mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AgentEval: Generative Agents as Reliable Proxies for Human Evaluation of AI-Generated Content

arXiv 2512.08273 ↗First posted 9 Dec 2025cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Modern businesses are increasingly challenged by the time and expense required to generate and assess high-quality content. Human writers face time constraints, and extrinsic evaluations can be costly. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer potential in content creation, concerns about the quality of AI-generated content persist. Traditional evaluation methods, like human surveys, further add operational costs, highlighting the need for efficient, automated solutions. This research introduces Generative Agents as a means to tackle these challenges. These agents can rapidly and cost-effectively evaluate AI-generated content, simulating human judgment by rating aspects such as coherence, interestingness, clarity, fairness, and relevance. By incorporating these agents, businesses can streamline content generation and ensure consistent, high-quality output while minimizing reliance on costly human evaluations. The study provides critical insights into enhancing LLMs for producing business-aligned, high-quality content, offering significant advancements in automated content generation and evaluation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Dec 2025.

Builds on

10 of 18 references.

References · 10

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  3. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  4. 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
  5. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  6. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 420
  7. 2022Of Human Criteria and Automatic Metrics: A Benchmark of the Evaluation of Story Generationcited by 73
  8. 2021OpenMEVA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generation Metricscited by 61
  9. 2020UNION: An Unreferenced Metric for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generationcited by 60
  10. 2021Automatic Story Generation: Challenges and Attemptscited by 28

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2023ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate
  2. 2026CollabEval: Enhancing LLM-as-a-Judge via Multi-Agent Collaboration
  3. 2025When AIs Judge AIs: The Rise of Agent-as-a-Judge Evaluation for LLMs
  4. 2025Multi-Agent-as-Judge: Aligning LLM-Agent-Based Automated Evaluation with Multi-Dimensional Human Evaluation
  5. 2024MATEval: A Multi-Agent Discussion Framework for Advancing Open-Ended Text Evaluation
  6. 2025Multi-Agent LLM Judge: automatic personalized LLM judge design for evaluating natural language generation applications
  7. 2026QQJ: Quantifying Qualitative Judgment for Scalable and Human-Aligned Evaluation of Generative AI
  8. 2024DEBATE: Devil's Advocate-Based Assessment and Text Evaluation