represents a genuine breakthrough in reasoning or merely statistical noise.

Furthermore, the integrity of these benchmarks is compromised by data contamination. Because LLMs are trained on internet-scale corpora, the questions and answers contained in public benchmarks often leak into the training data. A model that “solves” a math problem may simply be recalling a solution it has seen during pre-training, rather than deriving it from first principles. This phenomenon transforms what should be a test of generalization into a test of memorization. The result is a “capability illusion,” where high leaderboard scores mask brittle performance in novel, real-world scenarios.3

1.2 Goodhart’s Law in Generative AI

Goodhart’s Law states that “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” In the competitive landscape of AI development, where leaderboard rankings translate directly to venture capital and market share, models are aggressively optimized for benchmark performance. This optimization often comes at the expense of broader, harder-to-measure qualities like safety, verbosity, or user alignment.

For instance, a model might be fine-tuned to answer MMLU-style multiple-choice questions with high precision but fail catastrophically when asked to explain its reasoning or when the question format is slightly altered. This overfitting to the evaluation format creates a disconnect between the “lab” performance and “field” performance. A model scoring 95% on MMLU might struggle to draft a coherent email or follow a multi-step instruction in a corporate workflow, simply because those tasks require dynamic context management and stylistic adaptability not captured by static multiple-choice questions.2

1.3 The Need for Holistic Evaluation Frameworks

In response to these limitations, the field is coalescing around the concept of Holistic Evaluation. This paradigm shifts the focus from optimizing a single accuracy metric to assessing a system across a broad spectrum of dimensions. A holistic framework is defined as a multi-dimensional methodology that integrates diverse metrics and experimental scenarios to assess AI systems beyond traditional accuracy. It employs explicit taxonomies and scenario–metric matrices to rigorously evaluate key aspects such as privacy, robustness, fairness, and efficiency.5

The Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM), developed by the Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models (CRFM), is a prime exemplar of this approach. HELM explicitly rejects the notion of a single “best” model. Instead, it measures models across a vast matrix of scenarios (tasks) and metrics (accuracy, calibration, robustness, fairness, bias, toxicity, and efficiency). This transparency allows stakeholders to understand the trade-offs: a model might be highly accurate but computationally expensive, or highly robust but prone to toxicity. HELM effectively standardizes the taxonomy of evaluation, ensuring that “safety” or “reasoning” means the same thing across different model cards.6

Similarly, in specialized domains like healthcare, frameworks like AI for IMPACTS have emerged. This framework organizes evaluation into seven distinct clusters: Integration, Monitoring, Performance, Acceptability, Cost, Technological safety, and Scalability.8 The inclusion of “Integration” and “Cost” highlights a crucial shift: real-world evaluation must account for the socio-technical context. A medical AI that is 99% accurate but cannot interoperate with Electronic Health Records (EHR) or costs $100 per diagnosis is functionally useless. These holistic frameworks force developers to confront the implications of deployment, not just the capabilities of the architecture.

Table 1: Evolution of AI Evaluation Paradigms

Feature Static Benchmarking (Legacy) Holistic Evaluation (Modern)
Primary Metric Accuracy / F1 Score Multi-dimensional (Safety, Bias, Efficiency, Robustness)
Test Data Fixed, public datasets (e.g., MMLU) Dynamic, private, and adversarial datasets
Scope Single task (e.g., translation) System-level behavior and trade-offs
Failure Mode Incorrect answer Process failure, toxicity, hallucination, inefficiency
Goal Leaderboard ranking Deployment readiness and risk mitigation
Example GLUE, SuperGLUE HELM, AI for IMPACTS, RAGAS

2. Deep Dive into Reasoning Evaluation: Measuring the Unobservable

As LLMs evolve from statistical pattern matchers into “reasoning engines,” the challenge of evaluation shifts from checking what the model knows to verifying how it thinks. Reasoning—the ability to decompose complex problems, maintain logical coherence, and derive conclusions from premises—is notoriously difficult to quantify. A correct answer does not guarantee correct reasoning; a model might arrive at the right conclusion through flawed logic or simple guessing. This necessitates a new class of metrics focusing on process, stability, and logical consistency.4

2.1 Probabilistic Reasoning and G-Pass@k

In domains like mathematics and code generation, the stochastic nature of LLMs means that a single output is rarely a sufficient indicator of capability. A model might solve a problem once by chance but fail on the next ten attempts. To address this, the Pass@k metric has become standard. Pass@k measures the probability that at least one correct solution exists within $k$ generated samples. This metric acknowledges that for many applications (like coding assistants), the user is willing to review a few suggestions to find the right one.11

