Grounded Checklist Partial Credit for Agent Skill Trajectories

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27487v1
• Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 06:17:19 GMT
• Title: Grounded Checklist Partial Credit for Agent Skill Trajectories
• Abstract summary: Grounded Checklist Partial Credit (GCPC) is a human-governed partial-credit evaluation of agent trajectories.<n>Human evaluation on 96 trajectories from 12 tasks shows that G CPC aligns more closely with human assessments of progress.<n>The pipeline also transfers to Terminal-Bench and SWE-bench, demonstrating applicability beyond skill-conditioned evaluation.
• Score: 5.028537745773042
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Language-model agents increasingly tackle long-horizon tasks in interactive environments, yet their evaluation commonly relies on task-level success rates by reducing an entire execution trajectory to whether the task passes an official verifier. This binary score hides partial progress and is particularly limited for procedural agent skill evaluations, since a skill can alter execution without changing the final outcome. While checklists provide finer-grained evaluation by scoring individual task requirements, costly manual authoring and unreliable automatic generation make trustworthy evaluation difficult to scale. To address these challenges, we introduce Grounded Checklist Partial Credit (GCPC), a human-governed and LLM-instantiated partial-credit evaluation of agent trajectories. Humans define reusable rules once, from which an LLM instantiates a task-specific checklist grounded in the task instruction and official verifier. To keep judgment tied to evidence, a judge scores each item from execution log evidence alone and abstains when evidence is missing. A separate scripted step then applies the official verifier outcome to the score. Across a 4,455-trajectory, deduplicated SkillsBench evaluation population, GCPC better discriminates official PASS and FAIL outcomes than holistic judging on the shared subset (AUC 0.689 vs. 0.619). Human evaluation on 96 trajectories from 12 tasks shows that GCPC aligns more closely with human assessments of progress. Applied to 1,946 matched with/without-skill pairs, GCPC exposes the effects hidden by pass@1: among 879 pairs whose binary outcome does not change, 20.9% improve by more than 0.10 while 18.7% regress by the same margin. The GCPC pipeline also transfers to Terminal-Bench and SWE-bench, demonstrating applicability beyond skill-conditioned evaluation.

Related papers

• GAUGE: When Not to Trust LLM-as-a-Judge in User-Simulated Evaluation of Task-Oriented Agents [5.041247893188969]
  We introduce GAUGE, a reusable offline protocol that measures whether a gate's ranking matches a grounded verifiable reward.<n> satisfaction carries essentially no information about task success.<n>We propose a calibrate-then-trust cadence in which a judge-free completion bit is a zero-cost tripwire for truncation regressions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T20:29:28Z)
• MABPD: Multi-Agent Bias Probing & Detection via Structured Argument Debate [0.06999740786886537]
  We introduce MABPD (Multi-Agent Bias Probing & Detection), a principled, training-free alternative to supervised classification.<n>SAD implements a domain-motivated asymmetric burden of proof---biased claims without grounded textual evidence carry zero weight.<n>Ablation confirms that this structured deliberation, not mere agent parallelism, drives performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T07:58:33Z)
• Do Agent Benchmarks Measure Capability? Protocol Validity in the Age of Agentic AI [6.058290832294911]
  Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction.<n>Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and system reports show that agents can instead recover public solutions, read evaluation artifacts, infer generator structure, manipulate feedback, or benefit from invalid scoring paths.<n>We formulate protocol validity and introduce HackDetect, a post-hoc audit that identifies an exposure, determines how the agent used it, and assesses whether the resulting score is misleading.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-24T14:55:19Z)
• Operationalising Multi-Dimensional Evaluation for Conversational Agents: A Scalable, Governed Pipeline with Selective Re-evaluation and Model Benchmarking [0.0]
  We present GenAI Evaluation, a governed, configuration-driven pipeline for large-scale evaluation of retail conversational systems.<n>The framework evaluates helpfulness, truthfulness, clarity, tone alignment, and translation-specific dimensions.<n>The pipeline achieved a macro F1 score of 0.93 and 89% human-acceptability accuracy for translation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T19:01:56Z)
• Benchmarking the Benchmarks: A Validity Audit of Tool-Calling Evaluation [3.079997053226693]
  We present a systematic validity and audit of four major tool-calling benchmark families.<n>Across 496 expert-reviewed benchmark tasks, we find 92 evaluator-human disagreements, corresponding to an 18.5% misalignment rate.<n>We introduce a unified taxonomy of tool-calling evaluation failures, release trace-level audit artifacts and corrected evaluation components, and argue for metrics that separately measure tool invocation, task completion, and outcome verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T21:10:42Z)
• SkillAudit: Ground-Truth-Free Skill Evolution via Paired Trajectory Auditing [81.51044612408793]
  SkillAudit is a framework for evolving agent skills without ground-truth feedback.<n>To turn behavioral differences into edit guidance, SkillAudit uses Process-Aligned Contrastive Evaluation.<n>It routes edits through two pipelines: Refine removes noisy or irrelevant guidance from broadly useful skills, while Repair replaces passages that conflict with the task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-12T08:20:09Z)
• Policy-Conditioned Counterfactual Credit for Verifiable Reinforcement Learning of Long-Horizon Language Agents [0.0]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards improves reasoning and tool use, yet long-horizon language agents still learn unsupported evidence chains and belief drift.<n>We propose a constrained policy-gradient algorithm with dense verifiable rewards, intervention-validity gating, and a policy-conditioned counterfactual contribution (PCCC) estimator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T16:19:36Z)
• SEAL: Can Saturated Benchmarks Be Revived by LLM-as-a-Meta-Judge? [26.684941358964704]
  SEAL is a self-improving evaluation protocol for extracting latent ranking signal from saturated benchmarks.<n>We evaluate SEAL on multiple saturated benchmarks covering code generation, mathematical reasoning, knowledge-intensive question answering, and tool-use agent task completion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T15:46:54Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• ClawForge: Generating Executable Interactive Benchmarks for Command-Line Agents [59.626170560327274]
  We present textbfClawForge, a generator-backed benchmark framework for executable command-line categories under state conflict.<n>We instantiate this framework as the ClawForge-Bench (17 scenarios, 6 ability categories)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T21:34:08Z)
• IMPACT-HOI: Supervisory Control for Onset-Anchored Partial HOI Event Construction [72.51952455865155]
  We present IMPACT-HOI, a mixed-initiative framework for annotating egocentric procedural video.<n> IMPACT-HOI frames this task as the incremental resolution of a partially specified, onset-anchored event state.<n>A user study with 9 participants shows a 13.5% reduction in manual annotation actions, a 46.67% event match rate, and zero confirmed-field violations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-03T01:37:40Z)
• Claw-Eval: Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents [66.97968363332465]
  We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps in agent benchmarks.<n>Claw-Eval comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups.<n>Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:43:18Z)
• Verified Critical Step Optimization for LLM Agents [67.05296684575445]
  Critical Step Optimization focuses preference learning on verified critical steps.<n>Method starts from failed policy trajectories rather than expert demonstrations.<n>Experiments on GAIA-Text-103 and XBench-DeepSearch show that CSO achieves 37% and 26% relative improvement over the SFT baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T11:41:02Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)

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.