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.
Unsteady Metrics and Benchmarking Cultures of AI Model Builders
This paper introduces Benchmarking-Cultures-25, a dataset analyzing how AI model builders selectively highlight benchmarks in press releases. It finds a fragmented evaluation landscape with limited cross-model comparability, arguing that benchmarks are used as narrative devices for market positioning rather than standardized scientific measurement.
Open-World Evaluations for Measuring Frontier AI Capabilities
This paper argues that traditional benchmarks both overestimate and underestimate frontier AI capabilities, and proposes 'open-world evaluations'—long-horizon, real-world tasks assessed qualitatively—as a complementary approach. The CRUX project is introduced, with a demonstration where an AI agent successfully published an iOS app to the App Store with minimal intervention.
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.
A Persona-Based Evaluation Framework for Pluralistic Alignment in Generative AI
This paper introduces a persona-based evaluation framework that uses synthetic cognitive profiles to represent diverse human perspectives for pluralistic alignment in generative AI, addressing the limitations of monolithic benchmarks.