# Mind the Goal: Data-Efficient Goal-Oriented Evaluation of Conversational Agents and Chatbots using Teacher Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.03696 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.03696/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (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 11 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Oct 2025.

## 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, 11 of 11)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [USR: An Unsupervised and Reference Free Evaluation Metric for Dialog Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00456/) (2020)
- [Advances and Challenges in Foundation Agents: From Brain-Inspired Intelligence to Evolutionary, Collaborative, and Safe Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01990/) (2025)
- [Learning from Dialogue after Deployment: Feed Yourself, Chatbot!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.05415/) (2019)
- [MemInsight: Autonomous Memory Augmentation for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.21760/) (2025)
- [GPTEval: A Survey on Assessments of ChatGPT and GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12488/) (2023)
- [Conversational AI: The Science Behind the Alexa Prize](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.03604/) (2018)
- [FineD-Eval: Fine-grained Automatic Dialogue-Level Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.13832/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluating the quality of multi-turn chatbot interactions remains challenging, as most existing methods assess interactions at the turn level without addressing whether a user's overarching goal was fulfilled. A ``goal'' here refers to an information need or task, such as asking for policy information or applying for leave. We propose a comprehensive framework for goal-oriented evaluation of multi-agent systems (MAS), introducing the Goal Success Rate (GSR) to measure the percentage of fulfilled goals, and a Root Cause of Failure (RCOF) taxonomy to identify reasons for failure in multi-agent chatbots. Our method segments conversations by user goals and evaluates success using all relevant turns. We present a model-based evaluation system combining teacher LLMs, where domain experts define goals, set quality standards serving as a guidance for the LLMs. The LLMs use ``thinking tokens'' to produce interpretable rationales, enabling textitexplainable, textitdata-efficient evaluations. In an enterprise setting, we apply our framework to evaluate AIDA, a zero-to-one employee conversational agent system built as a ground-up multi-agent conversational agent, and observe GSR improvement from 63% to 79% over six months since its inception. Our framework is generic and offers actionable insights through a detailed defect taxonomy based on analysis of failure points in multi-agent chatbots, diagnosing overall success, identifying key failure modes, and informing system improvements.