💥 Introducing JevEval: Jev-as-a-Judge for LLM evaluation. Read the post →
RAG

Answer Relevancy

LLM-as-a-judge
Jev-as-a-judge
Single-turn
Referenceless
RAG
Multimodal

The answer relevancy metric uses LLM-as-a-judge to measure the quality of your RAG pipeline's generator by evaluating how relevant the actual_output of your LLM application is compared to the provided input. deepeval's answer relevancy metric is a self-explaining LLM-Eval, meaning it outputs a reason for its metric score.

Required Arguments

To use the AnswerRelevancyMetric, you'll have to provide the following arguments when creating an LLMTestCase:

  • input
  • actual_output

Read the How Is It Calculated section below to learn how test case parameters are used for metric calculation.

Usage

First, set the eval mode:

deepeval set-eval-mode llm         # LLM-as-a-judge (default)
deepeval set-eval-mode hybrid      # LLM extracts, Jev decides
deepeval set-eval-mode system_one  # Jev-as-a-judge, no LLM

The AnswerRelevancyMetric can be used for end-to-end evaluation of text-based and multimodal test cases:

from deepeval.metrics import AnswerRelevancyMetric
from deepeval.test_case import LLMTestCase
from deepeval import evaluate

metric = AnswerRelevancyMetric(
    threshold=0.7,
    model="gpt-4.1",
    include_reason=True
)
test_case = LLMTestCase(
    input="What if these shoes don't fit?",
    # Replace this with the output from your LLM app
    actual_output="We offer a 30-day full refund at no extra cost."
)

# To run metric as a standalone
# metric.measure(test_case)
# print(metric.score, metric.reason)

evaluate(test_cases=[test_case], metrics=[metric])
from deepeval.test_case import LLMTestCase, MLLMImage
from deepeval.metrics import AnswerRelevancyMetric
from deepeval import evaluate

metric = AnswerRelevancyMetric(
    threshold=0.7,
    model="gpt-4.1",
    include_reason=True
)
test_case = LLMTestCase(
    input=f"Tell me about this landmark in France: {MLLMImage(...)}",
    # Replace this with the output from your LLM app
    actual_output=f"This appears to be Eiffel Tower, which is a famous landmark in France"
)

# To run metric as a standalone
# metric.measure(test_case)
# print(metric.score, metric.reason)

evaluate(test_cases=[test_case], metrics=[metric])

There are TEN optional parameters when creating an AnswerRelevancyMetric:

  • [Optional] threshold: a number representing the minimum passing threshold. Can also be set to None to run the metric in score-only mode. Defaulted to 0.5.
  • [Optional] model: a string specifying which of OpenAI's GPT models to use, OR any custom LLM model of type DeepEvalBaseLLM. Defaulted to gpt-5.4.
  • [Optional] include_reason: a boolean which when set to True, will include a reason for its evaluation score. Defaulted to True.
  • [Optional] strict_mode: a boolean which when set to True, enforces a binary metric score: 1 for perfection, 0 otherwise. It also overrides the current threshold and sets it to 1. Defaulted to False.
  • [Optional] async_mode: a boolean which when set to True, enables concurrent execution within the measure() method. Defaulted to True.

  • [Optional] verbose_mode: a boolean which when set to True, prints the intermediate steps used to calculate said metric to the console, as outlined in the How Is It Calculated section. Defaulted to False.
  • [Optional] evaluation_template: of type AnswerRelevancyTemplate, which allows you to override the default prompts used to compute the AnswerRelevancyMetric score. Defaulted to deepeval's default prompts.
  • [Optional] flaky: a boolean which when set to True, marks the metric as flaky. Defaulted to False.
  • [Optional] system_one_model: the Jev model to use, as a string or a DeepEvalBaseSystemOneModel. Only used under hybrid or system_one eval_mode. Defaulted to jev-latest.
  • [Optional] eval_mode: llm, hybrid or system_one, choosing whether an LLM, Jev, or both judge. Defaulted to the configured eval mode (llm unless set).

Within components

You can also run the AnswerRelevancyMetric within nested components for component-level evaluation.

from deepeval.dataset import EvaluationDataset, Golden
from deepeval.tracing import observe, update_current_span
...

