arXiv AI By Rayan Khoury, Shih-Yao Lin, Pratyush Mishra

SAGE: State-Grounded, Abstention-Aware Evaluation of Task-Oriented Dialogue Agents

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

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
Aug 28

AgentJudgeBench: A Multi-Difficulty Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Judges on Agentic Tool-Calling

AgentJudgeBench is a new benchmark that evaluates the reliability of large language model (LLM) judges on agentic tool‑calling tasks involving workflow directed acyclic graphs (DAGs). It contains 3,808 instances across six DAG topologies and three difficulty tiers, tested with five generators (3B–70B open‑weight models and GPT‑5.4) and six judges (20B to frontier scale) under both paired‑with‑and‑without‑ground‑truth conditions. The study finds that judge alignment degrades with task difficulty, ground‑truth exposure can sometimes hurt alignment, and structured evaluation rubrics provide modest improvements, revealing a structural ceiling that model capacity alone cannot surpass.

By Abhigya Verma, Amit Kumar Saha, Seganrasan Subramanian, Sai Harshitha Aluru
arXiv AI
3d ago

Auditing Escalation Reliability in Healthcare LLM Agents: A Perturbation-Controlled Benchmark of Workflow-State Failures

The paper introduces a benchmark of 400 synthetic healthcare workflow episodes to evaluate large language model (LLM) agents’ reliability in escalating care when evidence is missing or conflicting. It finds that while clean decision accuracy is high (0.97), models miss a large proportion of necessary escalations (32–97%) under uncertainty, and even the largest 9.7B model’s performance drops to 0.78 in conflict scenarios. A workflow-aware controller improves utility and reduces missed escalations, but its effectiveness is limited by lexical generalization failures.

By Zihao Zheng (Washington University in St. Louis), Junyi Yao (Washington University in St. Louis), Baichuan Li (Southern Methodist University), Jiayu Long (Washington University in St. Louis)
arXiv Computation and Language
4d ago

Evaluating LLMs as Agentic Workflow Executors in Real-World Customer Support Skills

arXiv:2610.14346v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Enterprise customer-support agents increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) to execute bounded, tool-using workflows. We study this proble...

By Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Gundeep Singh, Xue-Yong Fu, Karol Chang, Kevin Sanders, Shi Zong, Tania Habib, Julien Bouvier Tremblay, Shayna Gardiner, Harsh Saini, Matthias Lee, Elena Khasanova, Quinten McNamara, Shashi Bhushan TN
arXiv AI
Oct 9

Beyond Type-checking: Towards Holistic Evaluation of Formal Specification Generation

The paper presents a unified dataset of 350 Lean tasks to evaluate specification generation (SpecGen) for verifiable code, combining metrics of formal validity, reference similarity, equivalence, and behavioural adequacy. It highlights that restricting similarity measures to a subset of tasks can shift rankings, and shows that a perfect postcondition score can still miss critical input coverage, underscoring the need for separate feedback on input and output constraints.

By Srijith Nair, Aditya Vempaty, Jia Liu, Ashish Jagmohan