# AgentJudgeBench: A Multi-Difficulty Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Judges on Agentic Tool-Calling

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.26623 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.26623/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Tool learning and function calling, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 25 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Tool learning and function calling](https://mlsanity.com/agents/tool-learning-and-function-calling/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10560/) (2022)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.06070/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11939/) (2024)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01377/) (2023)
- [AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18901/) (2024)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07718/) (2024)
- [Magpie: Alignment Data Synthesis from Scratch by Prompting Aligned LLMs with Nothing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08464/) (2024)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12784/) (2024)
- [PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05087/) (2023)
- [ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04682/) (2024)
- [Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10934/) (2024)
- [TaskBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Task Automation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.18760/) (2023)
- [AgentTrek: Agent Trajectory Synthesis via Guiding Replay with Web Tutorials](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.09605/) (2024)
- [MCP-AgentBench: Evaluating Real-World Language Agent Performance with MCP-Mediated Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.09734/) (2025)
- [GeoBenchX: Benchmarking LLMs in Agent Solving Multistep Geospatial Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18129/) (2025)
- [Towards Reliable Benchmarking: A Contamination Free, Controllable Evaluation Framework for Multi-step LLM Function Calling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.26553/) (2025)
- [Auto-Eval Judge: Towards a General Agentic Framework for Task Completion Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.05508/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [TrustMI: Causally controlling how assistants trust their users](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.06064/) (2026)
- [Judges Follow the Reference: The Derivation Gap in Verifying Tool-Call Arguments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.18497/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM judges are widely used to evaluate agentic tool-calling systems, yet their reliability on structured, dependency-driven workflows remains largely unexamined. We present AgentJudgeBench, the first benchmark to systematically study LLM-as-a-judge reliability for agentic tool-calling over workflow DAGs, as distinct from the broader LLM-as-a-judge task of open-ended text or preference evaluation. The benchmark comprises 3,808 instances spanning six DAG topologies and three difficulty tiers, evaluated with five generators (3B-70B open-weight models and GPT-5.4) and six judges (20B to frontier scale) under paired with- and without-ground-truth conditions. Judge alignment degrades monotonically with task difficulty, 1.5x faster without ground truth, and on hard queries without ground truth all six judges converge to a narrow 77-82% band regardless of scale, revealing a structural ceiling driven primarily by task difficulty, though its height is partly prompt-dependent for weaker generators, that model capacity alone cannot overcome. Ground-truth exposure is not uniformly beneficial: it reduces alignment for GPT-5.4 (1.5 pp) and Gemini-2.5-Pro (3.9 pp), consistent with over-anchoring. Among mitigation strategies, chain-of-thought reasoning and judge temperature both have negligible effect, while structured evaluation rubrics improve alignment by up to 6.5 pp but do not generalize uniformly across judge-generator pairs. With ground truth, QwQ-32B best matches the programmatic reference, while a human validation study identifies GPT-OSS-120B as the most human-aligned judge; without it, frontier judges lead only marginally within the shared ceiling. These results expose fundamental limitations of current LLM judges and yield practical guidelines for reliable evaluation in agentic systems.