Agentic CLEAR: Automating Multi-Level Evaluation of LLM Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.22608v1
• Date: Thu, 21 May 2026 15:26:02 GMT
• Title: Agentic CLEAR: Automating Multi-Level Evaluation of LLM Agents
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 12.703661629160571
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Agentic systems are becoming more capable: agents define strategies, take actions, and interact with different environments. This autonomy poses serious challenges for overseeing and assessing agent behavior. Most current tools are limited, focusing on observability with basic evaluation capabilities or imposing static, hand-crafted error taxonomies that cannot adapt to new domains. To address this gap, we present Agentic CLEAR, an automatic, dynamic, and easy-to-use evaluation framework. It produces textual insights into the agent behavior on three levels of granularity: system, trace, and node. Agentic CLEAR operates above the observability layer, enabling seamless integration and featuring an intuitive UI that makes agent evaluation highly accessible. In our experiments on four benchmarks, seven agentic settings, and tens of thousands of LLM calls, we show that Agentic CLEAR produces high-quality, data-driven, insightful feedback. Our analysis shows strong alignment with human-annotated errors and the ability to predict task success rate.

Related papers

• 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)
• AJ-Bench: Benchmarking Agent-as-a-Judge for Environment-Aware Evaluation [71.49152943451328]
  We introduce a benchmark AJ-Bench to evaluate Agent-as-a-Judge across three domains-search, data systems, and graphical user interfaces-comprising 155 tasks and 516 annotated trajectories.<n>Experiments demonstrate consistent performance gains over LLM-as-a-Judge baselines, while also revealing substantial open challenges in agent-based verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T13:23:38Z)
• Talk, Evaluate, Diagnose: User-aware Agent Evaluation with Automated Error Analysis [3.3237915628874632]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T16:14:28Z)
• 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)
• From Biased Chatbots to Biased Agents: Examining Role Assignment Effects on LLM Agent Robustness [5.572574491501413]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents capable of actions with real-world impacts beyond text generation.<n>While persona-induced biases in text generation are well documented, their effects on agent task performance remain largely unexplored.<n>We present the first systematic case study showing that demographic-based persona assignments can alter LLM agents' behavior and degrade performance across diverse domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T02:43:07Z)
• The Social Laboratory: A Psychometric Framework for Multi-Agent LLM Evaluation [0.16921396880325779]
  We introduce a novel evaluation framework that uses multi-agent debate as a controlled "social laboratory"<n>We show that assigned personas induce stable, measurable psychometric profiles, particularly in cognitive effort.<n>This work provides a blueprint for a new class of dynamic, psychometrically grounded evaluation protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T07:10:28Z)
• JudgeAgent: Knowledge-wise and Dynamic LLM Evaluation with Agent-as-Interviewer [19.09571232466437]
  We propose Agent-as-Interviewer, a dynamic evaluation paradigm for large language models (LLMs)<n>Unlike current benchmarking or dynamic interaction paradigms, Agent-as-Interviewer utilizes agents to invoke knowledge tools for wider and deeper knowledge in the dynamic multi-turn question generation.<n>We develop JudgeAgent, a knowledge-wise dynamic evaluation framework that employs knowledge-driven synthesis as the agent's tool and uses difficulty scoring as strategy guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T08:52:16Z)
• AgentRefine: Enhancing Agent Generalization through Refinement Tuning [28.24897427451803]
  Large Language Model (LLM) based agents have proved their ability to perform complex tasks like humans.<n>There is still a large gap between open-sourced LLMs and commercial models like the GPT series.<n>In this paper, we focus on improving the agent generalization capabilities of LLMs via instruction tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-03T08:55:19Z)
• 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)
• Gödel Agent: A Self-Referential Agent Framework for Recursive Self-Improvement [112.04307762405669]
  G"odel Agent is a self-evolving framework inspired by the G"odel machine.<n>G"odel Agent can achieve continuous self-improvement, surpassing manually crafted agents in performance, efficiency, and generalizability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T10:49:40Z)
• 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.