Benchmarked Yet Not Measured -- Generative AI Should be Evaluated Against Real-World Utility
Summary
This paper argues that Generative AI evaluation should shift from static benchmarks to measuring real-world utility and human outcomes. It introduces the SCU-GenEval framework and supporting instruments to address the disconnect between benchmark performance and deployment success.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 05/11/26, 06:57 AM
# Benchmarked Yet Not Measured -- Generative AI Should be Evaluated Against Real-World Utility Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06856](https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06856) [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.06856) > Abstract:Generative AI systems achieve impressive performance on standard benchmarks yet fail to deliver real\-world utility, a disconnect we identify across 28 deployment cases spanning education, healthcare, software engineering, and law\. We argue that this benchmark utility gap arises from three recurring failures in evaluation practice: proxy displacement, temporal collapse, and distributional concealment\. Motivated by these observations, we argue that generative AI evaluation requires a paradigm shift from static benchmark\-centered transparency toward stakeholder, goal, and context\-conditioned utility transparency grounded in human outcome trajectories\. Existing evaluations primarily characterize properties of model outputs, while deployment success depends on whether interaction with AI improves stakeholders' ability to achieve their goals over time\. The missing construct is therefore utility: the change in a stakeholder's capability induced through sustained interaction with an AI system within a deployment context\. To operationalize this perspective, we propose SCU\-GenEval, a four\-stage evaluation framework consisting of stakeholder\-goal mapping, construct\-indicator specification, mechanism modeling, and longitudinal utility measurement\. To make these stages practically deployable, we introduce three supporting instruments: structured deployment protocols, context\-conditioned user simulators, and persona\- and goal\-conditioned proxy metrics\. We conclude with domain\-specific calls to action, arguing that progress in generative AI must be evaluated through measurable improvements in human outcomes rather than benchmark performance alone\. ## Submission history From: Ishani Mondal \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/04925bc4/2605.06856)\] **\[v1\]**Thu, 7 May 2026 18:56:07 UTC \(1,923 KB\)
Similar Articles
Measuring What Matters: Benchmarking Generative, Multimodal, and Agentic AI in Healthcare
This paper presents a structured framework for benchmarking generative, multimodal, and agentic AI in healthcare, addressing the gap between high benchmark scores and real-world clinical reliability, safety, and relevance.
Uneven Evolution of Cognition Across Generations of Generative AI Models
This paper introduces a psychometric framework and the AIQ Benchmark to evaluate the cognitive profiles of generative AI models, revealing uneven evolution with strong verbal skills but stagnant perceptual reasoning.
Creating and Evaluating Personas Using Generative AI: A Scoping Review of 81 Articles
This scoping review analyzes 81 articles (2022-2025) examining the use of generative AI for creating and evaluating user personas, identifying strengths in reproducibility but critical issues including lack of evaluation in 45% of studies, over-reliance on GPT models (86%), and risks of circularity where the same model generates and evaluates personas.
Does anyone else feel like AI benchmarks are becoming less useful for predicting real-world performance?
The article discusses the growing disconnect between high AI benchmark scores and actual real-world performance, highlighting issues like consistency, latency, and context handling.
Measuring the performance of our models on real-world tasks
OpenAI introduces GDPval, a new evaluation framework measuring AI model performance on economically valuable, real-world tasks across 44 occupations in the top 9 US GDP-contributing industries. The benchmark includes 1,320 specialized tasks based on actual professional work products, representing a progression from academic benchmarks to more realistic occupational assessments.