However, Pass@k has a flaw: it rewards “lucky hits.” It can mask underlying instability where a model’s grasp of the concept is tenuous. To counter this, researchers have introduced G-Pass@k, a metric designed to assess reasoning stability. G-Pass@k continuously evaluates performance across multiple sampling attempts to quantify the consistency of the reasoning. It penalizes high variance, distinguishing between a model that knows the answer (and gets it right predominantly) and one that is merely guessing.12

Further refining this, the Cover@$\tau$ metric introduces reliability thresholds. It demonstrates that standard Pass@k is effectively a weighted average biased toward low-reliability regions—essentially emphasizing the model’s “best guess” rather than its reliable performance. By evaluating at high reliability thresholds (e.g., $\tau \in [0.8, 1.0]$), Cover@$\tau$ exposes the true “reasoning boundary” of the model, revealing the limits of tasks it can perform with industrial-grade reliability.14

2.2 Logical Preference Consistency

Beyond solving specific problems, a reasoning agent must exhibit logical consistency. It should not hold contradictory beliefs or preferences. If a model asserts that “A is better than B” and “B is better than C,” it must logically assert that “A is better than C” (Transitivity). Recent research focuses on quantifying these formal logical properties as proxies for overall model robustness.15

Three fundamental properties are evaluated:

  1. Transitivity: Ensuring preference orderings are consistent ($A > B \land B > C \implies A > C$). Violations here indicate a fundamental inability to maintain a coherent world model.
  2. Commutativity: Ensuring that the order of options presented does not alter the decision (e.g., “A vs B” should yield the same result as “B vs A”). LLMs are notoriously sensitive to positional bias, often preferring the first option presented.
  3. Negation Invariance: Ensuring that the logical truth of a statement holds under negation (e.g., if “X is true” is Yes, then “X is false” must be No).

Studies show that high scores on these consistency metrics correlate strongly with performance on downstream reasoning tasks. A model that is logically consistent is less likely to hallucinate or be “jailbroken” by contradictory prompts. However, even state-of-the-art models frequently fail these tests, revealing gaps in their deductive closure—for example, knowing a “magpie is a bird” and “birds have wings,” but failing to affirm that “a magpie has wings”.17

2.3 Evaluating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Processes

The advent of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting—and models like OpenAI’s o1 which internalize this process—has made reasoning partially observable. The evaluation challenge is to assess the quality of the reasoning trace itself, not just the final answer. This is critical for “process supervision,” where we want to reward the model for correct steps even if the final calculation is wrong (or conversely, punish it for getting the right answer via wrong steps).10

Metrics for CoT evaluation include:

  • Goodness@0.1: A measure used in aligning reasoning models to ensure the hidden chain of thought remains safe and helpful.
  • CoT Faithfulness: Measuring whether the stated reasoning actually influenced the final output. Discrepancies here indicate “post-hoc rationalization,” where the model generates a justification after deciding on the answer, rather than using the reasoning to reach the answer.
  • TASER (Translation Assessment via Systematic Evaluation and Reasoning): This methodology utilizes Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) to conduct step-by-step evaluations of tasks like translation. By forcing the evaluator model to explicitly reason about why a translation is good or bad before assigning a score, TASER achieves higher correlation with human judgment than traditional n-gram metrics. It demonstrates that “reasoning about reasoning” is a powerful meta-evaluation technique.19

3. Factuality, Grounding, and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)

In enterprise applications, creativity is often a bug, not a feature. The primary requirement is factuality—the adherence to truth—and grounding—the strict adherence to provided source material. The widespread adoption of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) architectures has shifted evaluation from “what does the model know?” to “how well can the model use what it retrieves?” This requires a granular dissection of the RAG pipeline.22

3.1 The RAGAS Framework: A Standard for Grounding

RAGAS (Retrieval-Augmented Generation Assessment Score) has emerged as the definitive framework for evaluating RAG systems. It rejects the black-box approach, instead evaluating the retrieval and generation components separately to diagnose failure modes.23

RAGAS employs a suite of mathematically rigorous metrics:

  • Context Precision ($CP$): This metric evaluates the signal-to-noise ratio in the retrieval phase. It asks: “Is the relevant information ranked highly in the retrieved chunks?” Mathematically, it resembles Average Precision in information retrieval. High context precision is vital because LLMs suffer from the “lost in the middle” phenomenon, where they ignore relevant information buried amidst irrelevant retrieved text.

    $$CP = \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{K} (Precision@k \times rel_k)}{\text{Total Relevant Items}}$$

