GroundEval: A Deterministic Replacement for LLM-as-Judge in Stateful Agent Evaluation

Deep research agents increasingly automate complex information-seeking tasks, producing evidence-grounded reports via multi-step reasoning, tool use, and synthesis. Their growing role demands scalable, reliable evaluation, positioning LLM-as-judge as a supervision paradigm for assessing factual accuracy, evidence use, and reasoning quality. Yet the reliability of these judges for deep research agents remains poorly understood, posing a critical meta-evaluation problem: before deploying LLM judges to supervise research agents, we must first evaluate the judges themselves. Existing meta-evaluations fall short in two ways: (1) reliance on coarse, subjective human-preference agreement; (2) focus on instruction-following or verifiable tasks, leaving open-ended agent executions unexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce REFLECT (REliable Fine-grained LLM judge Evaluation via Controlled inTervention), a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments. REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions on quality-screened agent execution traces. This yields verifiable, comprehensive, and fine-grained instances for validating the judge models. Our experiments show that current LLM judges remain unreliable: even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures, with especially poor performance on evidence verification. Together, our taxonomy and findings expose systematic judge limitations, reveal tradeoffs in cost and reliability, and offer actionable guidance for building more reliable evaluation pipelines for deep research agents.

We present a framework for evaluating data-science agents on live, continuously updated data using executable ground truth and format-agnostic factoid scoring. Consider this example query: "what were last week's audience sizes"---the reference answer changes as the underlying data changes, so static references become outdated and standard LLM-as-a-judge pipelines cannot verify responses against a fixed ground truth. Our central contribution, ground-truth-as-code, encodes each expected answer as an executable reference function that recomputes the answer directly from live data at evaluation time, ensuring the reference remains consistent with the system it describes. We combine this with a factoid-level, format-agnostic judge that decomposes both the agent's response and the computed ground truth into atomic claims and scores precision, recall, and accuracy over them, irrespective of the response format (prose, list, table, HTML, etc.). The approach is applicable to agents whose expected outputs can be expressed as executable data computations. We validate the framework through a human--LLM agreement study on an internally developed machine learning skill deployed in production, using a synthetic database constructed to reproduce production schemas and entity relationships. Relative to a natural-language ground-truth baseline, our method achieves a 29% improvement in the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC)---a class-balanced measure of agreement between expert annotators and LLM-as-a-judge predictions---and a 16% reduction in token consumption per test case, while a self-directed baseline lacking explicit ground truth is anti-correlated with human judgment. Agents that perform multi-source data integration and computation over non-stationary data are routinely deployed in industry; we propose ground-truth-as-code as a practical methodology for their evaluation.

Autonomous multi-agent LLM systems are increasingly deployed to investigate operational incidents and produce structured diagnostic reports. Their trustworthiness hinges on whether each claim is grounded in observed evidence rather than model-internal inference. Existing groundedness evaluators (binary classifiers, LLM-as-judge scalars, self-correction loops) treat supporting evidence as interchangeable and emit a single signal that offers no principled control over downstream action. We present GSAR, a grounding-evaluation and replanning framework that (i) partitions claims into a four-way typology (grounded, ungrounded, contradicted, complementary), giving first-class standing to non-redundant alternative perspectives; (ii) assigns evidence-type-specific weights reflecting epistemic strength; (iii) computes an asymmetric contradiction-penalised weighted groundedness score; and (iv) couples that score to a three-tier decision function (proceed, regenerate, replan) driving a bounded-iteration outer loop under an explicit compute budget. We formalise the algorithm, prove six structural properties, and evaluate five design claims on FEVER with gold Wikipedia evidence under four independently-trained LLM judges (gpt-5.4, claude-sonnet-4-6, claude-opus-4-7, gemini-2.5-pro). Every ablation reproduces in the same direction on every judge: bootstrap 95% CIs on the rho=0 effect exclude 0 on all four; the no-complementary ablation under Opus 4.7 has CI [-96,-68] of 200; at n=1000 three independent judges converge to DeltaS(rho=0)=+0.058. A head-to-head against Vectara HHEM-2.1-Open is included. To our knowledge, GSAR is the first published groundedness framework coupling evidence-typed scoring with tiered recovery under an explicit compute budget.