SAGE (State‑Grounded, Abstention‑Aware Evaluation) is a new framework for assessing task‑oriented dialogue agents that focuses on whether each turn correctly advances the workflow state rather than just the quality of the reply. It compiles workflow specifications and per‑turn state differences into schema‑grounded criteria, then evaluates them through a cascade of symbolic rules and encoder/NLI verifiers that abstain instead of guessing, producing a turn‑level decision with an evidence trace. In experiments across MultiWOZ, Schema‑Guided Dialogue, and ABCD datasets, SAGE‑Core—using only symbolic rules and on‑device encoders—outperforms all evaluated LLM‑based judges, including GPT‑4.1 variants, while incurring zero paid LLM cost.
By Rayan Khoury, Shih-Yao Lin, Pratyush Mishra
The paper investigates how language‑model judges can make version‑dependent errors when evaluating upgraded agents. Using 35 public coding‑agent submissions, two customer‑service agents, and over a thousand expert‑labeled trajectories, the authors show that fixed judges often reject task‑conditioned error invariance and can incorrectly approve failed patches, especially as agent capability increases. Paired audits of current outputs reduce interval width only marginally, and the study concludes that independent human patch review is still necessary.
By Jiapeng Li
AgentAudit is an open, extensible framework that evaluates the full lifecycle of AI agents, assessing planning, tool selection, execution, memory, and reasoning across ten dimensions such as instruction integrity, security, and alignment. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on single aspects, AgentAudit analyzes the entire execution trace to attribute failures to specific stages. The framework was tested on five large language models, revealing significant differences in trustworthiness even among models with similar task‑completion performance.
By Shrey Nag, Sachita, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Lipi Goel, Rajeshwar Singh Janwar
arXiv:2607. 23124v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model agents have advanced rapidly, yet progress remains fragmented across domains, capabilities, task difficulty, and interaction settings.
By Hao Jiang, Gangtao Xin, Yingdi Huang, Guojie Zhu, Jiangshan Zhang, Xinyuan Lin, Yunkun Xu, Chengyu Shen, Wenlong Fei, Jiawei Li, Yujie Fu, Sichen Kang, Tingyu Xie, Yedi Hu, Jingren Zhang, Hongcheng Gao, Jianshu Zeng, Chong Chen, Chang Guo, Chao Feng, Feng Wang, Fulin Lin, Jinchao Ma, Lang Mei, Li Huang, Liyan Liu, Qing He, Shuting Tao, Siyu Mo, Xiangnan Chen, Xiaohan Yu, Xiaoyang Li, Yanheng Hou, Yanyu Wu, Zhihan Yang, Wentao Zhang, Yang Gao, Zhao Cao
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
By Bhaskar Gurram
AgentHorizon is a benchmark comprising 1,373 computer‑use tasks with instruction‑trajectory pairs collected from 166 hours of human‑recorded activity across three operating systems. The benchmark uses a paired design that swaps instructions to create negative tasks, testing judges’ ability to distinguish successful trajectories from those that completed a similar but incompatible request. Eleven judges were evaluated, with GPT‑5.5 achieving the highest balanced accuracy of 80.9% on the full trajectory subset, while tool‑use benefits some models but harms others, revealing large variability in judges’ performance.
By Xing Han L\`u, Dheeraj Vattikonda, Sina Hajimiri, Fatemeh Pesaran Zadeh, Parishad BehnamGhader, Ghazwa Darwiche, Amirhossein Kazemnejad, Christopher Pal, Alexandre Drouin, Siva Reddy
The paper introduces RuVerBench, a benchmark with 2,458 instances for evaluating the reliability of Large Language Models acting as judges (LaaJ) in verifying rubric compliance within agentic scenarios such as deep research and agentic coding. It systematically meta‑evaluates frontier LLMs, revealing that even the most advanced models perform well yet still produce substantial noise. The study also examines how prompt design, batching, and majority voting affect verification accuracy, noting that weaker models are more prompt‑sensitive, batched verification trades accuracy for efficiency, and majority voting offers diminishing returns.
By Yangda Peng, Yunjia Qi, Haotian Xia, Guanzhong He, Xintong Shi, Richeng Xuan, Songyuanyi Lu, Yixian Liu, Zhichao Hu, Yuhong Liu, Hao Peng
arXiv:2606. 07810v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as judges for evaluating model outputs, but their high cost, latency, and opacity limit scalability.
By Anish Laddha, Nitesh Pradhan, Gaurav Srivastava
GAUGE is a new offline protocol that evaluates whether the common practice of using an LLM-as-a-judge to rank task‑oriented agents actually aligns with a verifiable reward. Across 25 agents from six providers on two benchmarks, GAUGE finds that user satisfaction scores are largely uncorrelated with task success, and that the judge’s ranking loses precision when agents are closely matched in performance. The study highlights a gap between ranking validity and construct validity in current evaluation practices.
By Umesh Bodhwani, Thanh Tran, Kai Wei
arXiv:2605. 17554v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Frontier deep research agents (DRAs) plan a research task, synthesize across documents, and return a structured deliverable on demand.
By Tanmay Asthana, Aman Saksena, Divyansh Sahu
arXiv:2609.13824v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the responses of other language models. This approach, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, is faste...
By Aakash Kumar Tiwari
BekchiAI introduces a benchmark and platform for evaluating large language model agents. The benchmark comprises 13 tool‑using ReAct agents across seven task categories, totaling 2,057 deterministic test tasks with verifier‑checkable gold answers. The platform offers web‑based observability, token and latency telemetry, and remote run termination for live agents.
By Mesut Toruk