    Here, $rel_k$ is an indicator function for relevance at rank $k$. A low score indicates the retriever is flooding the LLM with noise.25
  • Context Recall ($CR$): This measures the completeness of retrieval. It asks: “Did the system retrieve all the information needed to answer the query?” It is calculated by analyzing the ground truth answer and verifying if each of its claims can be attributed to the retrieved context. A low CR score implies the retrieval database or query expansion strategy is deficient.25
  • Faithfulness ($F$): This is the primary metric for hallucination detection. It measures the alignment between the generated answer and the retrieved context. It breaks the answer into atomic claims and verifies each against the source.

    $$F = \frac{\text{Number of Claims supported by Context}}{\text{Total Claims in Answer}}$$

    A score less than 1.0 indicates intrinsic hallucination—the model is inventing facts not present in the source.26
  • Answer Relevancy: This ensures the model actually answers the user’s question. It is often calculated by using an LLM to generate hypothetical questions that the generated answer would address, and then measuring the semantic similarity between these hypothetical questions and the original user query. If they diverge, the answer is irrelevant, even if factually true.27

3.2 Taxonomy of Hallucinations

To effectively mitigate hallucinations, researchers distinguish between two distinct types, each requiring different evaluation strategies 28:

  1. Intrinsic Hallucinations: The generated output directly contradicts the source material provided in the context. This is a failure of logic, reading comprehension, or instruction following. It is measured by metrics like Faithfulness and consistency checks.
  2. Extrinsic Hallucinations: The generated output contains information not present in the source material. In a strict RAG system, this is a failure even if the information is factually correct in the real world (e.g., adding the capital of France when the text didn’t mention it). This represents “leakage” of pre-trained knowledge, which is dangerous in domains where the external world changes (e.g., dynamic pricing or changing medical guidelines).

The HalluLens benchmark addresses the difficulty of measuring these phenomena by generating dynamic evaluation data. Unlike static datasets that models might memorize, HalluLens regenerates test cases to ensure that the evaluation of hallucination remains robust against data contamination. It categorizes errors systematically, linking them to specific stages in the LLM lifecycle, thus offering actionable insights for developers.29

3.3 Hallucination Leaderboards and Benchmarks

Public leaderboards like the Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard (HHEM) provide comparative data on model faithfulness. They quantify the “Hallucination Rate”—the percentage of summaries that introduce ungrounded information. Recent data reveals significant variance: models like antgroup/finix_s1_32b achieve hallucination rates as low as 1.8%, while others hover around 5-6%.32 For critical summarization tasks, this metric is often more important than fluency or style.

4. Agentic AI and Tool Use: From Chat to Action

The evolution of LLMs into Agents—systems capable of autonomous planning, tool use, and environment interaction—demands a fundamental shift in evaluation. A chat response is static; an agentic trajectory is dynamic. Evaluating an agent involves assessing its ability to change the state of the world (e.g., modify a database, book a flight) correctly and efficiently.33

4.1 Environment-Based Benchmarks: WebArena and AgentBench

Evaluating agents requires “flight simulators” for AI. WebArena is a premier benchmark that simulates a realistic, interactive web environment containing e-commerce sites, social forums, and development tools. Unlike static evaluations, WebArena measures functional correctness based on the final state of the environment.

  • Task Example: “Buy the cheapest phone case compliant with these specs.”
  • Evaluation: Did the transaction log record the purchase of the correct item ID? Was the budget respected?
  • Why it matters: This captures failure modes invisible to text metrics, such as navigating to the wrong page, failing to click a button due to UI changes, or getting stuck in a loop. WebArena utilizes containerized environments to ensure reproducibility, resetting the “world” after every run.35

AgentBench expands this to a broader set of eight environments, including Operating Systems (bash scripting), Databases (SQL), Knowledge Graphs, and Digital Card Games. It uses Success Rate (SR) as the primary metric, aggregating performance across these diverse domains to test the agent’s generalization capability. A key finding from AgentBench is the disparity between “chat” capability and “acting” capability; many models that write eloquent code fail to execute it effectively in a bash environment due to an inability to handle error messages or unexpected system states.38

4.2 Function Calling and API Interaction

For agents to integrate with enterprise software, they must reliably call APIs. The Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) is the standard for evaluating this capability. It assesses:

  1. AST Accuracy: Can the model generate syntactically valid JSON/code for the function call?
  2. Executable Evaluation: When the function is executed, does it produce the correct return value?
  3. Parallel Function Calling: Can the model invoke multiple tools simultaneously to solve a complex query (e.g., “Get weather for NY and London”)?
  4. Relevance Detection: Does the model know when not to call a tool? This is crucial for reducing latency and cost.
    Current results show that while simple function calling is becoming commoditized, parallel execution and complex parameter handling remain differentiating factors for frontier models.33

4.3 Coding Agents: SWE-bench

SWE-bench represents the pinnacle of coding agent evaluation. It tasks models with resolving real-world GitHub issues. The model is given a codebase and an issue description, and it must generate a patch.

