Roleplay evaluation should do more than assign a single score: it should reveal which role requirements were tested, which failed, and which dialogue evidence supports the judgment. We propose TRACE Bench, a task-driven agentic checklist evaluation framework. It decomposes each role profile offline into a fixed checklist, then uses a User Agent to converse naturally with the target roleplay model while privately updating checklist states from model responses. Scores therefore trace back to checklist items and supporting dialogue turns rather than a black-box holistic impression. For coverage cross-validation, we audit released M2 free-dialogue transcripts from the MiniMax Role-play Benchmark against the same role-derived checklist. The released free-chat transcripts cover only 73.74% of key role-profile points, whereas TRACE Bench reaches 99.91% coverage in fewer turns. Robustness experiments show stable rankings under repeated runs and User Agent replacement. Across 26 models, TRACE Bench reports overall rankings together with capability breakdowns and checklist traces. It also supports Closed-Loop Benchmark Evolution, distilling verification methods proven effective in failed traces so later evaluations can more reliably elicit and examine observed failure modes.
Role-playing agents (RPAs) have become one of the most important consumer applications of large language models. Users engage in multi-turn conversations with RPAs for experiences such as emotional comfort, making reliable evaluation essential for measuring capability, comparing systems, and guiding further improvement. Existing benchmarks, however, typically require an RPA to continue a fixed dialogue history and then evaluate the continuation using a fixed rubric detached from the user. We identify and empirically demonstrate two limitations of this design. First, an RPA's output is shaped by the preceding dialogue history, preventing a scientifically grounded assessment of its role-playing ability in real multi-turn settings. Second, user experience varies substantially across individuals, and conventional fixed rubrics need not align with user satisfaction. We therefore introduce PALATE (Person-Aligned LLM-Simulated-User Assessment with Tailored Evaluation), a scalable RPA benchmark built on user simulators. PALATE is accompanied by a pool of 300 character profiles. Its main evaluation trains five per-user simulators and lets them engage candidate RPAs in free-form, multi-turn conversations over a pre-frozen panel of character profiles. Alongside a general quality rubric, we construct personalized rubrics to measure user satisfaction; on held-out annotated data, the personalized rubrics show higher agreement with human judgments than the general rubric. In the main evaluation of 16 candidates, PALATE separately characterizes generic turn quality, long-horizon session capability, and per-user experience on multi-turn trajectories co-constructed by each candidate. It thereby produces interpretable evaluations of specific user-RPA pairs rather than compressing systems into a single user-independent ranking.
Role-playing language agents (RPLAs) simulate specific characters and personas across applications such as entertainment, companionship, interactive storytelling, and education. Faithful role-play requires more than producing plausible, in-character responses: as a character's values and behavior change over a narrative, an RPLA should reflect the character's state at the relevant stage. However, existing benchmarks largely treat characters as fixed personas or test only what they know at a given point in the narrative. We introduce ArcANE (Arc-Aware Narrative Evaluation), a benchmark for evaluating whether an RPLA follows a character's development across a narrative. ArcANE first builds an Arc that maps how a character's values, motivations, or relationships change over the story. The benchmark then scores how well an RPLA's responses fit the corresponding stages of the Arc, covering three distinct scenario types: scenes from the novel, new situations within its world, and situations outside that world. We evaluate six models under six ways of providing narrative context. In every model, using the Arc up to the queried chapter yields the best performance, outperforming the strongest non-Arc context by 2.2-8.4 points. These results suggest that faithful role-play requires evolving character states and tracking their trajectory, rather than merely retrieving relevant episodic evidence.
Role-playing agents(RPAs) are widely used to steer large language models(LLMs) toward role-consistent behavior, yet existing benchmarks mainly evaluate surface-level fidelity and offer limited insight into decision making under role-alignment value conflicts. To address this gap, we introduce RoleCDE, the first benchmark designed to evaluate RPAs under structured conflicts between role-specific values and alignment-oriented constraints. RoleCDE formulates role-aware decision making as cognitive dilemma scenarios, jointly evaluating role-scenario grounding, value conflict resolution, and decision tendencies. The benchmark is constructed at scale, covering approximately 8k diverse role profiles and scenarios and nearly 24k dilemma instances across three difficulty levels and eight role categories. Evaluation of several mainstream LLMs reveals a "Role Value Decoupling" phenomenon, where agents systematically default to alignment-and morality-consistent decisions rather than role-specific values when the two conflict, even under explicit role conditioning. This behavior is largely invariant to dilemma difficulty but varies substantially across role categories. We further show that RoleCDE-based fine-tuning effectively mitigates this decoupling by improving value trade-off reasoning, while preserving general role-playing fidelity and general reasoning performance. Code is available at: https://github.com/rabbitrose/RoleCDE.