Evaluation Blindness: How Silent Measurement Failures Corrupt AI Systems from Training to Deployment
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
AI systems can fail silently. The failure propagates through training loops, evaluation pipelines, and production monitoring stacks until downstream harm makes it visible. This paper introduces evaluation blindness: a measurement function M exhibits evaluation blindness with respect to failure class F when it produces readings indistinguishable from a healthy state while the system is actually failing, with no auxiliary signal flagging the gap. The problem surfaces at two lifecycle stages the literature has treated separately. At training time, reward models are gamed, importance-sampling corrections are silently miscalculated, and benchmark contamination inflates fine-tuning evaluations, all while loss curves look healthy and gradient updates proceed normally. At deployment time, monitoring fails to catch six classes of production failure, including an Operational category that is 100% silent by structural definition. We provide a formal detectability predicate unifying both stages. Four training-time case studies trace concrete breakdowns, including a real implementation bug in TRL PR #6594 where gradients are corrupted as loss decreases normally. A six-class taxonomy validated against 50 real-world incidents from court documents and regulatory filings finds that 53% of verifiable public failures were silent. A failure budget framework ties acceptable failure rates to use-case risk class. The implication is direct: measurement infrastructure is a correctness concern across the full AI lifecycle, not just at evaluation time. Data, code, and taxonomy schema are at https://github.com/priyanka25aug/llm-failure-taxonomy.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Aug 2026.
Builds on
14 of 34 references.
References · 14
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,565
- 2023Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injectioncited by 1,339
- 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
- 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 760
- 2023Detecting Pretraining Data from Large Language Modelscited by 375
- 2021What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?cited by 200
- 2020Challenges in Deploying Machine Learning: a Survey of Case Studiescited by 151
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Towards More Standardized AI Evaluation: From Models to Agents
- 2025Evaluation Faking: Unveiling Observer Effects in Safety Evaluation of Frontier AI Systems
- 2026When Evaluation Becomes a Side Channel: Regime Leakage and Structural Mitigations for Alignment Assessment
- 2026Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation
- 2026Phantom Gains: Auditing Self-Improvement Against a Measured Null
- 2026Litmus: Zero-Label, Code-Driven Metric Specification for Evaluating AI Systems
- 2026Maintaining Benchmarks Against Increasingly Capable Agents: Detection and Remediation of Unearned Passes
- 2026Reliability Engineering for AI Systems: Challenges, Methods, and Directions