Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis introduces unsupervised metrics to assess goal completion in human interaction with language models, indicating improved evaluation methods.
Large language models (LLMs) have seen increasing popularity in enterprise applications where AI agents and humans engage in objective-driven interactions. However, these systems are difficult to evaluate: data may be complex and unlabeled; human annotation is often impractical at scale; custom metrics can monitor for specific errors, but not previously-undetected ones; and LLM judges can produce unreliable results. We introduce the first set of unsupervised metrics for objective-driven interactions, leveraging statistical properties of unlabeled interaction data and using fine-tuned LLMs to adapt to distributional shifts. We develop metrics for labeling user goals, measuring goal completion, and quantifying LLM uncertainty without grounding evaluations in human-generated ideal responses. Our approach is validated on open-domain and task-specific interaction data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soroka et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: