All terms

Enterprise AI

Model evaluation

Also known as: evals, LLM evaluation, model evals

Model evaluation is the practice of measuring how well a language model or AI system performs against defined criteria, using test cases, scoring rubrics and human or automated review. Practitioners often call the individual test suites "evals". It turns subjective impressions of AI output quality into repeatable measurements that can be tracked over time.

What it is

Model evaluation covers the methods teams use to judge AI output: accuracy, groundedness in source material, tone, safety, format compliance and task completion. It usually combines a fixed set of test inputs, an expected outcome or rubric, and a scoring method that may be human review, code-based checks or another model acting as a judge. The result is a score or pass rate that can be compared across model versions, prompts and retrieval settings.

Why it matters

Any AI feature that touches customers, from a support assistant to an on-site answer box, can degrade quietly when a model, prompt or data source changes. Evaluation gives marketing and product teams evidence before launch and a warning signal afterwards. For search and discovery work it also provides a disciplined way to test how assistants describe your brand, products and policies rather than relying on anecdote.

How it works

Teams build a dataset of representative inputs, often drawn from real queries and edge cases, then define what a good answer looks like for each one. Scoring is run automatically in a pipeline where possible, with human review reserved for judgement calls, and results are stored so changes can be compared release to release. The same approach is used for brand visibility testing, where a set of buyer questions is run repeatedly against assistants and the answers are scored for accuracy and citation.

When it applies

It applies whenever an AI system is being built, tuned or relied on for customer-facing output, and whenever you need to prove that a change improved things rather than just felt better.

Examples

  • A retailer keeps 200 real support questions as an eval set and scores each assistant reply for factual accuracy and whether it links to the correct policy page.
  • A B2B team runs 50 buyer questions against several AI assistants each month and records whether the brand is named, described correctly and cited.
  • An in-house RAG search tool is tested for groundedness by checking whether every claim in the answer appears in the retrieved documents.

How it is measured

  • Pass rate against the eval set, tracked per model or prompt version
  • Groundedness or citation accuracy: share of claims traceable to source content
  • Human review agreement with automated scores, to validate the judging method
  • Regression count: number of previously passing cases that fail after a change

Related terms in Enterprise AI

Primary research · August 2026

How ChatGPT Shortlists Software Brands

An audit across 10 categories and 60 buying questions. I recorded what ChatGPT reads, throws away and links to when a buyer asks it which software to buy, and what that decides.

60
Questions asked
10
Software markets
2,680
Results read
367
Links shown
Free35 pages · PDF · 536 KBDiscovery Digest every Friday

Free download

Get the full report

35 pages · PDF · 536 KB. Enter your details and it downloads straight away.

How ChatGPT Shortlists Software Brands downloads straight away. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.