  • Evaluation Protocol: The patch is applied to the repo, and new test cases (fail-to-pass) are run. If the tests pass without breaking existing functionality (pass-to-pass), the issue is considered resolved.
  • The “Verified” Subset: Recognizing that open-source tests can be flaky or poorly specified, the SWE-bench Verified subset involves human validation of the test cases to ensure they are fair and deterministic. This significantly reduces noise, providing a cleaner signal of the agent’s software engineering prowess.43

4.4 Efficiency Metrics: Cost, Latency, and Trajectory

In agentic systems, the process is as important as the outcome. An agent that solves a task but takes 100 steps and costs $50 in tokens is not viable. Key efficiency metrics include:

  • Trajectory Efficiency: Comparing the number of steps taken by the agent to the optimal path. High inefficiency often correlates with fragility; agents that “wander” are more likely to hallucinate or encounter bugs.46
  • Token Usage & Cost: Monitoring the financial cost per successful task. This is a critical business metric for deploying agents at scale.47
  • End-to-End Latency: The wall-clock time for task completion. For interactive agents, high latency destroys user experience, necessitating metrics that track “time to first token” versus “time to completion”.34

5. Safety, Security, and Automated Red Teaming

As models become more capable, they also become more dangerous if misaligned. Safety evaluation has evolved from simple “bad word” lists to sophisticated, adversarial Red Teaming operations that actively attempt to subvert the model’s guardrails.

5.1 Automated Red Teaming Frameworks

Manual red teaming is slow and unscalable. Frameworks like SafeSearch and JailbreakEval automate this process using LLMs to attack other LLMs.

  • SafeSearch Framework: This system uses a team of specialized LLM agents. One agent generates adversarial test cases (e.g., queries seeking harmful information). Another agent generates “toxic” search results (e.g., fake websites promoting conspiracy theories) to test if the target search agent will cite them. A third agent acts as a safety evaluator, scoring the target’s response. This setup allows for assessing indirect prompt injection risks, where the threat comes from external data rather than the user.48
  • JailbreakEval: This toolkit standardizes the evaluation of jailbreak attacks. It categorizes attacks (e.g., “Do Anything Now” prompts, payload splitting) and measures the Attack Success Rate (ASR). It helps developers understand which specific vectors their models are vulnerable to.51

5.2 The Trade-off: Safety vs. Over-Refusal

A critical metric in modern safety evaluation is False Refusal Rate (or Over-Refusal). Early safety-tuned models often refused benign requests (e.g., “how to kill a process in Linux”) because they triggered vague “violence” filters. This destroys utility.

Current protocols measure Goodness@0.1 and compliance on benign edge cases. The goal is a model that is “harmless” (refuses bomb-making instructions) but “helpful” (answers difficult but safe questions). Evaluation involves plotting a Pareto frontier between safety compliance and helpfulness; the best models push this frontier outward rather than sacrificing one for the other.10

5.3 Bias Quantification: Allocational vs. Representational Harm

Evaluating bias requires distinguishing between types of harm:

  • Allocational Harm: Does the model unfairly withhold resources or opportunities? For example, does a resume-screening agent score candidates differently based on implied ethnicity? Metrics here focus on Scoring Rate Disparity and calibration differences across groups.52
  • Representational Harm: Does the model reinforce stereotypes? Tools like UNQOVER measure stereotype amplification (e.g., associating “doctor” with men and “nurse” with women).
  • Holistic AI Library: This open-source toolkit provides standardized metrics for these disparities, allowing organizations to generate “Bias Reports” akin to financial audits. Crucially, research indicates that generic bias metrics often fail to predict specific downstream harms, arguing for task-specific bias audits.52

6. Long-Context and Multimodal Evaluation

The expansion of context windows (to 128k, 1M+ tokens) has enabled models to process entire books or codebases. However, “supporting” a context length is not the same as effectively “reasoning” over it.

