Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Survey
Organizations: Microsoft, China
Abstract
This survey examines evaluation methods for large language model (LLM)-based agents in multi-turn conversational settings. Using a PRISMA-inspired framework, we systematically reviewed nearly 250 scholarly sources, capturing the state of the art from various venues of publication, and establishing a solid foundation for our analysis. Our study offers a structured approach by developing two interrelated taxonomy systems: one that defines what to evaluate and another that explains how to evaluate. The first taxonomy identifies key components of LLM-based agents for multi-turn conversations and their evaluation dimensions, including task completion, response quality, user experience, memory and context retention, as well as planning and tool integration. These components ensure that the performance of conversational agents is assessed in a holistic and meaningful manner. The second taxonomy system focuses on the evaluation methodologies. It categorizes approaches into annotation-based evaluations, automated metrics, hybrid strategies that combine human assessments with quantitative measures, and self-judging methods utilizing LLMs. This framework not only captures traditional metrics derived from language understanding, such as BLEU and ROUGE scores, but also incorporates advanced techniques that reflect the dynamic, interactive nature of multi-turn dialogues.
Figures & tables
| Aspect | Annotation-based Evaluation | Annotation-free Evaluation |
|---|---|---|
| Approach / Data | • Relies on expert-annotated reference outputs • Uses fixed labels (e.g. annotated intents, entities) for exact matching. | • Uses model-based metrics (e.g. LLM scoring of relevance, coherence). • Can perform direct, pairwise or listwise comparisons without gold labels. |
| Advantages | • High Precision : Ground-truth references ensure accurate scoring. • Interpretability : Clear semantics of annotated labels guide evaluation. | • Flexibility : Adaptable to open-ended qualities without new data. • Automation : Easily applies to new domains without annotation overhead. |
| Disadvantages | • Costly & Slow : Requires extensive human effort and time to produce ground truth label. • Bias : Subject to annotator bias and low inter-annotator agreement. | • Reliability & Bias Issues : LLM evaluations can be inconsistent and biased. • Per-Query Cost : API latency or usage costs for large LLM calls. |
| Flexibility & Coverage | • Rigid : Exact matching penalizes correct but unannotated responses. • Static : Hard to cover new scenarios without fresh annotations. | • Adaptive : Can evaluate novel or broad cases via prompt design. • Broad Scope : Judges subjective and multi-dimensional aspects dynamically. |
| Study | Focus | Metrics |
| Multitask Capabilities | ||
| Hendrycks et al. (2020) | Domain-Specific Multitasking | Accuracy in domain-specific question answering and problem-solving |
| Li et al. (2017) | Manually Annotated Multi-Turn Data (DailyDialog) | Annotation quality, response coherence |
| Gopalakrishnan et al. (2019) | Topic-Based Dialogue Dataset (Topical Chat) | Knowledge grounding, conversational diversity |
| Interaction Patterns in Multi-Turn Conversations | ||
| Zheng et al. (2023) | Multi-Turn Benchmark (MT-Bench) | Precision, quality of generated responses |
| Study | Focus | Metrics |
| Reliability and Hallucination Mitigation in Tool-Use | ||
| Zhang et al. (2024f) | Multi-Level Hallucination Diagnosis | Hallucination detection accuracy, depth and breadth analysis |
| Next-Turn Response | ||
| Moniri et al. (2024) | Multi-Round Structured Debates | Clarity, factual accuracy, consistency |
| Abercrombie and Batista-Navarro (2020a) | Parliamentary Debate Analysis | Logical flow, structured reasoning |
| Query Rewritten and Retrieved Items | ||
LLM Agent Evaluation
Large language model agent evaluation measures whether tool-using systems complete tasks reliably, safely, and efficiently.
See all 1,194 papers