Results-Actionability Gap: Understanding How Practitioners Evaluate LLM Products in the Wild

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.16304v1
• Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2026 10:36:59 GMT
• Title: Results-Actionability Gap: Understanding How Practitioners Evaluate LLM Products in the Wild
• Abstract summary: We identify ten evaluation practices spanning informal 'vibe checks' to organizational meta-work.<n>We introduce a novel fifth we call the results-actionability gap, in which practitioners gather evaluation data but cannot translate findings into concrete improvements.<n>Our analysis suggests these interpretive practices are necessary adaptations to LLM characteristics rather than methodological failures.
• Score: 33.360335897400965
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: How do product teams evaluate LLM-powered products? As organizations integrate large language models (LLMs) into digital products, their unpredictable nature makes traditional evaluation approaches inadequate, yet little is known about how practitioners navigate this challenge. Through interviews with nineteen practitioners across diverse sectors, we identify ten evaluation practices spanning informal 'vibe checks' to organizational meta-work. Beyond confirming four documented challenges, we introduce a novel fifth we call the results-actionability gap, in which practitioners gather evaluation data but cannot translate findings into concrete improvements. Drawing on patterns from successful teams, we contribute strategies to bridge this gap, supporting practitioners' formalization journey from ad-hoc interpretive practices (e.g., vibe checks) toward systematic evaluation. Our analysis suggests these interpretive practices are necessary adaptations to LLM characteristics rather than methodological failures. For HCI researchers, this presents a research opportunity to support practitioners in systematizing emerging practices rather than developing new evaluation frameworks.

Related papers

• An Expert Schema for Evaluating Large Language Model Errors in Scholarly Question-Answering Systems [1.9138416746729587]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming scholarly tasks like search and summarization, but their reliability remains uncertain.<n>We developed a schema for evaluating LLM errors in question-answering systems that reflects the assessment strategies of practicing scientists.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T16:16:44Z)
• When Punctuation Matters: A Large-Scale Comparison of Prompt Robustness Methods for LLMs [55.20230501807337]
  We present the first systematic evaluation of 5 methods for improving prompt robustness within a unified experimental framework.<n>We benchmark these techniques on 8 models from Llama, Qwen and Gemma families across 52 tasks from Natural Instructions dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-15T10:32:50Z)
• Tracking the Moving Target: A Framework for Continuous Evaluation of LLM Test Generation in Industry [0.5735035463793009]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in automating software testing tasks, including test generation.<n>Their rapid evolution poses a critical challenge for companies implementing DevSecOps.<n>This work presents a measurement framework for the continuous evaluation of commercial LLM test generators in industrial environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-26T18:08:13Z)
• Training an LLM-as-a-Judge Model: Pipeline, Insights, and Practical Lessons [9.954960702259918]
  This paper introduces Themis, a fine-tuned large language model (LLMs) judge that delivers context-aware evaluations.<n>We provide a comprehensive overview of the development pipeline for Themis, highlighting its scenario-dependent evaluation prompts.<n>We introduce two human-labeled benchmarks for meta-evaluation, demonstrating that Themis can achieve high alignment with human preferences in an economical manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T08:35:55Z)
• MME-Survey: A Comprehensive Survey on Evaluation of Multimodal LLMs [97.94579295913606]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have garnered increased attention from both industry and academia.<n>In the development process, evaluation is critical since it provides intuitive feedback and guidance on improving models.<n>This work aims to offer researchers an easy grasp of how to effectively evaluate MLLMs according to different needs and to inspire better evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T18:59:54Z)
• Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists [23.381287828102995]
  We investigate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T10:59:48Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• InFoBench: Evaluating Instruction Following Ability in Large Language Models [57.27152890085759]
  Decomposed Requirements Following Ratio (DRFR) is a new metric for evaluating Large Language Models' (LLMs) ability to follow instructions. We present InFoBench, a benchmark comprising 500 diverse instructions and 2,250 decomposed questions across multiple constraint categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-07T23:01:56Z)
• MR-GSM8K: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Model Evaluation [60.65820977963331]
  We introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models (LLMs) This paradigm shifts the emphasis from result-oriented assessments, which often neglect the reasoning process, to a more comprehensive evaluation. By applying this paradigm in the GSM8K dataset, we have developed the MR-GSM8K benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T15:49:43Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• A Large Language Model Approach to Educational Survey Feedback Analysis [0.0]
  This paper assesses the potential for the large language models (LLMs) GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 to aid in deriving insight from education feedback surveys.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:57:23Z)

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.