ATLAS: Dual-Horizon Diagnostic Evaluation for Industrial Tool-Use Agents

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in user-facing services that require iterative tool use under dynamic business conditions. Reliable evaluation is essential for sustained improvement: it must reveal capability deficiencies, inform priorities, and assess interventions. Yet industrial agent service unfolds both through the iterative trajectory of a current request and through continued user interaction. Final-outcome assessment can therefore obscure where deficiencies arise and whether later service remains aligned with context from earlier exchanges. We propose ATLAS, a dual-horizon diagnostic evaluation framework for industrial tool-use agents. At the request horizon, trajectory-wise diagnostic signals relate deficiencies to execution locations and capability concerns. At the interaction horizon, user-wise signals assess whether service remains responsive across continued interaction. Together, these views provide structured diagnostic evidence for analyzing execution deficiencies and sustained service behavior. ATLAS instantiates them as executable signals with explicit evidence scopes and decision boundaries. LLM judge interfaces are calibrated against high-confidence references from real business logs; when needed, their decision behavior is distilled into efficient diagnostic models for lower-latency, lower-cost evaluation. The resulting feedback supports policy optimization. We evaluate ATLAS on Meituan Xiaotuan production traffic. Offline experiments assess diagnostic-signal fidelity and replay-based policy improvement, while online A/B experiments show concurrent gains in user engagement, downstream business outcomes, and sampled human-audit quality.

FaulT-Bench: Towards Benchmarking Network Troubleshooting LLM Agents under Unreliable User Tickets

LLM-based agents are increasingly proposed for network fault diagnosis, but existing benchmarks evaluate them only on accurate tickets and always assume a fault is present, conditions rarely met in practice. We present FaulT-Bench, a benchmark of 200 troubleshooting scenarios across eight network topologies, five reimplemented from public practitioner labs, spanning genuine faults, false fault reports, incorrect device attribution, and incorrect root-cause claims. To isolate how ticket wording affects diagnosis, we further rewrite 72 false-premise tickets into five reporter personas that vary reporter confidence and verifiable detail one factor at a time, holding the network state fixed. Our automated harness deploys each scenario in Kathará, lets agents interact through the NIKA tool interface, and scores free-text diagnoses with an LLM judge across outcome, fix, and reasoning quality. Evaluating SADE, ReAct, and Claude Code, we find all three are near-saturated on accurate tickets and robust to misdirection, yet degrade sharply when the network is healthy and the ticket is wrong, probing until a benign condition can be promoted to a root cause rather than concluding nothing is wrong. Persona rewrites show that how a ticket is written matters more than what it claims: a confidently wrong report is handled about as well as an accurate one, while a vague, underspecified report degrades performance sharply. The three agents also fail differently, from constant over-diagnosis to unanswered runs, at very different cost. These results position FaulT-Bench as a benchmark for developing agentic systems that can reason reliably over the noisy, unreliable tickets of real-world network troubleshooting.

A Theory of Post-hoc Debate Judgement

Debates have recently emerged as a useful methodology for agentic AI to improve performance as well as to aid explainability and user engagement. For example, LLM-empowered agents may debate internally (with themselves) and/or externally (with other agents). In many settings where debates are used, debates' outcomes and resulting outputs are determined post-hoc by external judges, often LLMs. In this paper we develop and test a novel theory of debate judgement applicable to all settings where agents engage in debates by providing pros and cons for their opinions therein. Specifically, we identify a number of formal properties that debate judgement may be required to satisfy in general, as concerns reproducibility, robustness, groundedness and explainability. Then, we explore their satisfaction formally and/or experimentally, for claim verification settings, for two specific alternative debate judgement methods: variants of the LLMs as a judge idea and formal semantics drawn from computational argumentation. We show that the two methods give similar accuracy performances but the former may lack formal guarantees that the latter brings. Overall, our study indicates argumentation semantics as an ideal candidate for principled judges in debate-driven AI.

