Talk, Evaluate, Diagnose: User-aware Agent Evaluation with Automated Error Analysis
Penny Chong, Harshavardhan Abichandani, Jiyuan Shen, Atin Ghosh, Min Pyae Moe, Yifan Mai, Daniel Dahlmeier
Abstract
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 . (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.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on3
- ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive LearningMohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté, Yonatan Bisk et al.ICLR 2021 · 819 citations
- Benchmarking Agentic Workflow GenerationShuofei Qiao, Runnan Fang, Zhisong Qiu, Xiaobin Wang et al.ICLR 2025
- Evaluating Personalized Tool-Augmented LLMs from the Perspectives of Personalization and ProactivityYupu Hao, Pengfei Cao, Zhuoran Jin, Huanxuan Liao et al.ACL 2025
Related papers
- MDD-Eval: Self-Training on Augmented Data for Multi-Domain Dialogue EvaluationChen Zhang, Luis Fernando D'Haro, Thomas Friedrichs, Haizhou LiAAAI 2022 · 22 citations
- Consistently Simulating Human Personas with Multi-Turn Reinforcement LearningMarwa Abdulhai, Ryan Cheng, Donovan Clay, Tim Althoff et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 51 citations
- Assessing and Verifying Task Utility in LLM-Powered ApplicationsNegar Arabzadeh, Siqing Huo, Nikhil Mehta, Qingyun Wu et al.EMNLP 2024 · 7 citations
- τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World DomainsShunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, Karthik R. NarasimhanICLR 2025
- Multi-Agent-as-Judge: Aligning LLM-Agent-Based Automated Evaluation with Multi-Dimensional Human EvaluationJiaju Chen, Yuxuan Lu, Xiaojie Wang, Huimin Zeng et al.ACL 2026 · 30 citations
