Skip to content

Researching the frontier of AI evaluation.

Synthium isn't only a delivery partner. The expert layer we operate generates hard-won signal about how frontier models behave under real evaluation — and we work to turn that signal into defensible method. This is where we publish what we learn.

What we study

Focus areas.

An early-stage hub. We're open about what we investigate and are building toward — without inventing findings we haven't published.

Benchmark reports

We're building repeatable ways to measure where frontier models actually break — not headline leaderboard scores, but the task-level and domain-level gaps that matter for deployment. Methods and findings are shared in pilots as they mature.

Human vs LLM-as-a-judge

Where does automated judging agree with expert human judgment, and where does it quietly fail? We study disagreement patterns, failure modes and when human review is non-negotiable.

Expert calibration research

How do you turn a qualified domain expert into a consistent, measurable evaluator? We investigate calibration, gold-task design and the processes that make expert labels trustworthy at scale.

Coding-agent failure analysis

Coding and AI agents fail in ways generic annotators miss. We analyze the failure modes of agent trajectories — correctness, specification drift, edge cases — and how to evaluate them reliably.

Reasoning evaluation

Beyond final-answer accuracy, we study how to assess multi-step reasoning: where models fabricate, where they shortcut, and how expert graders can separate real competence from plausible output.

Domain-specific evaluation

Legal, medical, financial and scientific evaluation require domain experts who can tell right from wrong. We build toward evaluation frameworks grounded in real professional judgment, not surface fluency.

In preparation

Research notes.

These are in-preparation research notes — real directions we're investigating, not published findings. We share them here to be transparent about what we're working on.

RESEARCH NOTE

Why real-world trajectories matter more than final answers

Static question-answer pairs miss the reasoning path. Trajectories capture the decisions, tool calls, and recoveries that distinguish capable agents from lucky ones.

IN PREPARATION

RESEARCH NOTE

Evaluating agents beyond task completion

Binary pass/fail hides whether an agent solved the problem or stumbled into the answer. Multi-dimensional evaluation surfaces the difference.

IN PREPARATION

FOCUS AREA

What makes operational data valuable for AI?

Not all enterprise data improves models. The signal is in the decisions people made, not the records they stored.

IN PREPARATION

RESEARCH NOTE

Human judgement as an evaluation bottleneck

Automated metrics scale but miss nuance. Expert evaluation is slow but catches what metrics cannot. The question is how to combine them.

IN PREPARATION

FOCUS AREA

Designing production-grade coding-agent environments

A sandbox that is too simple teaches agents to cheat. A sandbox that is too complex teaches nothing. Environment design is evaluation design.

IN PREPARATION

RESEARCH NOTE

From enterprise logs to agent trajectories

Operational records contain implicit decision sequences. Extracting them requires domain expertise, not just data engineering.

IN PREPARATION

How we share

Deeper material lives in our pilots

Much of what we learn is tied to client work and unreleased models, so the most detailed methodology, datasets and results are shared under NDA and in active pilots — not on a public blog. If you're building evaluation for a frontier system, you can work directly with our research team on the problems that matter to you.