LLM Evaluation — RAGAS, DeepEval, G-Eval
Exact-match and F1 miss semantic equivalence. Human review does not scale. LLM-as-judge is the production answer — with enough calibration to trust the number. Your RAG system answers: "June 29th, 2007." The gold reference is: "June 29, 2007." Exact Match scores 0. F1 scores 75%. A human would score 100%. Now multiply by 10,000 test cases. Multiply again by every change to the retriever, chunking, prompt, or model. You need an evaluator that understands meaning, runs cheaply at scale, does not lie about regressions, and surfaces the right failure modes. 2026 has three frameworks that own this problem. RAGAS. Retrieval-Augmented Generation ASsessment. Four RAG metrics (faithfulness, answer-relevance, context-precision, context-recall) with NLI + LLM-judge backends. Research-backed, lightweight. DeepEval. Pytest for LLMs. G-Eval, task-completion, hallucination, bias metrics. CI/CD-native. G-Eval. A method (and a DeepEval metric): LLM-as-judge with chain-of-thought, custom criteria, 0-1 score. All three lean on LLM-as-judge. This lesson builds intuition for the method and the trust layer around it. Four evaluation dimensions, LLM-as-judge architecture LLM-as-judge. Replace a static metric with an LLM that scores outputs given a rubric. Given (query, context, answer), prompt a judge LLM: "Score 0-1 on faithfulness." Return the score. Why it works: LLMs approximate human judgment at a tiny fraction of the cost. GPT-4o-mini at $0.003 per scored case enables 1000-sample regression eval runs for under $5.…
LLM Evaluation — RAGAS, DeepEval, G-Eval: Exact-match and F1 miss semantic equivalence. Human review does not scale. LLM-as-judge is the production answer —…
This free lesson is part of the AI Engineering from Scratch curriculum. Read the full explanation, run the lesson code, and verify the result in the interactive reader or from the repository source.
Browse the complete course catalog or open this lesson on GitHub.