Benchmarking LLM Judges for Mobile Agent Evaluation

Mobile agent benchmarks increasingly rely on LLM-based judges to evaluate task completion, yet the reliability of these judges on mobile agent trajectories remains largely unexamined. We introduce MobileJudgeBench, a benchmark for systematically evaluating LLM-as-judge methods on mobile agent trajectories. Our benchmark comprises 931 human-annotated trajectories spanning 6 mobile agent benchmarks, 4 agent models, and 68 apps. We evaluate 6 judge methods (five adapted from SPA-Bench, A3 with two modes, AndroidArena, and AgentRewardBench, plus a simple baseline we design) across multiple LLM backends. Our experiments reveal three key findings. First, a simple baseline judge with sampled screenshots is competitive with, and often exceeds, purpose-built methods, indicating that more elaborate judge pipelines do not consistently improve judge quality; among competitive methods, the LLM backbone is the primary driver. Second, benchmark quality metrics reliably predict real-world judge utility: they correlate with both agent ranking fidelity for evaluation and downstream performance when judges serve as reward signals for on-policy reinforcement learning. Third, failure analysis across two LLM backends uncovers qualitatively opposite failure profiles, one conservative and the other permissive, linked to the backbone's precision-recall characteristics.

When the Judge Should Not Decide: Evidence-Locked, Non-Compensatory Selection Bounds LLM-Judge Failure in Reasoning Pipelines

An LLM judge deployed inside a reasoning pipeline does not merely measure quality, it decides which answer ships. We show that the cost of that decision depends less on judge accuracy than on the decision rule the judge is embedded in. On frozen candidate pools from four GRPO policies, an unconstrained scalar DeepSeek-R1-7B judge buys almost nothing over answer-level majority vote (+1.0 pp on 500 GSM8K questions, +0.34 EM on 300 HotpotQA questions), and on a frozen-rule 30-question confirmation split it is 10 points worse than majority, a judge that destroys accuracy while scoring candidates confidently. We then subordinate the same judge to Evidence-Locked Derive-Gate-Repair (EL-DGR), a task-adaptive non-compensatory rule under which a judge preference may override evidence-supported consensus only with an extractive evidence certificate, and a repair only when neither alternative is certified and the repair is. With no change to the judge, the candidates, or the budget, EL-DGR reaches 58.2% on GSM8K (vs. 56.8% judge, 55.8% majority, 55.4% first candidate) and 17.33 EM / 25.46 F1 on HotpotQA (vs. 15.67/23.49, 15.33/23.19, 15.33/22.97), improving on first-candidate GRPO by +2.8 pp (exact McNemar p=0.0026) and +2.00 EM (p=0.070, borderline). A decision audit shows why: EL-DGR overturns consensus on only 8 of 30 pilot questions and never converts a correct consensus into an incorrect answer. We also report what did not work: the same seven-channel decomposition used as a step-level gated training reward is null, and corrected channel-drop ablations show no channel is individually necessary (p=1.0 throughout). The practitioner-facing finding is negative about judges and positive about admissibility, bound the judge's blast radius rather than trying to make it accurate.

Rehearse: Stepping Back from the Confidence Cliff in Self-Improving Autoresearch

Autoresearch improves machine-learning code by proposing changes, running full training jobs, and keeping changes that improve the metric. The efficiency of this loop depends not only on generating ideas, but also on the agent's ability to decide, before spending a training run, whether a proposed modification is likely to work. We study how the reliability of this pre-execution judgment changes over the course of an autoresearch trajectory. In public AutoSOTA logs (Li et al., 2026; Tsinghua FIB Lab, 2026), the fraction of helpful modifications falls from 70% in the first two iterations to 43% by iteration 6+. On 296 same-baseline modification pairs from 39 paper-derived AutoSOTA tasks, each containing one modification that improved the metric and one that did not, with measured outcomes hidden, an LLM judge given candidate rationales but no prior-attempt history reaches 79.5% accuracy on the pairs where strict consensus returns a verdict. On the full 366-pair benchmark, however, this ability weakens substantially late in the loop. As successful changes accumulate, selective accuracy - accuracy conditioned on a strict-consensus verdict - falls from 82.8% to 56.9%, while the judge remains willing to decide. We call this operational pattern the confidence cliff. Rehearse implements the loop change as a lightweight skill for autoresearch loops: propose several ideas, compare them before execution, run the most promising, and judge with a focused memory of similar past attempts and outcomes. This focused outcome memory raises late selective accuracy to 83.5%. Across 4,000 budgeted training runs over three loops, Rehearse improves the endpoint under the same training-run budget on nanochat, image classification, and time-series forecasting.

