GAUGE: When Not to Trust LLM-as-a-Judge in User-Simulated Evaluation of Task-Oriented Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.12191v1
• Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 20:29:28 GMT
• Title: GAUGE: When Not to Trust LLM-as-a-Judge in User-Simulated Evaluation of Task-Oriented Agents
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 5.041247893188969
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Comparing and selecting task-oriented LLM agents increasingly relies on a low-cost offline evaluation gate: persona-driven LLM user-simulators converse with each candidate, an LLM-as-a-judge scores the transcripts, and the higher-scoring agent is promoted. We introduce GAUGE, a reusable offline protocol that measures whether this gate's ranking matches a grounded verifiable reward across 25 agents from six providers on the $τ^2$-bench and SimulatorArena benchmarks, separating two kinds of evaluation validity that release practices conflate: ranking validity and construct validity. First, a satisfaction-success gap: satisfaction carries essentially no information about task success, as conversations rated satisfied by our blind panel are decorrelated from actual success, with 57.5% of them failing the customer's task, a pattern consistent across five rater populations, both benchmarks, and every subjective dimension we rated. Second, while the gate's ranking is robust across the broad capability span, it loses resolution among the near-equal strong agents: this decision-disagreement rate jumps from $<$1% on wide-reward pairs to 31% on close pairs. The gate is thus human-validated yet mis-anchored. As a remedy, we propose a calibrate-then-trust cadence in which a judge-free completion bit is a zero-cost tripwire for truncation regressions.

Related papers

• Grounded Checklist Partial Credit for Agent Skill Trajectories [5.028537745773042]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T06:17:19Z)
• TRCA: Transition-wise Rubric Credit Assignment for Long-horizon LLM Agents [22.01777615106231]
  Long-horizon large language model (LLM) agents are typically optimized with sparse terminal outcomes.<n>We propose Transition-wise Credit Assignment, which derives step-level supervision directly from action-induced transitions.<n>Experiments on ALFWorld, WebShop, and seven search-augmented question-answering benchmarks show consistent improvements over the evaluated baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-17T06:19:12Z)
• LLM-as-a-Verifier: A General-Purpose Verification Framework [74.40111651545979]
  We introduce LLM-as-a-Verifier, a general-purpose verification framework.<n>It provides fine-grained feedback for agentic tasks without requiring additional training.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art performance on several benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-06T17:59:35Z)
• ARBOR: Online Process Rewards via a Reusable Rubric Buffer for Search Agents [48.80766702702854]
  LLM-based search agents are trained predominantly with outcome-only reward, leaving the search process itself unsupervised.<n>This signal degenerates on outcome-homogeneous groups where all sampled trajectories share the same correctness, yielding zero within-group advantage and no gradient.<n>We propose ARBOR (Adaptive Buffer for Online Reward), a reusable process-reward framework that maintains a rubric memory shared across queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T06:58:54Z)
• VeriGate: Verifier-Gated Step-Level Supervision for GRPO [51.26100506256885]
  Group Relative Policy Optimization is an effective recipe for training reasoning models with verifier-based outcome rewards.<n>We present VeriGate, a verifier-gated extension of GRPO that addresses these limitations with three design choices.<n>We show that VeriGate improves average accuracy by about 20% and 12% for 1.5B and 7B models respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T18:20:32Z)
• 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)
• Converted, Not Equivalent: Benchmarking Codebase Conversion via Observational Equivalence [56.25095230687242]
  Coding agents often over-trust their own local validation routines and declare success on artifacts that satisfy surface checks.<n>This problem is especially acute in conversion, where prior evaluation is outcome-driven.<n>Across blind conversion attempts, the best system reaches 26.7--28.9% overall pass rate despite Spec pass rates up to 91.1%.<n>This suggests that failures stem more from contract-misaligned self-validation than from limited budget or backbone strength.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T19:57:15Z)
• Beyond Final Answers: CRYSTAL Benchmark for Transparent Multimodal Reasoning Evaluation [3.23600523782706]
  We introduce CRYSTAL (Clear Reasoning via Yielded Steps, Traceability, and Logic), a diagnostic benchmark with 6,372 instances that evaluates multimodal reasoning.<n>We propose two complementary metrics: Match F1, which scores step-level precision and recall via semantic similarity matching, and Ordered Match F1, which penalizes disordered reasoning chains.<n>CPR-Curriculum achieves a 32% improvement in Match F1 via GRPO where additive reward strategies fail, improving reasoning without manual step annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T15:48:15Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• Crowd Comparative Reasoning: Unlocking Comprehensive Evaluations for LLM-as-a-Judge [90.8674158031845]
  We propose Crowd-based Comparative Evaluation, which introduces additional crowd responses to compare with the candidate responses.<n>This process effectively guides LLM-as-a-Judge to provide a more detailed chain-of-thought (CoT) judgment.<n>Our method produces higher-quality CoTs that facilitate judge distillation and exhibit superior performance in rejection sampling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T03:31:06Z)

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.