Towards Apples to Apples for AI Evaluations: From Real-World Use Cases to Evaluation Scenarios

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07986v1
• Date: Fri, 08 May 2026 16:44:55 GMT
• Title: Towards Apples to Apples for AI Evaluations: From Real-World Use Cases to Evaluation Scenarios
• Abstract summary: This work advocates for methodological transparency in AI evaluations.<n>We propose a process for transforming high-level use cases to detailed scenarios.<n>This paper reports on example high-level AI use cases identified by financial services sector SMEs.
• Score: 9.038002730735608
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI measurement science has a wide variety of methodologies and measurements for comparing AI systems, resulting in what often appear to be "apples-to-oranges" comparisons across AI evaluations. To move toward "apples-to-apples" comparisons in real-world AI evaluations, this work advocates for methodological transparency in evaluation scenarios, operational grounding, and human-centered design (HCD) principles. We propose a repeatable process for transforming high-level use cases to detailed scenarios by eliciting use cases from subject matter experts (SMEs) via a structured AI Use Case Worksheet with six key elements: use case, sector, user (direct and indirect), intended outcomes, expected impacts (positive and negative), and KPIs and metrics. We demonstrate utility of the worksheet and process in the U.S. financial services sector. This paper reports on example high-level AI use cases identified by financial services sector SMEs: cyber defense enablement, developer productivity, financial crime aggregation, suspicious activity report (SAR) filing, credit memo generation, and internal call center support. These AI use cases provided are illustrative of the process and not exhaustive. Central to our work is a three-stage expansion pipeline combining LLM prompting with human reviews to generate 107 scenarios from those use cases elicited from SMEs. This process integrates iterative human reviews at every juncture to ensure operational grounding: for scenario titles and descriptions; for core scenario elements like users, benefits and risks, and metrics; and for scenario narratives and evaluation objectives. Human checkpoints ensure scenarios remain reflective of real-world usage and human needs. We describe a validation rubric to assess scenario quality. By defining key scenario components, this work supports a more consistent and meaningful paradigm for human-centered AI evaluations.

Related papers

• AgentBeats: Agentifying Agent Assessment for Openness, Standardization, and Reproducibility [104.46861849039357]
  Agent systems are advancing quickly across domains, but their evaluation remains fragmented.<n>The root problem is the lack of an open, agent-agnostic assessment interface.<n>We advocate Agentified Agent Assessment (AAA), where evaluation is performed by judge agents and all participants interact through standardized protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T17:23:54Z)
• LATTICE: Evaluating Decision Support Utility of Crypto Agents [23.32869315594442]
  LATTICE is a benchmark for evaluating the decision support utility of crypto agents in realistic user-facing scenarios.<n>Our experiments show that most of the tested copilots achieve comparable aggregate scores, but differ more significantly on dimension-level and task-level performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T02:32:14Z)
• Toward Quantitative Modeling of Cybersecurity Risks Due to AI Misuse [50.87630846876635]
  We develop nine detailed cyber risk models.<n>Each model decomposes attacks into steps using the MITRE ATT&CK framework.<n>Individual estimates are aggregated through Monte Carlo simulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T17:54:17Z)
• Continuous Benchmark Generation for Evaluating Enterprise-scale LLM Agents [23.277131100190086]
  We propose a process of benchmark generation that helps evolve the benchmarks as the requirements change and perform robust evaluation of evolving AI agents.<n>Our approach relies on semi-structured documents where developers express the high-level intent, and uses state-of-the-art LLMs to generate benchmarks from just a small number of such documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T07:48:22Z)
• How can we assess human-agent interactions? Case studies in software agent design [52.953425368394306]
  We make two major steps towards the rigorous assessment of human-agent interactions.<n>We propose PULSE, a framework for more efficient human-centric evaluation of agent designs.<n>We deploy the framework on a large-scale web platform built around the open-source software agent OpenHands.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T19:04:28Z)
• PentestJudge: Judging Agent Behavior Against Operational Requirements [0.0]
  PentestJudge is a system for evaluating operations of penetration testing agents.<n>We evaluate several models acting as judge agents, with the best model reaching an F1 score of 0.83.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T21:52:50Z)
• Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks [94.69724201080155]
  We show that many agentic benchmarks have issues in task setup or reward design.<n>Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation of agents' performance by up to 100% in relative terms.<n>We introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T17:35:31Z)
• Multi-level Value Alignment in Agentic AI Systems: Survey and Perspectives [29.49571891159761]
  Value alignment for agentic AI systems aims to ensure that an agent's goals, preferences, and behaviors align with human values and societal norms.<n>This study comprehensively reviews value alignment in LLM-based multi-agent systems as the representative archetype of agentic AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T12:25:38Z)
• FieldWorkArena: Agentic AI Benchmark for Real Field Work Tasks [52.47895046206854]
  FieldWorkArena is a benchmark for agentic AI targeting real-world field work.<n>This paper defines a new action space that agentic AI should possess for real world work environment benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T08:21:46Z)
• General Scales Unlock AI Evaluation with Explanatory and Predictive Power [57.7995945974989]
  benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems.<n>We introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure.<n>Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T01:13:56Z)
• Can We Trust AI Agents? A Case Study of an LLM-Based Multi-Agent System for Ethical AI [10.084913433923566]
  AI-based systems impact millions by supporting diverse tasks but face issues like misinformation, bias, and misuse.<n>This study examines the use of Large Language Models (LLM) for AI ethics in practice.<n>We design a prototype, where agents engage in structured discussions on real-world AI ethics issues from the AI Incident Database.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T20:17:59Z)

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.