CARGO: Context-Aware Retrieval-Gated Evaluation of Agentic AI in Production
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents also fits: General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks
Abstract (arXiv)
Reference-based LLM-as-a-judge evaluation assumes the reference answer is the target. In deployed agentic systems that operate over dynamic entities (support cases, assets, accounts), the closest available reference typically applies the correct procedure to a different entity, so a literal judge penalizes different identifiers, dates, and statuses as errors or hallucinations. We name this failure mode reference-instance divergence (RID). We propose CARGO, a framework that (i) treats retrieved references as procedural exemplars and grounds factual judgments in the live instance's observed context, (ii) assigns each claim a three-way status (supported, contradicted, unverifiable) and penalizes only contradictions, and (iii) gates evaluation by retrieval confidence, casting production evaluation as selective prediction. We introduce CARGO-Bench, a perturbation-based diagnostic suite with ground truth by construction that separates leniency from discrimination. On CARGO-Bench (246 items, two judge models, 7,872 judgments), the standard reference-based judge penalizes 100% of correct entity-transplanted answers and is uninformative (discrimination index DI ~ 0); supplying the live facts without reframing changes nothing. CARGO eliminates these false penalties (0/50) while retaining near-complete contradiction recall (50/50 and 49/50), raising DI to 0.58 [0.48, 0.68]; a rubric-swap control attributes most of the effect to context-grounded dimension definitions. CARGO also exposes a limitation of its own design: the leniency that protects entity values suppresses detection of procedural corruptions (20% recall). A post-hoc fix does not close the gap, and an LLM-as-annotator study with written guidelines and adjudication shows the same blind spot. We release a preregistered protocol for extending the evaluation to expert agreement, risk-coverage, and cost on production traffic.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 13 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.
Builds on
13 of 29 references.
References · 13
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
- 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
- 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,423
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
- 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,282
- 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
- 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 897
- 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
- 2023Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Modelscited by 575
- 2023Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluators of Translation Qualitycited by 420
- 2020Selective Question Answering under Domain Shiftcited by 238
1 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Agent-as-a-Judge
- 2026JAF: Judge Agent Forest
- 2024Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents
- 2026GroundEval: A Deterministic Replacement for LLM-as-Judge in Stateful Agent Evaluation
- 2026Skill-based Agentic Evaluation for Real-time Data Science Tasks
- 2026Before Reasoning Can Fail: Pre-Evidence Procedural Failures in Agentic RAG
- 2025When AIs Judge AIs: The Rise of Agent-as-a-Judge Evaluation for LLMs
- 2026BADGER: Bridging Agentic and Deterministic Evaluation for Generative Enterprise Reasoning