Auto-Eval Judge: Towards a General Agentic Framework for Task Completion Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05508v1
• Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2025 15:39:48 GMT
• Title: Auto-Eval Judge: Towards a General Agentic Framework for Task Completion Evaluation
• Abstract summary: We propose a generalizable, modular framework for evaluating agent task completion independent of the task domain.<n>We validate our framework by evaluating the Magentic-One Actor Agent on two benchmarks, GAIA and BigCodeBench.<n>Our Judge Agent predicts task success with closer agreement to human evaluations, achieving 4.76% and 10.52% higher alignment accuracy, respectively.
• Score: 4.08768677009363
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The increasing adoption of foundation models as agents across diverse domains necessitates a robust evaluation framework. Current methods, such as LLM-as-a-Judge, focus only on final outputs, overlooking the step-by-step reasoning that drives agentic decision-making. Meanwhile, existing Agent-as-a-Judge systems, where one agent evaluates another's task completion, are typically designed for narrow, domain-specific settings. To address this gap, we propose a generalizable, modular framework for evaluating agent task completion independent of the task domain. The framework emulates human-like evaluation by decomposing tasks into sub-tasks and validating each step using available information, such as the agent's output and reasoning. Each module contributes to a specific aspect of the evaluation process, and their outputs are aggregated to produce a final verdict on task completion. We validate our framework by evaluating the Magentic-One Actor Agent on two benchmarks, GAIA and BigCodeBench. Our Judge Agent predicts task success with closer agreement to human evaluations, achieving 4.76% and 10.52% higher alignment accuracy, respectively, compared to the GPT-4o based LLM-as-a-Judge baseline. This demonstrates the potential of our proposed general-purpose evaluation framework.

