Operationalising Multi-Dimensional Evaluation for Conversational Agents: A Scalable, Governed Pipeline with Selective Re-evaluation and Model Benchmarking
Evaluating retail conversational agents requires methods beyond lexical-overlap metrics to assess intent alignment, factuality, helpfulness, clarity, tone, and overall response quality. Although LLM-as-a-judge methods provide scalable alternatives to human evaluation, production deployment introduces challenges in governance, reproducibility, cost, schema consistency, traceability, and reliability. We present GenAI Evaluation, a governed, configuration-driven pipeline for large-scale evaluation
Record details
Published: 13 July 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Regulation · Safety & alignment · Agents & autonomy
Retrieved: 15 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
ToolAlignBench: Investigating Alignment Conflicts in Tool-Calling Enabled LLMs
arXiv · 15 July 2026
Digital Pantheon: Simulating and Auditing Coalition Formation with LLM Agents
arXiv · 16 July 2026
Digital Pantheon: Simulating and Auditing Coalition Formation with LLM Agents
arXiv · 16 July 2026
Do Vision-Language-Action Models Mean What They Say? On the Role of Faithfulness in Embodied Reasoning
arXiv · 6 July 2026
When Aggregate Alignment Misleads: Auditing Policy Repair Without Per-State Expert Actions
arXiv · 3 July 2026
Adversarial Pragmatics for AI Safety Evaluation: A Benchmark for Instruction Conflict, Embedded Commands, and Policy Ambiguity
arXiv · 1 July 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (13 July 2026), “Operationalising Multi-Dimensional Evaluation for Conversational Agents: A Scalable, Governed Pipeline with Selective Re-evaluation and Model Benchmarking,” evidence record 10357, https://ethics.ai/record/10357 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.