# The Ability of Large Language Models to Evaluate Constraint-satisfaction in Agent Responses to Open-ended Requests

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14371 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.14371/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 31 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 Sep 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 31)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.05250/) (2016)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11432/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [Mixtral of Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04088/) (2024)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08663/) (2021)
- [A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03109/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Are NLP Models really able to Solve Simple Math Word Problems?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.07191/) (2021)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [Solving General Arithmetic Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.01413/) (2016)
- [LongRoPE: Extending LLM Context Window Beyond 2 Million Tokens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13753/) (2024)
- [Towards a Unified Multi-Dimensional Evaluator for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.07197/) (2022)
- [LLM-Eval: Unified Multi-Dimensional Automatic Evaluation for Open-Domain Conversations with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13711/) (2023)
- [Error Analysis Prompting Enables Human-Like Translation Evaluation in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.13809/) (2023)
- [Infinite-LLM: Efficient LLM Service for Long Context with DistAttention and Distributed KVCache](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.02669/) (2024)
- [TIGERScore: Towards Building Explainable Metric for All Text Generation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.00752/) (2023)
- [Attention Satisfies: A Constraint-Satisfaction Lens on Factual Errors of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15098/) (2023)
- [Towards A Unified Agent with Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09668/) (2023)
- [KwaiAgents: Generalized Information-seeking Agent System with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.04889/) (2023)
- [KITAB: Evaluating LLMs on Constraint Satisfaction for Information Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15511/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [SemVerBench: Benchmarking LLM Comprehension of Version-Constraint Resolution Semantics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.11180/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Generative AI agents are often expected to respond to complex user requests that have No One Right Answer (NORA), e.g., "design a vegetarian meal plan below 1800 calories". Such requests may entail a set of constraints that the agent should adhere to. To successfully develop agents for NORA scenarios, an accurate automatic evaluation framework is essential, and specifically - one capable of validating the satisfaction of constraints in the agent's response. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have been adopted as versatile evaluators for many NORA tasks, but their ability to evaluate constraint-satisfaction in generated text remains unclear. To study this, we develop and release a novel Arithmetic Constraint-Satisfaction (ACS) benchmarking dataset. The dataset consists of complex user requests with corresponding constraints, agent responses and human labels indicating each constraint's satisfaction level in the response. A unique property of this dataset is that validating many of its constraints requires reviewing the response as a whole (in contrast to many other benchmarks that require the validation of a single independent item). Moreover, it assesses LLMs in performing reasoning, in-context data extraction, arithmetic calculations, and counting. We then benchmark both open and proprietary LLMs on evaluating constraint-satisfaction, and show that most models still have a significant headroom for improvement, and that errors primarily stem from reasoning issues. In addition, most models exhibit a skewed constraint-satisfaction prediction pattern, with higher accuracy where the ground-truth label is "satisfied". Lastly, few-shot prompting for our task proved to be rather challenging, since many of the studied models showed a degradation in performance when it was introduced.