Related papers

• PACE: A Proxy for Agentic Capability Evaluation [60.3743414796937]
  We introduce PACE, a framework that constructs proxy benchmarks by selecting instances from existing non-agentic evaluations.<n>Experiments across 14 models, 4 agentic benchmarks, and 19 non-agentic benchmarks show that PACE-Bench predicts agentic scores with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) mean absolute error (MAE) under 4%, Spearman correlation above 0.80, and pairwise model-ranking accuracy around 85%, all at much less than 1% of the full agentic evaluation cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T10:59:03Z)
• AgentBeats: Agentifying Agent Assessment for Openness, Standardization, and Reproducibility [104.46861849039357]
  Agent systems are advancing quickly across domains, but their evaluation remains fragmented.<n>The root problem is the lack of an open, agent-agnostic assessment interface.<n>We advocate Agentified Agent Assessment (AAA), where evaluation is performed by judge agents and all participants interact through standardized protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T17:23:54Z)
• The Meta-Agent Challenge: Are Current Agents Capable of Autonomous Agent Development? [80.24951682268332]
  We introduce the Meta-Agent Challenge (MAC), an evaluation framework designed to test the capacity of frontier models for autonomous agent development.<n>To ensure evaluation integrity, this framework is secured by multi-layer defenses against reward hacking.<n>We demonstrate that meta-agents rarely match human-engineered baseline policies, and the few that do are dominated by proprietary frontier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T04:58:17Z)
• MetaCogAgent: A Metacognitive Multi-Agent LLM Framework with Self-Aware Task Delegation [11.486913474115402]
  We propose MetaCogAgent, a multi-agent large language model (LLM) framework where each agent is equipped with a Metacognitive Self-Assessment Unit.<n>We show that MetaCogAgent achieves 82.4% task accuracy while using 5% fewer API calls than AutoGen and 34% fewer than ensemble voting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T07:12:04Z)
• AgentPRM: Process Reward Models for LLM Agents via Step-Wise Promise and Progress [71.02263260394261]
  Large language models (LLMs) still encounter challenges in multi-turn decision-making tasks.<n>We build process reward models (PRMs) to evaluate each decision and guide the agent's decision-making process.<n>AgentPRM captures both the interdependence between sequential decisions and their contribution to the final goal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T14:57:54Z)
• Towards Outcome-Oriented, Task-Agnostic Evaluation of AI Agents [1.0305173936249623]
  This white paper proposes a novel framework of eleven outcome-based, task-agnostic performance metrics for AI agents.<n>We introduce metrics such as Goal Completion Rate (GCR), Autonomy Index (AIx), Multi-Step Task Resilience (MTR), and Business Impact Efficiency (BIE)<n>Our results reveal significant performance trade-offs between different agent designs, highlighting the Hybrid Agent as the most consistently high-performing model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-11T13:40:46Z)
• Alita-G: Self-Evolving Generative Agent for Agent Generation [54.49365835457433]
  We present ALITA-G, a framework that transforms a general-purpose agent into a domain expert.<n>In this framework, a generalist agent executes a curated suite of target-domain tasks.<n>It attains strong gains while reducing computation costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T17:59:14Z)
• What Is Your Agent's GPA? A Framework for Evaluating Agent Goal-Plan-Action Alignment [3.5583478152586756]
  Agent GPA is an evaluation paradigm based on an agent's operational loop of setting goals, devising plans, and executing actions.<n>The framework includes five evaluation metrics: Goal Fulfillment, Logical Consistency, Execution Efficiency, Plan Quality, and Plan Adherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T22:40:19Z)
• CORE: Full-Path Evaluation of LLM Agents Beyond Final State [2.0391237204597368]
  Existing agentic benchmarks often reduce evaluation to a binary judgment of the final state.<n>We propose a framework based on deterministic finite automata that encodes tasks as sets of valid tool-use paths.<n>We introduce CORE, a suite of five metrics, namely Path Correctness, Path Correctness - Kendall's tau Composite, Prefix Criticality, Harmful-Call Rate, and Efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T10:49:35Z)
• Visual Document Understanding and Question Answering: A Multi-Agent Collaboration Framework with Test-Time Scaling [83.78874399606379]
  We propose MACT, a Multi-Agent Collaboration framework with Test-Time scaling.<n>It comprises four distinct small-scale agents, with clearly defined roles and effective collaboration.<n>It shows superior performance with a smaller parameter scale without sacrificing the ability of general and mathematical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T12:52:09Z)
• Task Priors: Enhancing Model Evaluation by Considering the Entire Space of Downstream Tasks [13.412573082645096]
  We argue that such a rigid evaluation protocol creates a silent bottleneck in AI research.<n>Under this view, one can evaluate a model's performance over the set of all possible downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T02:53:14Z)
• PIPA: A Unified Evaluation Protocol for Diagnosing Interactive Planning Agents [12.052972947563424]
  Existing benchmarks predominantly evaluate agent performance based on task completion as a proxy for overall effectiveness.<n>We propose PIPA, a unified evaluation protocol that conceptualizes the behavioral process of interactive task planning agents.<n>Our analyses show that agents excel in different behavioral stages, with user satisfaction shaped by both outcomes and intermediate behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T21:27:10Z)
• SEOE: A Scalable and Reliable Semantic Evaluation Framework for Open Domain Event Detection [70.23196257213829]
  We propose a scalable and reliable Semantic-level Evaluation framework for Open domain Event detection.<n>Our proposed framework first constructs a scalable evaluation benchmark that currently includes 564 event types covering 7 major domains.<n>We then leverage large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluation agents to compute a semantic F1-score, incorporating fine-grained definitions of semantically similar labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T09:37:05Z)
• OmniEval: An Omnidirectional and Automatic RAG Evaluation Benchmark in Financial Domain [62.89809156574998]
  We introduce an omnidirectional and automatic RAG benchmark, OmniEval, in the financial domain.<n>Our benchmark is characterized by its multi-dimensional evaluation framework.<n>Our experiments demonstrate the comprehensiveness of OmniEval, which includes extensive test datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T15:38:42Z)
• CompassJudger-1: All-in-one Judge Model Helps Model Evaluation and Evolution [74.41064280094064]
  textbfJudger-1 is the first open-source textbfall-in-one judge LLM. CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility. textbfJudgerBench is a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:56:51Z)
• 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)
• Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents [61.33974108405561]
  We introduce the Agent-as-a-Judge framework, wherein agentic systems are used to evaluate agentic systems. This is an organic extension of the LLM-as-a-Judge framework, incorporating agentic features that enable intermediate feedback for the entire task-solving process. We present DevAI, a new benchmark of 55 realistic automated AI development tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T17:57:02Z)
• 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)
• Agents meet OKR: An Object and Key Results Driven Agent System with Hierarchical Self-Collaboration and Self-Evaluation [25.308341461293857]
  OKR-Agent is designed to enhance the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in task-solving. Our framework includes two novel modules: hierarchical Objects and Key Results generation and multi-level evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T06:16:30Z)

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.