Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21504v1
• Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 04:57:02 GMT
• Title: Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey
• Authors: Mahmoud Mohammadi, Yipeng Li, Jane Lo, Wendy Yip,
• Abstract summary: This survey introduces a two-dimensional taxonomy that organizes existing work along evaluation objectives.<n>We highlight enterprise-specific challenges, such as role-based access to data.<n>We also identify future research directions, including holistic, more realistic, and scalable evaluation.
• Score: 2.75311233296471
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rise of LLM-based agents has opened new frontiers in AI applications, yet evaluating these agents remains a complex and underdeveloped area. This survey provides an in-depth overview of the emerging field of LLM agent evaluation, introducing a two-dimensional taxonomy that organizes existing work along (1) evaluation objectives -- what to evaluate, such as agent behavior, capabilities, reliability, and safety -- and (2) evaluation process -- how to evaluate, including interaction modes, datasets and benchmarks, metric computation methods, and tooling. In addition to taxonomy, we highlight enterprise-specific challenges, such as role-based access to data, the need for reliability guarantees, dynamic and long-horizon interactions, and compliance, which are often overlooked in current research. We also identify future research directions, including holistic, more realistic, and scalable evaluation. This work aims to bring clarity to the fragmented landscape of agent evaluation and provide a framework for systematic assessment, enabling researchers and practitioners to evaluate LLM agents for real-world deployment.

Related papers

• When AIs Judge AIs: The Rise of Agent-as-a-Judge Evaluation for LLMs [8.575522204707958]
  Large language models (LLMs) grow in capability and autonomy, evaluating their outputs-especially in open-ended and complex tasks-has become a critical bottleneck.<n>A new paradigm is emerging: using AI agents as the evaluators themselves.<n>In this review, we define the agent-as-a-judge concept, trace its evolution from single-model judges to dynamic multi-agent debate frameworks, and critically examine their strengths and shortcomings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T01:42:25Z)
• The Scales of Justitia: A Comprehensive Survey on Safety Evaluation of LLMs [42.57873562187369]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential in the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP)<n>LLMs have occasionally exhibited unsafe elements like toxicity and bias, particularly in adversarial scenarios.<n>This survey aims to provide a comprehensive and systematic overview of recent advancements in LLMs safety evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T05:50:50Z)
• FieldWorkArena: Agentic AI Benchmark for Real Field Work Tasks [52.47895046206854]
  FieldWorkArena is a benchmark for agentic AI targeting real-world field work.<n>This paper defines a new action space that agentic AI should possess for real world work environment benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T08:21:46Z)
• InfoDeepSeek: Benchmarking Agentic Information Seeking for Retrieval-Augmented Generation [63.55258191625131]
  InfoDeepSeek is a new benchmark for assessing agentic information seeking in real-world, dynamic web environments.<n>We propose a systematic methodology for constructing challenging queries satisfying the criteria of determinacy, difficulty, and diversity.<n>We develop the first evaluation framework tailored to dynamic agentic information seeking, including fine-grained metrics about the accuracy, utility, and compactness of information seeking outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T14:44:40Z)
• Toward Generalizable Evaluation in the LLM Era: A Survey Beyond Benchmarks [229.73714829399802]
  This survey probes the core challenges that the rise of Large Language Models poses for evaluation.<n>We identify and analyze two pivotal transitions: (i) from task-specific to capability-based evaluation, which reorganizes benchmarks around core competencies such as knowledge, reasoning, instruction following, multi-modal understanding, and safety.<n>We will dissect this issue, along with the core challenges of the above two transitions, from the perspectives of methods, datasets, evaluators, and metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-26T07:48:52Z)
• Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents [28.91672694491855]
  The emergence of LLM-based agents represents a paradigm shift in AI.<n>This paper provides the first comprehensive survey of evaluation methodologies for these increasingly capable agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T17:59:23Z)
• MME-Survey: A Comprehensive Survey on Evaluation of Multimodal LLMs [97.94579295913606]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have garnered increased attention from both industry and academia.<n>In the development process, evaluation is critical since it provides intuitive feedback and guidance on improving models.<n>This work aims to offer researchers an easy grasp of how to effectively evaluate MLLMs according to different needs and to inspire better evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T18:59:54Z)
• Evaluating Cultural and Social Awareness of LLM Web Agents [113.49968423990616]
  We introduce CASA, a benchmark designed to assess large language models' sensitivity to cultural and social norms.<n>Our approach evaluates LLM agents' ability to detect and appropriately respond to norm-violating user queries and observations.<n>Experiments show that current LLMs perform significantly better in non-agent environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T17:35:44Z)
• TestAgent: A Framework for Domain-Adaptive Evaluation of LLMs via Dynamic Benchmark Construction and Exploratory Interaction [29.72874725703848]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to various vertical domains.<n>Current evaluation methods rely on static and resource-intensive datasets that are not aligned with real-world requirements.<n>We introduce two key concepts: textbfBenchmark+, which extends the traditional question-answer benchmark into a more flexible strategy-criterion'' format.<n>We propose textbftextscTestAgent, an agent-based evaluation framework that implements these concepts using retrieval-augmented generation and reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T11:20:42Z)
• Generative Information Retrieval Evaluation [32.38444700888198]
  We consider generative information retrieval evaluation from two distinct but interrelated perspectives.<n>First, large language models (LLMs) themselves are rapidly becoming tools for evaluation.<n>Second, we consider the evaluation of emerging LLM-based generative information retrieval (GenIR) systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T21:48:54Z)
• AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents [74.16170899755281]
  We introduce AgentBoard, a pioneering comprehensive benchmark and accompanied open-source evaluation framework tailored to analytical evaluation of LLM agents.<n>AgentBoard offers a fine-grained progress rate metric that captures incremental advancements as well as a comprehensive evaluation toolkit.<n>This not only sheds light on the capabilities and limitations of LLM agents but also propels the interpretability of their performance to the forefront.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T01:51:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.