arXiv AI By Ruifeng Ren, Gun Ahn

Closed-Loop Agent Evaluation: Layered Measurement and Self-Calibration

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces a closed‑loop evaluation framework for deployed agents, moving beyond one‑off benchmarks to continuous, multi‑level assessment. It defines four analysis levels—span, trace, conversation, and engagement—each measured along Execution, Substance, Trajectory, and Results, while enforcing Conduct constraints. The method employs provenance, adjudication, and evaluator agents from an Agent Factory, with inner and outer loops auditing evidence and driving agent improvement, demonstrated on the SharpInsight business‑analysis agent and public conversation data.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Oct 26

Trial by Trace: Benchmarking AI Agent Harnesses for Reliability and Failure Attribution

The paper introduces TraceTrial-Bench, a benchmark that evaluates the reliability of AI agent harnesses across seven components—context, execution, governance, lifecycle, observability, tools, and verification—using 95 expert-level tasks with executable or state-based ground truth. It employs a Trajectory Tracing module to record agent execution, a two-layer evaluation framework to separately assess agent performance and harness reliability, and a Multi-source Evidence Acquisition module to gather evidence for LLM-based evaluation. The benchmark’s analysis of 3,420 runs across four harnesses and nine models shows harness scores between 59.8% and 72.0%, with 31.1% of runs succeeding despite failing at least one harness criterion, highlighting the need for auditable and reproducible harness evaluation.

By Zhiyong Cao, Hengjie Zhu, Yongxin Wang, Xuchen Li, Jintao Li, Shuxia Liu, Dunqiang Liu, Bo Wang, Kairan Zhang, Cong Lin, JiangDi Yu, Siyuan Liu, Sijia Yao, Yi-Liang Wei, Lingxu Ma, Aijia Wang, Anxin Chen, Zixian Wei, Xiang Ruan, Ruizhi Xu, Ruqian Shi, Baihua Xiao, Sicheng Zhou
arXiv AI
Aug 26

Benchmarking LLM Judges for Voice-Agent Evaluation: Reliability, Calibration, and Human Oversight

The paper evaluates the use of large language models (LLMs) as judges for assessing conversational voice agents, comparing human judgments with GPT‑4.1 and GPT‑5 across telecom and retail interactions. It examines agreement, metric‑level correlations, and consistency across three evaluation configurations (p0, p1, p2) to determine how reliably LLMs can judge conversational quality and safety. The study finds that LLM‑based evaluation can be effective but its reliability varies by metric and configuration, suggesting a hybrid approach where LLMs handle scalable assessment while humans focus on metrics requiring contextual interpretation.

By Anupam Purwar, Shashank Singh, Kritika Srivastava