Results-Actionability Gap: Understanding How Practitioners Evaluate LLM Products in the Wild
Willem van der Maden, Malak Sadek, Ziang Xiao, Aske Mottelson, Q. Vera Liao, Jichen Zhu
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.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 4ae6f49f-7c88-4d45-88fc-0618f17855d0Builds on14
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as AgentsXiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu et al.ICLR 2024 · 748 citations
- G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using Gpt-4 with Better Human AlignmentYang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang et al.EMNLP 2023 · 549 citations
- FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text GenerationSewon Min, Kalpesh Krishna, Xinxi Lyu, Mike Lewis et al.EMNLP 2023 · 225 citations
- Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human PreferencesShreya Shankar, J. D. Zamfirescu-Pereira, Bjoern Hartmann, Aditya G. Parameswaran et al.UIST 2024 · 143 citations
Related papers
- VibeCheck: Discover and Quantify Qualitative Differences in Large Language ModelsLisa Dunlap, Krishna Mandal, Trevor Darrell, Jacob Steinhardt et al.ICLR 2025
- Building Software by Rolling the Dice: A Qualitative Study of Vibe CodingYi-Hung Chou, Boyuan Jiang, Yi Wen Chen, Mingyue Weng et al.FSE 2026 · 1 citation
- SWE-IF: Aligning Code Evaluation with Human PreferenceMing Zhong, Xiang Zhou, Ting-Yun Chang, Qingze Wang et al.ICML 2026 · 3 citations
- Collecting Qualitative Data at Scale with Large Language Models: A Case StudyAlejandro Cuevas Villalba, Jennifer V. Scurrell, Eva Maxfield Brown, Jason Entenmann et al.CSCW 2025 · 14 citations
- EvalLM: Interactive Evaluation of Large Language Model Prompts on User-Defined CriteriaTae Soo Kim, Yoonjoo Lee, Jamin Shin, Young-Ho Kim et al.CHI 2024 · 81 citations
