mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Beyond Accuracy: A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Evaluating Enterprise Agentic AI Systems

arXiv 2511.14136 ↗First posted 18 Nov 2025cs.AIcited by 6

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Current agentic AI benchmarks predominantly evaluate task completion accuracy, while overlooking critical enterprise requirements such as cost-efficiency, reliability, and operational stability. Through systematic analysis of 12 main benchmarks and empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art agents, we identify three fundamental limitations: (1) absence of cost-controlled evaluation leading to 50x cost variations for similar precision, (2) inadequate reliability assessment where agent performance drops from 60% (single run) to 25% (8-run consistency), and (3) missing multidimensional metrics for security, latency, and policy compliance. We propose CLEAR (Cost, Latency, Efficacy, Assurance, Reliability), a holistic evaluation framework specifically designed for enterprise deployment. Evaluation of six leading agents on 300 enterprise tasks demonstrates that optimizing for accuracy alone yields agents 4.4-10.8x more expensive than cost-aware alternatives with comparable performance. Expert evaluation (N=15) confirms that CLEAR better predicts production success (correlation ρ=0.83) compared to accuracy-only evaluation (ρ=0.41).

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 16 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Nov 2025.

Builds on

16 of 23 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Multi-Agent-as-Judge: Aligning LLM-Agent-Based Automated Evaluation with Multi-Dimensional Human Evaluation28 Jul
  2. 2025Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents20 Mar
  3. 2024Towards Effective GenAI Multi-Agent Collaboration: Design and Evaluation for Enterprise Applications6 Dec
  4. 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains17 Jun

Other references · 12

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
  3. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
  4. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  5. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  6. 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,880
  7. 2023Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIscited by 1,302
  8. 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,134
  9. 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,084
  10. 2024WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?cited by 348
  11. 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agentscited by 280
  12. 2023InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedbackcited by 229

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.

6 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Towards a Standard, Enterprise-Relevant Agentic AI Benchmark: Lessons from 5.5 billion tokens' worth of agentic AI evaluations
  2. 2026AlphaEval: Evaluating Agents in Production
  3. 2026Continuous Process-Level Evaluation for Evolving Enterprise AI Agent Skills
  4. 2025AgentArch: A Comprehensive Benchmark to Evaluate Agent Architectures in Enterprise
  5. 2026Beyond Task Success: An Evidence-Synthesis Framework for Evaluating, Governing, and Orchestrating Agentic AI
  6. 2025Continuous Benchmark Generation for Evaluating Enterprise-scale LLM Agents
  7. 2026AgentSLABench: Evaluating and Benchmarking Agentic Systems Under Resource Constraints
  8. 2025Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey