Closing the Confidence Gap: How Custom Metrics Turn GenAI Reliability Into a Competitive Edge

Generative AI can now write, code, and reason at levels that were unthinkable two years ago, yet most companies still hesitate to trust it with revenue‑critical tasks. This widening “confidence gap” slows adoption and blunts potential competitive advantage.

Figure 1. Confidence in GenAI (black) is plateauing while model capability (blue) grows.  Both axes represent normalized index values; data derived from annual CIO surveys (2021‑2024).

Closing that gap requires moving past one‑size‑fits‑all benchmarks in favor of metrics tied to your workflows, risk profile, and brand promise. Custom metrics that capture your unique goals, workflows, and values can transform tentative experiments into confident deployments. When you measure what matters to your business – not what matters to a benchmark – reliability becomes tangible and trust follows.

Prefer video? Watch our webinar on Custom Metrics

Understanding the Trust Deficit

This confidence gap stems from specific reliability concerns that keep leaders awake at night. Hallucinatory or extremist content can blow up in a viral screenshot. Inconsistent tone confuses customers and erodes brand identity. Compliance failures risk regulatory action and legal exposure. The black‑box nature of AI decisions makes it hard to explain or defend outcomes. 

For example, in early July 2025, xAI’s Grok chatbot began outputting a series of highly offensive political slurs and glorifying extremist rhetoric—posts that were widely shared across X within minutes. xAI swiftly deleted the content and throttled the bot, but Poland escalated the case to the European Commission under the Digital Services Act, and Turkey took judicial action to block Grok. Each of these can be addressed through targeted measurement, but first we need to understand why traditional approaches fall short.

In this post, we'll explore why traditional evaluation metrics like BLEU and ROUGE fail for modern large language models. We'll examine how newer approaches like LLM-as-a-judge improve on this but still miss the mark for business-specific quality. Then we'll dive into custom metrics tailored to goals like empathy in customer service or legal compliance in finance. Finally, we'll show how Continuous Learning from Human Feedback (CLHF) ensures these metrics keep improving over time, and incorporate expert knowledge found throughout an organization.

The Limits of Traditional N-Gram Metrics

For two decades, NLP practitioners leaned on n‑gram metrics such as BLEU (translation) and ROUGE (summarization). These metrics served well in early machine translation but struggle with today's generative AI because they're essentially string overlap counters that miss the forest for the trees.

Research consistently shows that n-gram scores correlate poorly with human judgment on open-ended tasks. Traditional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE achieve correlations of only 0.3-0.5 with human judgments for creative generation tasks. They require predetermined "ground truth" references, which are expensive to produce and often ill-defined for generative tasks.

More fundamentally, n-gram metrics fail to capture semantic meaning and context. They operate at surface level – matching words, not understanding content. An AI could wordsmith an answer to maximize overlap without solving the user's problem. These metrics are blind to factual correctness, logical consistency, appropriate tone, and a myriad of other considerations.

Consider this an answer to the question “What is the Eiffel Tower?” and the answer: “The Eiffel Tower is one of the most famous landmarks in Paris.”

Now let’s compare two model outputs:

Response A: “The Eiffel Tower is a well-known monument in Paris.”

Response B: “This iconic structure in France’s capital draws millions each year.”

Metrics like ROUGE and BLEU reward Response A because it shares exact word sequences—n-grams like “Eiffel Tower” and “in Paris.” BLEU counts how many short sequences from the model output appear in the reference; ROUGE does the same, often in reverse. Both penalize Response B because it rephrases the idea using different vocabulary and structure—even though it may be more informative or stylistically stronger.

This is the fundamental problem: these metrics measure surface-level similarity, not actual meaning. They can’t tell whether a response is correct, helpful, or fluent—only whether it looks like the reference.

By contrast, a language model used as a judge can evaluate meaning directly. It doesn’t rely on matching n-grams. It can recognize that “iconic structure in France’s capital” refers to the Eiffel Tower, and that both responses express the same idea. Instead of asking, “Did this match the reference?” it can ask, “Did this answer the question well?”—aligning much more closely with how humans evaluate quality.

Another striking example comes from OpenAI's research on learning from human feedback (Stiennon et al., 2020). Their team found that a model optimized using human feedback dramatically outperformed one optimized for ROUGE, even though the ROUGE score itself was lower. The model learned to write summaries humans preferred, which sometimes meant using different phrases – thereby losing ROUGE points while producing better results.

Bottom line: generic metrics reward surface overlap, while your users reward accuracy, tone, and compliance.