CAFE: A Compound-AI Factorial Evaluation Framework

We introduce CAFE (Compound-AI Factorial Evaluation), an open-source platform that brings design of experiments to the evaluation of compound AI systems (CAIS). Such systems expose many interchangeable choices - e.g. which retriever, model, or prompt - and practitioners rarely know which of them most affects answer quality. With CAFE, a practitioner registers each swappable component of a pipeline as a factor to build a factorial design over the chosen factors, run the resulting configurations, and score the answers on a shared rubric using a configurable LLM judge together with human raters. From these ratings it attributes answer-quality variance to the components and their interactions with mixed-effects models and reports effect sizes, significance, the best configuration, cost and latency trade-offs, and judge-human reliability. Whereas existing tools mostly either search for a good configuration or score outputs in isolation, CAFE also explains which component drives quality and whether an observed difference is significant. We validate CAFE on a retrieval-augmented question-answering (QA) pipeline over the HotpotQA benchmark dataset, where it recovers planted factor effects and stays calibrated under a permutation null. CAFE is released as a Python package and as a Web application.

The Blind Curator: How a Biased Judge Silently Disables Skill Retirement in Self-Evolving Agents

A self-evolving agent retires its bad skills by watching them fail, so what happens when the judge cannot see the failures? Skill retirement is the structural constraint that keeps a growing library from drifting below the no-skill baseline, but its guarantee assumes an unbiased reward, which is false for the LLM judges that reference-free tasks force upon us. We show that a biased judge does not merely add noise; it \emph{silently switches off the curator}. We make this precise with a corrupted-reward analysis and, isolating the causal channel by injecting corruption on top of a deterministic reward, a behavioral study on a reference-free report-writing testbed with a code-generation cross-check. Symmetric noise leaves retirement intact, but \emph{false-pass} bias (failures slipping through as passes) disables contribution-based retirement past a sharp threshold that no amount of data can cross. Separating genuine retirement from cap-eviction churn shows this \emph{mechanism} failure is universal, holding across domains and failure rates and sparing only near-zero-false-pass, verifier-like graders. The downstream \emph{outcome}, though, is regime-dependent: eval quality degrades only where the same corruption also starves skill synthesis, and otherwise holds steady, so the disabled curator is \emph{silent}, surfacing in no aggregate metric. The contribution is a behavioral safety result, not a performance one. A cheap defect-injection audit then tells an operator, before deployment, which side of the threshold their judge occupies.

FirstResearch: Auditable Question Formation for LLM Scientific Discovery Agents

LLM systems for scientific discovery increasingly assist with ideation, literature synthesis, experiment planning, and report generation, but the first research question they propose can remain difficult to audit: it may sound plausible without exposing the mechanism, falsifier, or assumption that a scientist should inspect. We introduce FirstResearch, a first-principles research-question formation framework for scientific LLM agents whose core artifact is a structured Research Question Certificate. The certificate records primitive definitions, assumptions, a mechanism model, a tension or contradiction, a falsifiable hypothesis, a minimal decisive test, and a failure update rule, making the proposed question inspectable before downstream execution. On ten LLM-agent research topics, FirstResearch outperforms controlled prompt-level baselines inspired by AI co-scientist, Agent Laboratory, and AI Scientist-v2 under a primary DeepSeek-blind-judge protocol. A Gemini-2.5-Flash independent-judge rescore of the same 40 baseline packages preserves the system-level ranking, with FirstResearch scoring 4.86/5 versus 4.38/5 for the strongest baseline and Pearson agreement of 0.865 on average score. A one-repeat ablation checkpoint further suggests that the certificate-centered core is the strongest component: certificate-only scoring reaches 4.90/5 under DeepSeek and 4.88/5 under Gemini, while removing certificates drops below 1/5 under both judges. These results are preliminary and use LLM judges rather than human domain experts, but they support a narrow scientific-discovery claim: explicit derivation constraints are a promising mechanism for making LLM-generated scientific questions more auditable. Code, prompts, saved outputs, and reproduction scripts are available at https://github.com/louiswang524/FirstResearch.

