mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

EvalLoop: A Methodology for Evaluation-Driven Iterative Improvement of Business AI Systems

arXiv 2607.05638 ↗First posted 6 Jul 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Teams deploying large language models in business contexts need evaluation systems, yet most treat evaluation as static model selection: run benchmarks, rank models, deploy the winner. This framing misses evaluation's primary value for production systems--diagnosing why a system underperforms and guiding what to fix. We present EvalLoop, a methodology for evaluation-driven iterative improvement. EvalLoop organizes evaluation around three mechanisms: (1) dimensional metric grouping that decomposes quality into business-relevant dimensions enabling orthogonal failure diagnosis; (2) failure mode classification that categorizes why outputs fail within weak dimensions, bridging diagnosis to action; and (3) a structured iteration workflow where each evaluation run varies one system variable and compares dimensional profiles before and after. We validate EvalLoop through a case study on sales intelligence briefing generation (10 models, 3 providers, 18 metrics, 5 dimensions, 3 iterations). Dimensional diagnosis identified that 69% of hallucination failures were prompt-induced interpretation errors--invisible in aggregate scoring. A targeted prompt fix improved the best model from 82.6% to 94.6% overall, with improvement concentrated in diagnosed dimensions (Content Accuracy +16.8pp, Synthesis Power +26.4pp). An undirected configuration change in a prior iteration produced zero impact, illustrating the cost of iterating without diagnosis. We additionally demonstrate that dimensional profiling enables deployment-specific model selection, and that a one-time blind human gate on a finalist panel (4 models, 16 cases) confirms dimensional rankings while resolving multi-criteria deployment trade-offs--a 94% reduction in review burden compared to evaluating the full design. EvalLoop is packaged as reusable artifacts (playbook, agent specification, template repository) for adoption by other teams.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jul 2026.

Builds on

17 of 19 references.

References · 17

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  3. 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,282
  4. 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,242
  5. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  6. 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 832
  7. 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
  8. 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
  9. 2023Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Modelscited by 575
  10. 2023DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Modelscited by 518
  11. 2024Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferencescited by 144
  12. 2023PRD: Peer Rank and Discussion Improve Large Language Model based Evaluationscited by 114
5 more
  1. 2023CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generationcited by 66
  2. 2024Enterprise Benchmarks for Large Language Model Evaluationcited by 5
  3. 2025Enterprise Large Language Model Evaluation Benchmarkcited by 5
  4. 2025Continuous Benchmark Generation for Evaluating Enterprise-scale LLM Agentscited by 5
  5. 2025Sales Research Agent and Sales Research Benchcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.