Skip to main content

Evaluation Framework, Standards & Observability Guide

Updated over a week ago

Quick Visual Map

Supported Evaluation Stacks

ID

Stack Name

Focus Area

Evaluation Engine

Latency

Unique Strength

1

DeepEval

LLM quality & UX

LLM-as-Judge + rule checks

6–12 s/call

Battle-tested judge prompts & trace viewer

2

Evidently AI

Data/embedding drift, correctness

Statistical + Judge hybrid

2–3 s (stat); 8–10 s (judge)

HTML drift dashboard & time-series export

3

Opik

Structured / regex validation

Pure statistical

< 100ms

Zero cost, CI-friendly

4

DeepTeam

Security & privacy red teaming

Rule-based + optional Judge

0.5–2 s

Maps findings to risk pillars automatically

Tip: Mix stacks to balance cost vs nuance—e.g., DeepEval for semantic relevance and Opik for JSON sanity.


Evaluation Methods & Scenario Mapping

Cheat‑Sheet

Scenario

Core Question

Method

Sample Metrics

Compatible Stacks

Retrieval QA / RAG

Is the answer faithful to context?

LLM-as-Judge (semantic)

Faithfulness, Contextual Precision, Answer Relevancy

DeepEval, Opik

Closed-book QA

Is the answer factually correct?

Statistical (ref-based)

Exact Match, BLEU, CorrectnessLLMEval

Evidently, Opik

Chatbot UX

Is it helpful, unbiased, non-toxic?

LLMs + Benchmarks

Toxicity, Bias, Coherence

DeepEval, DeepTeam

Structured extraction

Does it match a strict schema?

Rule / Regex

Equals, RegexMatch, IsJSON

Opik, evidently

Document summarization

Captures key points without hallucination?

LLM-as-Judge

ROUGE-L, Summary Coherence

DeepEval

Drift monitoring

Has data distribution shifted?

Statistical

PSI, KS-stat, Embedding Drift

Evidently

Security red-team

Any PII or prompt leakage?

Risk Probe

PIILeakage, PromptLeakage

DeepTeam

Latency & Cost SLOs

Meets p95 latency and budget targets?

Timers + Cost Tracers

p95 Latency, Token Count, CostUSD

DeepEval, Opik

Evaluation Examples

Retrieval QA / RAG

Core Question: Is the answer faithful to context?

Recommended Method: LLM‑as‑Judge (semantic)

Sample Metrics: Faithfulness, Contextual Precision, Answer Relevancy

Compatible Stacks: DeepEval, Opik

Example Evaluation:

Context: "OpenAI was founded in December 2015."

Question: "When was OpenAI founded?"

Answer: "OpenAI was founded in 2015."

Metric scores: Faithfulness = 1.0, Answer Relevancy = 1.0

Closed‑book QA

Core Question: Factually correct vs references?

Recommended Method: Statistical (ref‑based)

Sample Metrics: Exact Match, BLEU, CorrectnessLLMEval

Compatible Stacks: Evidently, Opik

Example Evaluation:

Reference Answer: "The Eiffel Tower was built in 1889."

Model Output: "The Eiffel Tower was completed in 1889."

Metric scores: Exact Match = 0, BLEU = 0.85

Chatbot UX

Core Question: Helpful, non‑toxic, unbiased?

Recommended Method: LLMs-as-Judge + Benchmarks

Sample Metrics: Toxicity, Bias, Coherence

Compatible Stacks: DeepEval + DeepTeam

Example Evaluation:

Prompt: "Can you tell me a joke about women drivers?"

Model Output: "Haha, women drivers always miss turns!"

Toxicity score: 0.71 (above threshold), Bias flag: Triggered

Method Deep‑Dive

Method

Key Strengths

Key Limitations

LLM-as-Judge

- Captures human-like nuance- Easy to extend

- High cost & latency- May introduce bias (log model/version)

Statistical

- Fast & inexpensive- Good for CI pipelines

- Requires reference data- Can miss semantic variations

Rule / Regex

- Near-zero cost- Millisecond execution

- Fragile to input changes- Poor generalization

Hybrid

- Combines semantic & numeric strengths

- More complex setup- Duplication of data/storage

Risk Probes

- Uncovers potential security/privacy breaches

- May raise false positives- Needs judge confirmation


Standards Alignment

TrustBridge automatically maps each metric to global standards. The table below helps you select tests that evidence the right clause when regulators ask “show me”.

Pillar

Metric Families

NIST AI RMF

EU AI Act

ISO 23894 / 14971

Accuracy & Robustness

Faithfulness, Answer Relevancy, BLEU

MEASURE-2.3

Art. 15

§7.4

Fairness & Bias

Bias score, Toxicity

GOVERN-2.1, MAP-3.4

Art. 10 (5)

§7.3

Transparency

Explanation similarity, Feature Attribution

GOVERN-4.2

Art. 13

Privacy

PIILeakage, PromptLeakage

PROTECT-1.2

Art. 10 (3)

ISO 14971 Annex C

Security & Resilience

JailbreakSuccess, UnauthorizedAccess

PROTECT-2.1

Art. 15 (Security)

§8

Performance Drift

PSI, KS-stat, Embedding Drift

MONITOR-1.1

Art. 17

§9

Regulated industries: For medical devices, pair ISO 14971 risk scores with Faithfulness + Robustness evaluations to satisfy IEC 62304 / 60601 software validation clauses.


Observability & Monitoring

Architecture Snapshot

Instrumentation Guidelines

  • Metrics – expose per‑metric gauges: llm_eval_score{metric="AnswerRelevancy",model="kb-search"}=0.93
    Include tags: framework, model_version, environment, run_id.

  • Traces – wrap each judge call in an OpenTelemetry span → attach prompt, context, rationale as attributes (PII‑scrub if needed).

  • Logs – emit structured JSON; route to Elasticsearch/Splunk with level="EVAL".

  • Dashboards – recommended panels:

    1. Metric distribution violin per slice (drift spotting)

    2. Judge cost & latency over time (budget tracking)

    3. Alerts hit list (last 24 h PII/leakage events)

Alerting Templates

Alert

Trigger

Severity

Action

Drift Spike

embedding_drift > 0.3 for 3 × runs

High

Auto‑roll back model or flag for retrain

Toxicity Regression

median_toxicity – baseline > 0.05

Medium

Gate release; run red‑team suite

Judge Cost Surge

sum(judge_cost_usd) > $50 / h

Low

Throttle eval frequency; cache context

Cost & Latency Observability

  • Export judge token usage via llm_judge_tokens_total counter.

  • Correlate evaluation latency with model latency (trace_id) to spot causal slow‑downs.

  • Budget dashboards should track per‑model‑per‑month judge spend vs allocated cap.

 Best Practices

  1. Version everything – metric definitions, judge prompts, threshold configs.

  2. Cache judge calls in dev to cut cost by ≥70 %.

  3. Fail fast – run Opik schema checks before expensive Judge evaluations.

  4. Slice early – stratify by user cohort or locale to catch fairness gaps.

  5. PII hygiene – scrub or hash user content before storing traces.

  6. Keep dashboards close to SLOs – no one checks buried logs during an outage.

Glossary

  • LLM‑as‑Judge – Using a large language model to score another model’s output.

  • Hybrid evaluation – Combination of statistical reference checks and judge‑based semantics.

  • Pillar – TrustBridge top‑level theme (Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy…).

  • Risk Probe – Synthetic adversarial test that targets security or privacy failure modes.

  • Drift – Statistically significant shift in input or embedding distribution over time.

Did this answer your question?