Why architecture matters here

SLM eval fails when it only uses public benchmarks (gamed), skips human eval, or ignores safety. Architecture matters because a suite that covers task + safety + cost is what convinces stakeholders.

Advertisement

The architecture: every piece explained

The top strip is measurement. Model candidate. Benchmark suite — MMLU, HELM, etc. Task-specific suite — the actual product tasks. Human eval — small but critical samples.

The middle row is quality. Safety eval. Regression harness — golden set. Latency + cost per token. Report — verdict + tradeoffs.

The lower rows are ops. CI integration per PR. Comparison vs baseline + larger models. Ops — governance + versioning.

SLM evaluation — benchmarks + task suite + human eval + regression + costprove small models earn deploymentModel candidateSLM + adapterBenchmark suiteMMLU / HELM / etcTask-specific suiteproduct tasksHuman evalsmall samplesSafety evalharmful + jailbreakRegression harnessgolden setLatency + costTP + $/1kReportverdict + tradeoffsCI integrationrun per PRComparisonvs baseline + largerOps — governance + versioning + auditsafetyregressionmeasuredecideruncomparecompareoperateoperate
SLM evaluation harness: benchmark + task + human + regression.
Advertisement

End-to-end flow

End-to-end: 7B SLM candidate. Benchmarks show 88% of 70B on target tasks. Human eval on 200 samples confirms quality. Safety eval passes. Latency 3x faster, cost 5x lower. Report recommends ship. CI runs same eval on future PRs.