Testing & Findings

Testing methods

How to find the limits of AI systems. Each method is backed by the real findings it has surfaced — and ranked by how much it surfaces, weighted by severity. The durable knowledge is the technique, not the patched-away bug.

Most productive methods

  1. 1Differential testing7 findings · 7 versions
  2. 2Prompt-injection & jailbreak testing4 findings · 4 versions
  3. 3Boundary & edge-case testing7 findings · 6 versions

Ranked by a severity-weighted yield score. Why we measure this →

Clear

17 methods

Differential2 findings · 4 versions

A/B testing in production

Serve two variants — prompts, models, or settings — to comparable slices of real traffic and let live outcomes decide which behaves better.

1 High1 Medium
EstablishedEvalsProduction
Adversarial4 findings · 6 versions

Adversarial prompting

Deliberately craft inputs designed to elicit failure — confusion, unsafe output, or broken constraints — to map the model's weak boundaries.

2 High2 Medium
EstablishedSafetyEvals
Oracle1 finding · 6 versions

Benchmark evaluation

Score the model against a fixed, known-answer dataset so performance becomes a number you can track across versions and compare across models.

1 Medium
EstablishedEvalsBenchmarks
Other1 finding · 5 versions

Bias auditing

Measure outcome disparities across a population of demographically varied inputs, reporting fairness as statistics rather than anecdotes.

1 High
EstablishedBiasEvals
Boundary7 findings · 6 versions

Boundary & edge-case testing

Push inputs to limits — very long contexts, token boundaries, empty/extreme values — where behavior tends to degrade sharply.

3 Medium4 Low
EstablishedEvalsContext window
Exploratory3 findings · 4 versions

Chain-of-thought faithfulness probing

Test whether a model's stated reasoning actually determines its answer, or is a post-hoc rationalization.

1 High2 Medium
EmergingReasoning failureEvals
Metamorphic2 findings · 6 versions

Counterfactual bias probing

Hold a prompt fixed while swapping a protected attribute (name, gender, ethnicity) — the output should not change. When it does, you've measured bias.

1 High1 Medium
EstablishedBiasEvals
Differential7 findings · 7 versions

Differential testing

Run the same input across models or versions and treat divergence as a signal worth investigating.

1 High5 Medium1 Low
EstablishedEvalsBenchmarks
Other1 finding · 4 versions

Distributional testing (KS test, Monte Carlo)

Sample the model many times and test the distribution of its outputs — not any single answer — for drift, miscalibration, or instability.

1 Medium
EmergingEvalsDrift
Oracle5 findings · 7 versions

Factual oracle verification

Check generated claims against a trusted ground-truth source to catch hallucinations and fabricated citations.

3 High1 Medium1 Low
EstablishedHallucinationEvals
Fuzzing3 findings · 5 versions

Glitch-token & unicode fuzzing

Feed anomalous tokens, rare unicode, homoglyphs and malformed encodings to trigger out-of-distribution behavior.

1 High2 Low
EmergingSafetyEvals
Property-based3 findings · 6 versions

Logic & consistency testing

Check that the model's outputs obey the rules of logic — valid inference, transitivity, symmetry, no self-contradiction — across related questions.

2 Medium1 Low
EstablishedReasoning failureEvals
Metamorphic4 findings · 7 versions

Metamorphic testing

Test without an oracle by checking relations between the outputs of related inputs, instead of judging any single output in isolation.

3 Medium1 Low
EstablishedReasoning failureEvals
Oracle1 finding · 5 versions

Model-graded evaluation (LLM-as-judge)

Use a strong model as an approximate oracle — grading, comparing, or fact-checking another model's output where no cheap ground-truth label exists.

1 High
EmergingHallucinationEvals
Property-based6 findings · 7 versions

Property-based testing

Specify invariants the output must always satisfy, then generate many inputs automatically and check the invariant on each.

1 High3 Medium2 Low
EstablishedTool useEvals
Metamorphic3 findings · 5 versions

Self-consistency probing

Ask the same question multiple times (or multiple ways) and measure how often the answers agree.

2 Medium1 Low
EmergingReasoning failureEvals
Other1 finding · 4 versions

Smoke testing in CI/CD

A fast, shallow pass on every build — a handful of canonical prompts and health checks — whose only job is to fail loudly on gross breakage before anything deeper runs.

1 Medium
EstablishedEvalsReliability