ParEvalLayer: When Partial LLM-Agent Evaluations Support a Decision
Authors: Wei-Jung Huang, Bonan Shen
Organizations: Independent Researcher · United States
Abstract
LLM-agent evaluations often produce task outcomes long before the full benchmark run is complete. A partial score is tempting to report, but it does not show whether the observed tasks support the same conclusion as the completed evaluation. Early tasks can omit important parts of a benchmark, running cheaper tasks first can distort the observed sample, and a rule that decides only easy pairs can appear accurate while leaving many comparisons unresolved. We introduce ParEvalLayer, a decision layer that reads paired outcomes for two agent systems and a comparison policy chosen in advance. For each partial run, it records whether the tested agent system is better by the required amount, is not better by that amount, needs more evidence, or should abstain. We evaluate ParEvalLayer by replaying completed public benchmark data as if each evaluation had stopped earlier. At each point, ParEvalLayer applies the policy using only the outcomes observed so far; if it reaches one of the two comparison judgments, we check whether that judgment matches the completed data for the same system pair. With the main comparison rule, three of the public benchmarks reach the same decision as the completed evaluation after observing only 15% to 25% of task outcomes. Other benchmarks require more task outcomes. This variation shows why a partial score alone is not enough: reports should also state the decision rule and how many comparisons remain without a decision.
Agent benchmarks often compare two agents after all tasks have run, but costly evaluations make partial runs tempting. A task fraction alone does not show whether a partial run supports the same pairwise conclusion as the completed benchmark. We study this question by replaying completed public task-level records from SWE-bench, AppWorld, and tau-bench. A partial budget counts as enough only when it supports the completed benchmark's decision, covers required task groups, and leaves no more than a target fraction of comparisons unresolved. The required task fraction varies sharply. At the strict 0 percentage point threshold on a 5 percentage point budget grid, AppWorld first meets all targets at 15 percent, tau-bench at 25 percent, and SWE-bench Verified at 90 percent; SWE-bench Lite does not meet all targets by 95 percent under the primary coverage rule. Partial-evaluation reports should state how much one agent must outperform another, how tasks are selected, what coverage rule is required, what decision rule is used, and how many comparisons may remain unresolved.
Before letting an agent operate over real context, can you prove it used the right evidence? GroundEval turns that question into a deterministic test of what the agent searched, fetched, cited, and was permitted to access. In one case study, two frontier LLM judges scored a plausible agent response 0.85 and higher. But the trace told a different story: the agent had never retrieved the artifact its answer depended on, yielding a GroundEval score of 0.000. We introduce GroundEval, a judge-free framework for evaluating agents against grounded, time-bounded, and access-controlled evidence. GroundEval uses a domain configuration to generate questions, lets the agent choose how to answer, and then scores both the final answer and the recorded trajectory that produced it. The benchmark targets three failures that LLM-as-judge evaluation struggles to detect: whether an agent checked before claiming absence, reasoned only from evidence available to the actor at the relevant time, and used the correct causal mechanism rather than a plausible one. These correspond to three tracks: Silence, Perspective, and Counterfactual. GroundEval exposes when plausible answers rest on invalid evidence paths, and produces structured per-question diagnostics that pair tool activity with the agent's turn-level narration, making each score inspectable rather than merely reported. Our case studies suggest this failure mode is common rather than exceptional, one that final-answer and judge-based evaluation cannot detect by construction.
An LLM-agent leaderboard invites a familiar inference: an agent ranked above another is the better agent. Public evaluation logs may not support that conclusion when systems differ in task mixture, label source, release detail, or cost rule. We study what leaderboard scores estimate and when they justify pairwise superiority conclusions. Our estimand-aware pairwise procedure states the comparison target and measurement source, checks common support, and evaluates the supported difference using a stated uncertainty rule and practical margin. Controlled checks evaluate the decision labels under known finite-sample conditions and show why uncertainty must be included when judging sensitivity to target reweighting. Across SWE-bench, AgentRewardBench, and tau2-bench, close rank differences are often unresolved; proxy labels and utility rules can also change which system is selected. DataAgentBench and Open Agent show what remains estimable from coarser public records. A leaderboard score summarizes a released evaluation, whereas a fine-grained superiority claim additionally depends on the estimand and uncertainty rule used to interpret the difference.