6.1 The RULER Benchmark

Early evaluations used the “Needle-in-a-Haystack” test (finding a single fact). While useful, it is too simple. The RULER benchmark introduces a more rigorous suite of tasks:

  1. Multi-hop Tracing: The model must connect pieces of evidence separated by thousands of tokens.
  2. Aggregation: The model must find and summarize the most frequent words or entities across a long document.
  3. Variable Tracking: Maintaining the state of variables in a long code execution trace.
    RULER results reveal the “Effective Context Length” is often much shorter than the theoretical maximum. Performance on reasoning tasks often degrades non-linearly; a model might be perfect at 32k tokens but collapse to random guessing at 64k, highlighting the need for this stress testing.55

7. The Human Element: Hybrid Evaluation Protocols

Despite the advances in automated metrics, human judgment remains the gold standard for nuance, tone, and final user satisfaction. The industry is converging on hybrid protocols that leverage the scale of AI and the precision of human insight.

7.1 LLM-as-a-Judge

The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm uses a strong model (like GPT-4) to grade the outputs of other models.

  • Pros: Scalable, fast, and correlates relatively well with human preferences for fluency and coherence.
  • Cons: Biased towards longer, more “confident” sounding answers (verbosity bias). It struggles with verifying factual correctness in niche domains.
  • Mitigation: Techniques like G-Eval use Chain-of-Thought within the judge model to align its criteria. Furthermore, using a “Panel of Judges” (multiple models voting) significantly increases reliability.58

7.2 Collaborative Auditing

Frameworks like AdaTest++ and LLMAuditor facilitate Collaborative Auditing. In this workflow, human experts form hypotheses about potential failure modes (e.g., “I suspect the model is biased against non-native English speakers”). They then use an LLM tool to generate hundreds of test cases to validate this hypothesis. This Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) approach combines human intuition with machine scale, uncovering failures that neither would find alone.61

7.3 User Satisfaction Estimation (USE)

In live deployments, we cannot ask users to rate every interaction. User Satisfaction Estimation (USE) employs proxies to infer quality:

  • Implicit Signals: Did the user rephrase their query? (Bad). Did they copy-paste the code? (Good). Did they terminate the session early?
  • SPUR (Supervised Prompting for User satisfaction Rubrics): This method uses an LLM to analyze conversation logs and score them based on a rubric derived from a small set of human-labeled data. It provides a more granular and interpretable satisfaction score than simple sentiment analysis.64

8. Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

The era of evaluating AI via a single “accuracy” number is over. The complexity of modern systems—combining reasoning, retrieval, and action—demands a sophisticated, multi-layered evaluation strategy. We are moving toward Evidence-Based AI, where trust is earned through transparent, rigorous, and continuous testing.

8.1 Strategic Recommendations for Organizations

  1. Adopt a Tiered Evaluation Stack:
  • Tier 1 (CI/CD): Automated unit tests using static benchmarks (for regression) and Hallucination checks (Faithfulness metric) on every commit.
  • Tier 2 (System Eval): Weekly runs of RAGAS (for knowledge systems) or WebArena (for agents) to track system-level performance.
  • Tier 3 (Audit): Pre-deployment Red Teaming using SafeSearch protocols and a Human-in-the-Loop audit of a random sample.
  1. Instrument for Observability: Implement G-Pass@k logic in production logging. Don’t just log the final answer; log the stability of the response (by sampling in the background) to detect drift in reasoning reliability.
  2. Focus on the Process: For high-stakes applications (finance, health), evaluate the Chain of Thought. Use metrics that penalize unfaithful reasoning, ensuring the model isn’t just getting the right answer for the wrong reasons.
  3. Embrace Hybrid Protocols: Do not rely solely on LLM-as-a-Judge. Calibrate your automated judges regularly against a “Golden Set” of human evaluations to prevent metric drift.

Table 2: Recommended Evaluation Frameworks by Use Case

Use Case Primary Risk Recommended Frameworks Key Metrics
Knowledge Retrieval (RAG) Hallucination RAGAS, HalluLens Faithfulness, Context Precision, Answer Relevancy
Autonomous Agents Task Failure, Cost WebArena, AgentBench Success Rate, Trajectory Efficiency, Cost per Task
Coding Assistants Bugs, Security SWE-bench Verified Pass-to-Pass, Vulnerability Scanning
Reasoning / Math Logical Errors G-Pass@k, TASER Reasoning Stability, Transitivity Score
Public-Facing Chatbot Toxicity, Jailbreak SafeSearch, JailbreakEval Attack Success Rate, False Refusal Rate

By implementing these frameworks, organizations can move beyond the “vibe check” and establish a rigorous foundation for deploying AI that is not only powerful but reliable, safe, and truly useful.