Inducing Reward-Free Judging Rubrics that Reduce Over-Crediting in Agent Evaluation

Evaluating language-model agents at scale increasingly relies on a second language model as an automatic judge, because the gold signal, an executable environment reward, is expensive, slow, or unavailable at deployment time. Such a judge is a reward-free proxy whose value depends on whether it can be trusted, yet existing judges either hand-write the scoring rubric, as in G-Eval, or fine-tune the judge's weights, and both tend to credit fluent but unsuccessful trajectories as successes. We instead induce the text of an agent-judging rubric from a small set of ground-truth-labeled trajectories, grounding it in true outcomes. We present RubricForge, which evolves a judge rubric by reflective evolution against labeled trajectories to maximize agreement with the environment reward, freezes it, and applies it to held-out trajectories in one model call with no environment access. The optimized artifact is human-readable text, so every verdict is attributable to named criteria. Using one frozen 7B model as both agent and judge, on tau-bench (173 labeled trajectories drawn from 220 rollouts) and WebShop (160), the principal gain is faithfulness rather than raw agreement. The edge over a generic G-Eval judge is not statistically significant (McNemar p = 0.248), and absolute-score calibration marginally favors the generic judge (|err| difference -0.048, p = 2x10^-4). Yet RubricForge over-credits failed trajectories roughly half as often (0.115 vs. 0.173 false-pass rate on tau-bench, with three over-credit catches and zero reversals) and ranks graded WebShop outcomes more faithfully (Spearman 0.410 vs. 0.370). For a reward-free evaluator the false-pass rate, not aggregate agreement, is the deployment-relevant quantity, since a false pass ships a broken agent whereas a false fail merely costs a retry.

Learning User Simulators with Turing Rewards

Learning to simulate human users in interactive settings could advance the training of agent assistants, evaluation of personalization systems, research in the social sciences, and more. Existing approaches generally do so by training a large language model (LLM) to match a single ground truth response, either by maximizing the log probability or by using a similarity reward. We instead propose {Turing-RL}: a Turing-Test-based reinforcement learning approach for training user simulator models. {Turing-RL} uses a discriminative Turing reward with an LLM judge to score how indistinguishable a generated response is from the real user's given the user's history, and the user simulator LLM learns to produce responses indistinguishable from what the user could have said with such rewards. Across two different domains--conversational chat and Reddit forum discussion--we find that {Turing-RL} consistently outperforms baseline methods on both LLM and human evaluation metrics. Our study suggests that optimizing for indistinguishability, rather than response matching, is effective for learning user simulators.

Building Customer Support AI Agents at 100M-User Scale: An Evaluation-Driven Framework

The rapid rise in LLM capabilities has made AI agents increasingly viable across a broad range of tasks. Among the most promising applications is building production-ready customer-facing agents, a challenge that demands coordinated excellence in evaluation methodology, context engineering, training, and online measurement. Yet these critical pillars are typically developed in isolation, creating blind spots that only surface after deployment. In this paper, we present a unified framework that bridges offline development with online impact for customer support AI agents at Nubank, a company with 100M+ users. Our approach integrates several key components: (1) structured context engineering tailored to customer support agents, (2) systematic human-in-the-loop prompt iteration, (3) rigorous LLM judge evaluation with measured inter-rater agreement and GEPA optimization for consistency, and (4) ideation-to-production validation. A central insight is that evaluation-pipeline quality directly determines iteration velocity. We present results from five production deployments spanning distinct domains: card delivery, debt management, credit-limit support, card management, and product explanation. These deployments deliver consistent customer-satisfaction gains while substantially accelerating iteration. In our card-delivery deployment, large-scale A/B testing yields a 37 percentage-point improvement in AI transactional Net Promoter Score and a 29 percentage-point gain in self-service rate over prior agent variants, alongside a strong correlation between offline simulation metrics and online outcomes, demonstrating that eval-driven development reliably predicts production impact. On most use cases, AI satisfaction reaches within a few percentage points of expert human agents.