用AI自动评估智能体,提升效率与准确性
An Empirical Study of Automating Agent Evaluation

- 构建带领域知识的EvalAgent,通过可复用技能自动化评估流程
- 新指标Eval@1达65%,显著优于基线17.5%,且79.5%获专家青睐
- 适合需要高效、可靠评估智能体的开发者与研究者使用
智能体评估需分析涉及工具调用和中间推理的复杂多步行为,成本高且依赖专业知识。前沿编程助手仅靠提示无法胜任此任务:缺乏领域知识时,执行成功率仅30%,生成评价平均包含12+项指标,表明强大编码能力不等于可靠评估。本文提出EvalAgent,一种自动化端到端评估流程的AI助手。EvalAgent将评估领域知识编码为评估技能(程序指令、可复用代码与模板、动态检索API文档),组成基于追踪的流水线,输出完整评估产物(指标、可执行代码、报告)。为系统评估生成结果,提出元评估框架及AgentEvalBench基准,包含20个智能体及其评估需求与测试场景。引入Eval@1指标衡量首次运行即成功且产出有意义结果的能力。实验显示,EvalAgent使Eval@1从17.5%提升至65%,人类专家偏好达79.5%。消融实验证明评估技能至关重要:移除后Eval@1骤降至30%。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
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%.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。