The Measurement Imbalance in Agentic AI Evaluation Undermines Industry Productivity Claims

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.02064v1
• Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2025 19:45:04 GMT
• Title: The Measurement Imbalance in Agentic AI Evaluation Undermines Industry Productivity Claims
• Authors: Kiana Jafari Meimandi, Gabriela Aránguiz-Dias, Grace Ra Kim, Lana Saadeddin, Mykel J. Kochenderfer,
• Abstract summary: This paper demonstrates that current evaluation practices for agentic AI systems exhibit a systemic imbalance that calls into question prevailing industry productivity claims.<n>Our systematic review of 84 papers (2023--2025) reveals an evaluation imbalance where technical metrics dominate assessments.<n>We propose a balanced four-axis evaluation model and call on the community to lead this paradigm shift.
• Score: 29.710419283043574
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As industry reports claim agentic AI systems deliver double-digit productivity gains and multi-trillion dollar economic potential, the validity of these claims has become critical for investment decisions, regulatory policy, and responsible technology adoption. However, this paper demonstrates that current evaluation practices for agentic AI systems exhibit a systemic imbalance that calls into question prevailing industry productivity claims. Our systematic review of 84 papers (2023--2025) reveals an evaluation imbalance where technical metrics dominate assessments (83%), while human-centered (30%), safety (53%), and economic assessments (30%) remain peripheral, with only 15% incorporating both technical and human dimensions. This measurement gap creates a fundamental disconnect between benchmark success and deployment value. We present evidence from healthcare, finance, and retail sectors where systems excelling on technical metrics failed in real-world implementation due to unmeasured human, temporal, and contextual factors. Our position is not against agentic AI's potential, but rather that current evaluation frameworks systematically privilege narrow technical metrics while neglecting dimensions critical to real-world success. We propose a balanced four-axis evaluation model and call on the community to lead this paradigm shift because benchmark-driven optimization shapes what we build. By redefining evaluation practices, we can better align industry claims with deployment realities and ensure responsible scaling of agentic systems in high-stakes domains.

Related papers

• Bench-2-CoP: Can We Trust Benchmarking for EU AI Compliance? [2.010294990327175]
  Current AI evaluation practices depend heavily on established benchmarks.<n>These tools were not designed to measure the systemic risks that are the focus of the new regulatory landscape.<n>This research addresses the urgent need to quantify this "benchmark-regulation gap"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T15:03:39Z)
• The Architecture of Trust: A Framework for AI-Augmented Real Estate Valuation in the Era of Structured Data [0.0]
  The Uniform Appraisal dataset (UAD) 3.6's mandatory 2026 implementation transforms residential property valuation from narrative reporting to machine-readable formats.<n>This paper provides the first comprehensive analysis of this regulatory shift alongside concurrent AI advances in computer vision, natural language processing, and autonomous systems.<n>We develop a three-layer framework for AI-augmented valuation addressing technical implementation and institutional trust requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T05:24:25Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Safety by Measurement: A Systematic Literature Review of AI Safety Evaluation Methods [0.0]
  This literature review consolidates the rapidly evolving field of AI safety evaluations.<n>It proposes a systematic taxonomy around three dimensions: what properties we measure, how we measure them, and how these measurements integrate into frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T16:55:07Z)
• Evaluation Framework for AI Systems in "the Wild" [37.48117853114386]
  Generative AI (GenAI) models have become vital across industries, yet current evaluation methods have not adapted to their widespread use.<n>Traditional evaluations often rely on benchmarks and fixed datasets, frequently failing to reflect real-world performance.<n>This white paper proposes a comprehensive framework for how we should evaluate real-world GenAI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T14:52:39Z)
• AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons [62.374792825813394]
  This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability.<n>The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T05:58:52Z)
• Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation [2.2241228857601727]
  This paper presents an interdisciplinary meta-review of about 100 studies that discuss shortcomings in quantitative benchmarking practices.<n>It brings together many fine-grained issues in the design and application of benchmarks with broader sociotechnical issues.<n>Our review also highlights a series of systemic flaws in current practices, such as misaligned incentives, construct validity issues, unknown unknowns, and problems with the gaming of benchmark results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T15:25:06Z)
• The Dual-use Dilemma in LLMs: Do Empowering Ethical Capacities Make a Degraded Utility? [54.18519360412294]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) must balance between rejecting harmful requests for safety and accommodating legitimate ones for utility.<n>This paper presents a Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) based alignment framework that achieves better overall performance.<n>We analyze experimental results obtained from testing DeepSeek-R1 on our benchmark and reveal the critical ethical concerns raised by this highly acclaimed model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T06:35:01Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Evaluating the Social Impact of Generative AI Systems in Systems and Society [43.32010533676472]
  Generative AI systems across modalities, ranging from text (including code), image, audio, and video, have broad social impacts. There is no official standard for means of evaluating those impacts or for which impacts should be evaluated. We present a guide that moves toward a standard approach in evaluating a base generative AI system for any modality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T15:05:13Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• Explanations of Machine Learning predictions: a mandatory step for its application to Operational Processes [61.20223338508952]
  Credit Risk Modelling plays a paramount role. Recent machine and deep learning techniques have been applied to the task. We suggest to use LIME technique to tackle the explainability problem in this field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-30T10:27:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.