Talk, Evaluate, Diagnose: User-aware Agent Evaluation with Automated Error Analysis
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks
Abstract (arXiv)
Agent applications are increasingly adopted to automate workflows across diverse tasks. However, due to the heterogeneous domains they operate in, it is challenging to create a scalable evaluation framework. Prior works each employ their own methods to determine task success, such as database lookups, regex match, etc., adding complexity to the development of a unified agent evaluation approach. Moreover, they do not systematically account for the user's role nor expertise in the interaction, providing incomplete insights into the agent's performance. We argue that effective agent evaluation goes beyond correctness alone, incorporating conversation quality, efficiency and systematic diagnosis of agent errors. To address this, we introduce the TED framework (Talk, Evaluate, Diagnose). (1) Talk: We leverage reusable, generic expert and non-expert user persona templates for user-agent interaction. (2) Evaluate: We adapt existing datasets by representing subgoals-such as tool signatures, and responses-as natural language grading notes, evaluated automatically with LLM-as-a-judge. We propose new metrics that capture both turn efficiency and intermediate progress of the agent complementing the user-aware setup. (3) Diagnose: We introduce an automated error analysis tool that analyzes the inconsistencies of the judge and agents, uncovering common errors, and providing actionable feedback for agent improvement. We show that our TED framework reveals new insights regarding agent performance across models and user expertise levels. We also demonstrate potential gains in agent performance with peaks of 8-10% on our proposed metrics after incorporating the identified error remedies into the agent's design.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (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 18 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Mar 2026.
Builds on
18 of 21 references.
Closest ancestors · 5
Same direction, newest first
- 2024EscapeBench: Towards Advancing Creative Intelligence of Language Model Agents18 Dec
- 2024FlowBench: Revisiting and Benchmarking Workflow-Guided Planning for LLM-based Agents21 Jun
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains17 Jun
- 2024AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agents24 Jan
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents7 Aug
Other references · 13
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,908
- 2020ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learningcited by 1,143
- 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,134
- 2025τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environmentcited by 558
- 2023MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedbackcited by 293
- 2024ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilitiescited by 272
- 2018BabyAI: A Platform to Study the Sample Efficiency of Grounded Language Learningcited by 238
- 2025SMART: Self-Aware Agent for Tool Overuse Mitigationcited by 52
- 2025CRMArena-Pro: Holistic Assessment of LLM Agents Across Diverse Business Scenarios and Interactionscited by 46
- 2024Benchmarking Agentic Workflow Generationcited by 36
- 2025Evaluating Personalized Tool-Augmented LLMs from the Perspectives of Personalization and Proactivitycited by 17
- 2025Enhancing Tool Learning in Large Language Models with Hierarchical Error Checklistscited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026How to Interpret Agent Behaviorcited by 8
- 2026Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gapcited by 6
- 2026AgentWorld: Personality-Aware Reliability Evaluation for Agentic Information Retrievalcited by 1
- 2026Debiasing as a Measurement Intervention: Calibrated Ties and Resolution Loss in LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026EDGEGEN: Improving Tool-Calling Agents Beyond Happy Paths with Synthetic Edge Case Generationcited by 0
- 2026EDGEGEN: Improving Tool-Calling Agents Beyond Happy Paths with Synthetic Edge Case Generation21 Sep 2026
- 2026Debiasing as a Measurement Intervention: Calibrated Ties and Resolution Loss in LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation11 Sep 2026
- 2026AgentWorld: Personality-Aware Reliability Evaluation for Agentic Information Retrieval25 Aug 2026
- 2026Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gap29 Jun 2026
- 2026How to Interpret Agent Behavior13 May 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Agentic CLEAR: Automating Multi-Level Evaluation of LLM Agents
- 2025Agent-Testing Agent: A Meta-Agent for Automated Testing and Evaluation of Conversational AI Agents
- 2026Claw-Eval: Towards Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents
- 2025AgentCompass: Towards Reliable Evaluation of Agentic Workflows in Production
- 2026Auditing Automated Evaluation, Error Propagation, and Runtime Mitigation in Tool-Using Language Agents
- 2025When Users Are Happy but Agents Are Wrong: Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Tool-Augmented Dialogue
- 2026Operationalising Multi-Dimensional Evaluation for Conversational Agents: A Scalable, Governed Pipeline with Selective Re-evaluation and Model Benchmarking
- 2026A2E : An End-to-End Agent Auditing Engine