Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Science

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17829v1
• Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 04:03:18 GMT
• Title: Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Science
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as systems that act over time through tools, environments, users, and other agents.<n>The field has begun to build interactive benchmarks, but the resulting landscape is fragmented.<n>This position paper argues that interactive evaluation should be treated as a principled evaluation paradigm.
• Score: 90.62695599188204
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI evaluation is undergoing a structural change. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as systems that act over time through tools, environments, users, and other agents, while many evaluation practices still inherit assumptions from response-centered benchmarks (e.g., fixed inputs, isolated outputs, and outcome judgments that can be made from a single response). The field has begun to build interactive benchmarks, but the resulting landscape is fragmented: benchmarks differ in what interaction artifacts they admit, how trajectories are scored, and what claims their results support. This position paper argues that interactive evaluation should be treated as a principled evaluation paradigm, not merely a new family of agent benchmarks. Simply adopting previous evaluation paradigms does not suffice. We define evaluation as an autonomous mapping from evidence to judgments, and show that interactive evaluation changes both sides of this mapping: the evidence becomes interaction-generated trajectories, while the evaluation procedure must assess process, recoverability, coordination, robustness, and system-level performance. Building on this definition, we propose a two-axis taxonomy, derive design principles and reporting standards, examine representative scenarios, and analyze how longstanding evaluation challenges reappear at the trajectory level.

Related papers

• Beyond Aggregate Scores: Behavioral Correctness Assumptions for Assessing Reference-Based Automatic Evaluation Methods [1.0749048269398973]
  Existing meta-evaluation measures agreement with human judgments or benchmark labels.<n>We introduce behavioral correctness assumptions, a complementary framework for evaluating reference-based automatic evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T15:43:09Z)
• From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape [79.30826980815927]
  rubrics are explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards.<n>We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T13:34:55Z)
• Skill-Aligned Annotation for Reliable Evaluation in Text-to-Image Generation [50.85337196571056]
  Text-to-image (T2I) generation has advanced rapidly, making reliable evaluation critical as performance differences between models narrow.<n>Existing evaluation practices typically apply uniform annotation mechanisms, such as Likert-scale or binary question answering (BQA)<n>We revisit T2I evaluation through the lens of skill-aligned annotation, where annotation strategies reflect the underlying characteristics of each evaluation skill.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T09:14:31Z)
• Benchmarked Yet Not Measured -- Generative AI Should be Evaluated Against Real-World Utility [9.928824688627037]
  We argue that generative AI evaluation requires a paradigm shift from static benchmark-centered transparency toward stakeholder, goal, and context-conditioned utility transparency grounded in human outcome trajectories.<n>We propose SCU-GenEval, a four-stage evaluation framework consisting of stakeholder-goal mapping, construct-indicator specification, mechanism modeling, and longitudinal utility measurement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T18:56:07Z)
• Measuring the Machine: Evaluating Generative AI as Pluralist Sociotechical Systems [0.0]
  The thesis argues that generative AI must be evaluated as a pluralist sociotechnical system.<n>MaSH Loops is a framework for tracing how models, users, and institutions co-construct meaning and values.<n>The World Values Benchmark introduces a distributional approach grounded in World Values Survey data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-22T13:29:33Z)
• In-Situ Behavioral Evaluation for LLM Fairness, Not Standardized-Test Scores [20.623498601506974]
  We show that the standardized-test paradigm can be structurally unreliable.<n>We develop MAC-Fairness, a multi-agent conversational framework that embeds controlled variation factors into multi-round dialogue.<n>In-situ behavioral evaluation reveals stable, model-specific behavioral signatures that could generalize across benchmarks differing in fairness targets and evaluation methodologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T18:38:50Z)
• A Sanity Check on Composed Image Retrieval [91.95275287747499]
  Composed Image Retrieval (CIR) aims to retrieve a target image based on a query composed of a reference image, and a relative caption that specifies the desired modification.<n>We introduce FISD, a Fully-Informed Semantically-Diverse benchmark, which employs generative models to precisely control the variables of reference-target image pairs.<n>We propose an automatic multi-round agentic evaluation framework to probe the potential of the existing models in the interactive scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T15:52:22Z)
• The Validity of Coreference-based Evaluations of Natural Language Understanding [3.505146496638911]
  I analyze standard coreference evaluations and show that their design often leads to non-generalizable conclusions.<n>I propose and implement a novel evaluation focused on testing systems' ability to infer the relative plausibility of events.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T05:49:28Z)
• 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)
• The simulation of judgment in LLMs [32.57692724251287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in evaluative processes, from information filtering to assessing and addressing knowledge gaps through explanation and credibility judgments.<n>This raises the need to examine how such evaluations are built, what assumptions they rely on, and how their strategies diverge from those of humans.<n>We benchmark six LLMs against expert ratings--NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check--and against human judgments collected through a controlled experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:52:10Z)
• TestAgent: Automatic Benchmarking and Exploratory Interaction for Evaluating LLMs in Vertical Domains [19.492393243160244]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in highly specialized vertical domains.<n>Existing evaluations for vertical domains typically rely on the labor-intensive construction of static single-turn datasets.<n>We propose TestAgent, a framework for automatic benchmarking and exploratory dynamic evaluation in vertical domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T11:20:42Z)
• Just Rank: Rethinking Evaluation with Word and Sentence Similarities [105.5541653811528]
  intrinsic evaluation for embeddings lags far behind, and there has been no significant update since the past decade. This paper first points out the problems using semantic similarity as the gold standard for word and sentence embedding evaluations. We propose a new intrinsic evaluation method called EvalRank, which shows a much stronger correlation with downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-05T08:40:05Z)

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.