@observe(metrics=[metric])
def inner_component():
    # Set test case at runtime
    test_case = LLMTestCase(input="...", actual_output="...")
    update_current_span(test_case=test_case)
    return

@observe
def llm_app(input: str):
    # Component can be anything from an LLM call, retrieval, agent, tool use, etc.
    inner_component()
    return

dataset = EvaluationDataset(goldens=[Golden(input="Hi!")])
for golden in dataset.evals_iterator():
    llm_app(golden.input)

As a standalone

You can also run the AnswerRelevancyMetric on a single test case as a standalone, one-off execution.

...

metric.measure(test_case)
print(metric.score, metric.reason)

How Is It Calculated?

You can change how the AnswerRelevancyMetric is calculated by setting the eval mode.

LLM-as-a-judge

The AnswerRelevancyMetric score is calculated according to the following equation:

Answer Relevancy=Number of Relevant StatementsTotal Number of Statements\text{Answer Relevancy} = \frac{\text{Number of Relevant Statements}}{\text{Total Number of Statements}}

The AnswerRelevancyMetric first uses an LLM to extract all statements made in the actual_output, before using the same LLM to classify whether each statement is relevant to the input.

Hybrid

Under the hybrid eval mode, the classification step is answered by Jev, a System One model, instead: one yes/no question per statement, with P(yes) > 0.65 counted as relevant, < 0.35 as irrelevant, and anything in between as borderline. The extraction, the equation and the reason are unchanged. If a Jev call fails, the LLM makes that decision instead.

Jev-as-a-judge

Under the system_one eval mode, Jev judges the whole metric in one request. It is sent the raw input and actual_output and asked three questions:

QuestionTypeWeight
Every statement in actual_output is relevant to addressing input.Noul2
actual_output directly addresses what input asks for, rather than a different or broader topic.Noul1
How much of actual_output is relevant to addressing input? (None of it → All of it)Score1

Each answer becomes a value in [0,1][0, 1] and the score is their weighted mean. No LLM is called: the reason lists each answer with its probability, and metric.confidence reports how decisive Jev was.

Customize Your Template

Since deepeval's AnswerRelevancyMetric is evaluated by LLM-as-a-judge, you can likely improve your metric accuracy by overriding deepeval's default prompt templates. This is especially helpful if:

  • You're using a custom evaluation LLM, especially for smaller models that have weaker instruction following capabilities.
  • You want to customize the examples used in the default prompts to better align with your expectations.

Here's a quick example of how you can override the statement generation step of the AnswerRelevancyMetric algorithm:

from deepeval.metrics.answer_relevancy import AnswerRelevancyTemplate
from deepeval.metrics import AnswerRelevancyMetric

# Define custom template
class CustomTemplate(AnswerRelevancyTemplate):
    @staticmethod
    def generate_statements(actual_output: str):
        return f"""Given the text, breakdown and generate a list of statements presented.

Example:
Our new laptop model features a high-resolution Retina display for crystal-clear visuals.

{{
    "statements": [
        "The new laptop model has a high-resolution Retina display."
    ]
}}
===== END OF EXAMPLE ======

Text:
{actual_output}

JSON:
"""

# Inject custom template to metric
metric = AnswerRelevancyMetric(evaluation_template=CustomTemplate)
metric.measure(...)

FAQs

Does a high answer relevancy score mean my answer is factually correct?
No. It only checks whether statements in actual_output address the input, not whether they're grounded in retrieved context — an answer can be on-topic and still hallucinate. Pair it with Faithfulness to catch factual errors.
My answer relevancy is low — is this a retriever or a generator problem?
Generator. It compares actual_output against the input and never looks at retrieval_context, so a low score points to a prompt or model rambling, hedging, or drifting off-topic. Use the contextual metrics for retrieval.
Do I need a reference answer or ground truth to use it?
No. It's referenceless — only input and actual_output are required, so there's no expected_output to write and you can run it on live production traffic. See the test case docs.
Why is my score low when the answer looks fine to me?
It counts how many statements in actual_output are relevant to the input, so preamble, caveats, or tangents drag the score down even when the core answer is correct. Set verbose_mode=True to see which statements were flagged.

On this page