LLM-as-a-Judge: Progress and Pitfalls

Given n-gram shortcomings, the community has turned to using Large Language Models as judges. The idea is compelling – since models like GPT-4 understand language deeply, we can use them to evaluate quality. This approach has shown promise, with LLM evaluators often achieving much higher correlations with human preferences compared to traditional metrics.

LLM judges can consider context and assess coherence, relevance, and subtle criteria without needing word-for-word reference matching. They can be prompted with rubrics ("Rate for accuracy, completeness, tone") and provide holistic assessments. No surprise – this produces much higher alignment with human judgment than BLEU/ROUGE.

Critical Limitations Remain

However, significant caveats exist:

1. Inconsistency and Prompt Sensitivity - LLM-based metrics can vary dramatically with prompt phrasing. Zheng et al. (2024) found that identical outputs received scores differing by up to 2 points (on a 10-point scale) based solely on minor prompt variations.

2. Systematic Biases - Microsoft Research documented a "preference for LLM-generated texts over human-written texts" in their G-Eval paper. AI judges may overvalue fluency while missing subtle errors only domain experts would catch.

3. Generic Criteria Mismatch - Most critically, LLM evaluators reflect generic quality notions unless explicitly programmed otherwise. They won't know your compliance requirements, brand voice, or customer service philosophy without specific instruction – and even then, enforcement can be unreliable.

Custom Metrics: Defining Quality on Your Terms

Every business has unique priorities, brand values, risk factors and legal requirements. Your AI's performance should be judged against these, not universal standards alone. Galileo's LLM-as-a-judge framework allows you to create domain-specific evaluators that capture what truly matters for your use case, leveraging the nuanced understanding of large language models to assess complex, subjective criteria.

The power of LLM-as-a-judge lies in its ability to incorporate your specific domain expertise and business context into evaluation criteria. This process transforms your subjective quality requirements into measurable, automated assessments.

Building Domain-Specific Evaluators:

• Define clear evaluation criteria: Articulate what constitutes quality in your specific context, breaking down abstract concepts into concrete, observable characteristics

• Provide detailed rubrics: Give the LLM judge comprehensive scoring guidelines with explicit descriptions of different quality levels

• Include representative examples: Supply positive and negative examples that demonstrate your standards in practice

• Specify contextual factors: Define when certain criteria matter more or less based on user intent, content type, or business scenarios

• Set appropriate thresholds: Establish score ranges that trigger different actions (approval, review, rejection)

Unlike traditional rule-based or simple ML classifiers, LLM judges can:

• Understand context and nuance in your evaluation criteria

• Assess multiple dimensions of quality simultaneously

• Adapt to edge cases using reasoning rather than rigid rules

• Provide explanatory feedback alongside numerical scores

• Scale across different scenarios with prompt engineering rather than model retraining

This approach transforms your subjective business requirements into measurable, automated evaluation criteria that can evolve as your needs change, ensuring your AI systems consistently meet your specific definition of quality.

Example Use Case

Consider the following scenario: we’re building a banking agent that must comply with certain regulatory requirements. In order to ensure any advice given by your agent complies with these regulations, you can create a metric using the following prompt:

Consider whether the response:

Provides accurate information about financial products and services

Includes appropriate risk disclosures and warnings

Avoids giving specific investment advice without proper qualifications

Follows know-your-customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) guidelines

Does not make unauthorized promises about returns or guarantees

Maintains customer privacy and data protection standards

Directs customers to qualified professionals when appropriate

If the response is compliant, respond with "true", otherwise respond with "false"

Galileo will use this prompt to generate a detailed LLM-as-a-Judge prompt, as well as some zero-shot examples. In this case, the detailed prompt will look something like this:

You will be provided with a prompt and a response from a system that provides information about financial products and services. Both will be given as JSON strings.

Your task is to determine whether the response is compliant with the following criteria:

1. Provides accurate information about financial products and services.

2. Includes appropriate risk disclosures and warnings.

3. Avoids giving specific investment advice without proper qualifications.

4. Follows know-your-customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) guidelines.

5. Does not make unauthorized promises about returns or guarantees.

6. Maintains customer privacy and data protection standards.

7. Directs customers to qualified professionals when appropriate.

Think step by step, and explain your reasoning carefully. State your observations first, before drawing any conclusions.

Respond in the following JSON format:

```

{

    "explanation": string,

    "is_compliant": boolean

}

```

"explanation": Your step-by-step reasoning process. Evaluate each criterion listed above and provide a detailed explanation of whether the response meets each one.

"is_compliant": `true` if the response meets all the criteria, `false` otherwise.

