Talk, Evaluate, Diagnose: User-aware Agent Evaluation with Automated Error Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15483v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 16:14:28 GMT
• Title: Talk, Evaluate, Diagnose: User-aware Agent Evaluation with Automated Error Analysis
• Abstract summary: We argue that effective agent evaluation goes beyond correctness alone, incorporating conversation quality, efficiency and systematic diagnosis of agent errors.<n>We propose new metrics that capture both turn efficiency and intermediate progress of the agent.<n>We show that our TED framework reveals new insights regarding agent performance across models and user expertise levels.
• Score: 3.3237915628874632
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Agent applications are increasingly adopted to automate workflows across diverse tasks. However, due to the heterogeneous domains they operate in, it is challenging to create a scalable evaluation framework. Prior works each employ their own methods to determine task success, such as database lookups, regex match, etc., adding complexity to the development of a unified agent evaluation approach. Moreover, they do not systematically account for the user's role nor expertise in the interaction, providing incomplete insights into the agent's performance. We argue that effective agent evaluation goes beyond correctness alone, incorporating conversation quality, efficiency and systematic diagnosis of agent errors. To address this, we introduce the TED framework (Talk, Evaluate, Diagnose). (1) Talk: We leverage reusable, generic expert and non-expert user persona templates for user-agent interaction. (2) Evaluate: We adapt existing datasets by representing subgoals-such as tool signatures, and responses-as natural language grading notes, evaluated automatically with LLM-as-a-judge. We propose new metrics that capture both turn efficiency and intermediate progress of the agent complementing the user-aware setup. (3) Diagnose: We introduce an automated error analysis tool that analyzes the inconsistencies of the judge and agents, uncovering common errors, and providing actionable feedback for agent improvement. We show that our TED framework reveals new insights regarding agent performance across models and user expertise levels. We also demonstrate potential gains in agent performance with peaks of 8-10% on our proposed metrics after incorporating the identified error remedies into the agent's design.

Related papers

• 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)
• Declarative Skills for AI Agents in Knowledge-Grounded Tool-Use Workflows [1.9573380763700712]
  We study orchestration mechanisms for tool-using AI agents in realistic customer-service errors over an unstructured knowledge base.<n>We compare (i) a DeclarativeAgent that reads three domain-specific skill files at inference time and decides its own control flow, (ii) an ImperativeAgent based on a programmatic state machine with explicit phases, and (iii) an unscaffolded baseline agent modeled after the $$-Knowledge benchmark agent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T05:38:51Z)
• 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)
• Agentic CLEAR: Automating Multi-Level Evaluation of LLM Agents [12.703661629160571]
  We present Agentic CLEAR, an automatic, dynamic, and easy-to-use evaluation framework.<n>It produces textual insights into the agent behavior on three levels of granularity: system, trace, and node.<n>Agentic CLEAR operates above the observability layer, enabling seamless integration and featuring an intuitive UI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T15:26:02Z)
• A Case-Driven Multi-Agent Framework for E-Commerce Search Relevance [0.0]
  Relevance is a foundation of user experience in e-commerce search.<n>We propose a case-driven multi-agent framework that automates the pipeline from bad-case identification to resolution.<n>We show that the framework performs relevance-related tasks effectively, improves annotation accuracy, and enables more timely and generalizable bad-case resolution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T10:41:50Z)
• Reinforced Agent: Inference-Time Feedback for Tool-Calling Agents [6.158612515104146]
  We introduce Helpfulness-Harmfulness metrics to measure the tradeoff between agent feedback and reviewer feedback.<n>We evaluate our approach on BFCL and Tau2-Bench (multi-turn stateful scenarios), achieving +5.5% on irrelevance detection and +7.1% on multi-turn tasks.<n>Our metrics reveal that reviewer model choice is critical: the reasoning model o3-mini achieves a 3:1 benefit-to-risk ratio versus 2.1:1 for GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T22:09:47Z)
• XAI for Coding Agent Failures: Transforming Raw Execution Traces into Actionable Insights [0.0]
  We present a systematic explainable AI (XAI) approach that transforms raw agent execution traces into structured, human-interpretable explanations.<n>We demonstrate that our approach enables users to identify failure root causes 2.8 times faster and propose correct fixes with 73% higher accuracy compared to raw execution traces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-06T06:18:20Z)
• AgentIF-OneDay: A Task-level Instruction-Following Benchmark for General AI Agents in Daily Scenarios [49.90735676070039]
  The capacity of AI agents to effectively handle tasks of increasing duration and complexity continues to grow.<n>We argue that current evaluations prioritize increasing task difficulty without sufficiently addressing the diversity of agentic tasks.<n>We propose AgentIF-OneDay, aimed at determining whether general users can utilize natural language instructions and AI agents to complete a diverse array of daily tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T13:49:18Z)
• Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation [87.47155146067962]
  We provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of tasks.<n>We conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks.<n>Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T22:22:28Z)
• How can we assess human-agent interactions? Case studies in software agent design [52.953425368394306]
  We make two major steps towards the rigorous assessment of human-agent interactions.<n>We propose PULSE, a framework for more efficient human-centric evaluation of agent designs.<n>We deploy the framework on a large-scale web platform built around the open-source software agent OpenHands.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T19:04:28Z)
• AgentCompass: Towards Reliable Evaluation of Agentic Workflows in Production [4.031479494871582]
  We present Agent, the first evaluation framework designed specifically for post-deployment monitoring and reasoning of agentic pipeline.<n>Agent achieves state-of-the-art results on key metrics, while uncovering critical issues missed in human annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T05:59:04Z)
• Tell Me More! Towards Implicit User Intention Understanding of Language Model Driven Agents [110.25679611755962]
  Current language model-driven agents often lack mechanisms for effective user participation, which is crucial given the vagueness commonly found in user instructions. We introduce Intention-in-Interaction (IN3), a novel benchmark designed to inspect users' implicit intentions through explicit queries. We empirically train Mistral-Interact, a powerful model that proactively assesses task vagueness, inquires user intentions, and refines them into actionable goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T14:36:30Z)

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.