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