You must respond with valid JSON

As you can see, the generated prompt includes some CoT prompting, and a specific JSON format for the judge to use which includes the desired metric (compliant/non-compliant) and an explanation for the metric.

Learn about defining a custom metric in Galileo.

Continuous Learning from Human Feedback (CLHF)

Even the most carefully designed custom metrics face an inevitable challenge: the world changes around them. User expectations shift, new edge cases emerge, and business requirements evolve. What worked perfectly at launch may miss critical nuances six months later. This is where Continuous Learning from Human Feedback (CLHF) transforms static evaluation into a living, adapting system that grows smarter through domain expert input.

Domain Experts as the Intelligence Behind Improvement

The most powerful aspect of CLHF lies in how it captures domain expertise through natural language feedback. When a compliance officer notices that a metric missed a subtle regulatory risk, or when a customer service manager identifies that the tone evaluation doesn't match their brand standards, they don't need technical expertise to improve the system. They simply provide feedback in their own words, explaining what the metric should have caught and why.

Our research reveals a counterintuitive finding: brief, targeted feedback from experts dramatically outperforms lengthy explanations. 

Figure 2. Brief, targeted feedback (“F/B on Explanation – Brief”) boosts evaluation accuracy most (AUPRG ↑ ~4 pp).  Error bars show ±1 s.e. across 5 datasets.

A compliance expert saying "This should be high risk because it mentions litigation" proves more effective than a paragraph-long analysis. The system learns faster from concise, specific corrections than from elaborate justifications, making it easier for busy domain experts to contribute meaningfully without extensive time investment.

The Natural Language Feedback Process

When domain experts encounter evaluation results that don't align with their professional judgment, they have three ways to guide the system's learning. They can provide simple approval or rejection signals when the right answer is obvious but doesn't need explanation. More powerfully, they can critique the reasoning the system shows to users, helping improve both accuracy and interpretability. Most effective of all, they can directly correct the evaluation with explanations like "This should be scored differently because..." - providing precise guidance that the system integrates into its future assessments.

Figure 3: An example of the feedback mechanism in Galileo. The top shows the current score of the metric and the reasoning behind it. The bottom shows an area for natural language feedback that will be used to improve the metric.

The quality of the initial metric description proves crucial to success. Teams that invest time upfront in clearly articulating their evaluation criteria - including examples and edge cases - see dramatically better performance. One hour spent crafting clear descriptions often saves weeks of debugging later, as the system has better foundations for incorporating expert feedback.

Continuous Adaptation in Action

The improvement cycle operates seamlessly in the background. When experts flag evaluation mismatches, the system analyzes their feedback to understand the gap between current logic and desired outcomes. It then generates new reasoning that aligns with expert judgment and integrates these insights into the evaluation framework. This process typically takes hours or days rather than the months required for traditional metric updates.

Implementation studies show remarkable consistency across different metric types. Instruction adherence metrics improve from 70% to 95% accuracy with targeted feedback. Even specialized domain metrics show substantial gains when experts provide regular input. The system becomes particularly adept at handling changing data patterns and new types of inputs that weren't present in the original training.

Building Organizational Learning

The most successful implementations involve multiple types of contributors. Domain experts provide accuracy and appropriateness guidance, ensuring metrics capture professional standards. End users offer usability and satisfaction feedback, keeping metrics aligned with practical needs. Quality assurance teams maintain consistency and standards across different use cases.

Teams that embrace rapid iteration - deploying metrics quickly and improving them through feedback - consistently outperform those who delay deployment while pursuing perfection. The continuous learning approach means that good metrics can become great metrics through expert guidance, while perfect metrics often remain theoretical concepts that never impact real workflows.

This transformation from static evaluation to continuous expert-guided improvement represents a fundamental shift in how organizations can maintain quality standards while adapting to changing requirements. Domain experts become active partners in metric development, contributing their specialized knowledge through natural language feedback that makes AI systems smarter over time.

Learn about using CLHF in Galileo.

Final Thoughts

Closing the GenAI confidence gap isn’t about chasing perfect metrics—it’s about defining the right ones. Off-the-shelf benchmarks may measure fluency, but they rarely reflect what businesses actually care about: factuality, compliance, tone, and user alignment. By adopting custom evaluators grounded in domain expertise and continuously refined through natural language feedback, organizations can turn subjective quality into measurable, actionable insight. This shift empowers teams to move from tentative pilots to confident, scaled deployments—building trust not just in AI, but in the systems and people guiding its evolution. 

Get started with Galileo today and build the custom evaluation framework your AI deployments deserve.