Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Litmus, a zero-label system that generates evaluation metrics for AI systems by extracting evaluation intent from source code and targeted interrogation, addressing the challenge of implicit evaluation goals in diverse AI applications. By applying Litmus to three real-world AI pipelines, the authors demonstrate that it achieves superior concern coverage and validity compared to existing baselines, including AutoMetrics and DynamicRubric. The findings advocate for a paradigm shift in evaluation practices, emphasizing the importance of defining what needs to be measured before selecting metrics.
Litmus redefines AI evaluation by showing that zero-label metric specification can outperform traditional methods, achieving higher validity and broader concern coverage.
As agentic LLM systems move from prototypes to deployment across increasingly diverse domains, evaluating them has become both more important and more difficult. The challenge is not only that individual metrics may be unreliable, but that evaluation goals are often left implicit. Without a clear account of what a system is expected to do, how it can fail, and which failures matter, metric choices become difficult to justify, interpret, or validate. We present Litmus, a zero-label system that designs evaluation and monitoring metrics for AI pipelines by eliciting evaluation intent from source code and targeted interrogation. Instead of assuming that the evaluation target is already known, Litmus first identifies what must be measured and why, then converts those answers into constraints for constructing a justified, per-stage metric portfolio. We evaluate Litmus on three real, code-defined AI pipelines - financial account grouping, scientific QA, and inherent risk assessment - against AutoMetrics and three DynamicRubric baselines. Litmus achieves the broadest or tied-broadest concern coverage, spans more pipeline stages, produces a near-zero-redundancy portfolio, and ranks first in validity against per-row quality labels on all three pipelines - decisively on scientific QA (Spearman $蟻=0.72$ vs. less than $0.47$ for every baseline), and within overlapping confidence intervals in relation to two components of the audit framework despite using no labels during metric design. Our results support a shift from automatic metric implementation to automatic metric specification: before asking which metric to compute, evaluation systems should ask what must be measured and why.
