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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.14136 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.14136/

## Key facts

- Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 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.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15334/) (2023)
- [OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07972/) (2024)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07718/) (2024)
- [Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14470/) (2024)
- [InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.14898/) (2023)
- [Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16416/) (2025)
- [Multi-Agent-as-Judge: Aligning LLM-Agent-Based Automated Evaluation with Multi-Dimensional Human Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21028/) (2025)
- [Towards Effective GenAI Multi-Agent Collaboration: Design and Evaluation for Enterprise Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05449/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [EVA-Bench: A New End-to-end Framework for Evaluating Voice Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.13841/) (2026)
- [From Question Answering to Task Completion: A Survey on Agent System and Harness Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.20683/) (2026)
- [Anchor: Mitigating Artifact Drift in Agent Benchmark Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.26321/) (2026)
- [AIT Academy: Cultivating the Complete Agent with a Confucian Three-Domain Curriculum](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.17989/) (2026)
- [Multi-Dimensional Assessment for AI Cognition (MAAC): A Theoretical Framework for Process-Oriented Cognitive Evaluation of Text-Based AI Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.00680/) (2026)
- [AI Evaluation Should Measure Verification Cost, Not Correctness Alone](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.08709/) (2026)
- [EnterpriseVal: Quantifying the Efficacy, Reliability and Value of Generative AI in the Enterprise](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.21841/) (2026)
- [AgentStripes: An Evidence-Graded Maturity Model for AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.18603/) (2026)

## 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).