Vinayak Arannil

Kang Zhou, Sangmin Woo, Haibo Ding et al.

Agent evaluation requires assessing complex multi-step behaviors involving tool use and intermediate reasoning, making it costly and expertise-intensive. A natural question arises: can frontier coding assistants reliably automate this evaluation process? Our study shows that simply prompting coding assistants is insufficient for this task. Without domain-specific evaluation knowledge, frontier coding assistants achieve only a 30% execution success rate and produce over-engineered evaluations averaging 12+ metrics per agent, indicating that strong coding ability does not automatically translate to reliable agent evaluation. We introduce EvalAgent, an AI assistant that automates the end-to-end agent evaluation pipeline. EvalAgent encodes evaluation domain expertise as evaluation skills (procedural instructions, reusable code and templates, and dynamically retrieved API documentation) that compose into a trace-based pipeline producing complete evaluation artifacts including metrics, executable code, and reports. To systematically assess generated evaluations, we introduce a meta-evaluation framework alongside AgentEvalBench, a benchmark comprising 20 agents, each paired with evaluation requirements and test scenarios. We further propose the Eval@1 metric to measure whether generated evaluation code both executes and yields meaningful results on the first run. Our experiments show that EvalAgent produces focused evaluations, improving Eval@1 from 17.5% to 65%, and achieving 79.5% human expert preference over baseline approaches. Further ablation studies show that evaluation skills are critical for handling complex evaluation: removing them causes Eval@1 to drop significantly from 65% to 30%.

Zeyu He, Xuan Qi, Subramanian Chidambaram et al.

Large language models increasingly serve as judges in AI evaluation, but current approaches rely on consensus preferences that ignore individual evaluator variation. We propose a novel simulation approach that combines categorical judgments with evaluator-specific auxiliary data--retrospective reasoning traces and interface telemetry--to enable LLM-based simulation of individual evaluators via in-context learning. We conduct a systematic empirical study of this approach using multi-facet data from 32 trained annotators across 4,200 preference judgments in a 4 x 4 x 4 factorial design. Our key findings: (1) The simulation approach achieves up to 9.9 percentage point improvements over the Base Judge; (2) Reasoning traces provide the largest gains with higher collection efforts, while interface telemetry often hurts rather than helps performance despite being cheaper to collect. (3) Simulation difficulty is systematic, predicted by an evaluator's neutral usage (most clearly on Helpfulness) and divergence from consensus; the neutral-usage tendency--rather than simulatability itself--is the cross-task-stable property (r = 0.728). These results establish both the potential and limits of evaluator-specific auxiliary data for personalized evaluation, offering methodological insights for scaling individual aware AI assessment.