The paper introduces a disclosure‑gated user simulator for companion‑agent evaluation, where information release is conditioned on the agent’s behavior through a five‑level gate system. The authors train the simulator on synthetic and real data, audit its performance, and demonstrate that it preserves ranking order and score stability across 12 tested systems. Their released simulator achieves a 0.993 correlation with the original benchmark’s simulator and outperforms prompting a frontier model, which only shifts scores upward without affecting rankings.
By Yao Liu, Yu He
Using a large language model to play the user is now standard in scalable evaluation. It has a repeatedly diagnosed failure: the simulated user is excessively cooperative, so a system under test can s...
arXiv:2608.21832v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Computer-use agents ground natural-language instructions in screenshots to locate interface elements, yet existing benchmarks do not isolate whether mo...
By Md Abrar Jahin, Md Rizwan Parvez
arXiv:2609.06059v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: As large language models evolve from question-answering systems into general-purpose agents, evaluation must move beyond static answer correctness to a...
By Yu Liu, Zhilin Liu, Zhiwei Yang, Shaojie Zhang, Zheyuan Deng, Tingwei Huang, Zhenbo Luo, Lei Jiang, Yanbing Liu, Pei Fu
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
Agent evaluations increasingly benchmark LLMs, but rankings can be swayed by evaluation conditions such as scaffolds or tasks, making reliability claim‑dependent. A Bayesian variance‑decomposition framework applied to 22 benchmarks shows that reliability varies with the measurement goal: fixed model‑scaffold systems rank reliably, while underlying‑model rankings are less stable. Scaffold choice can alter conclusions, and adding more tasks only modestly improves reliability when scaffold coverage is limited; however, pooling diverse benchmarks can substantially raise cross‑task ranking reliability and reduce cost.
By Michael Hardy, Ruhana Azam, Anka Reuel, Mykel Kochenderfer, Sanmi Koyejo