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.
As agentic systems tackle increasingly complex multi-step tasks, evaluating their trajectories presents a major bottleneck - human annotation of a single trajectory on popular agentic benchmarks can take hours, making it difficult to scale evaluations for measuring performance or curating training data. This has driven widespread reliance on automated approaches such as LLM-as-a-judge (LLMJ) to critique agents at the process and outcome-levels at scale, however, the soundness of LLMJ critiques often goes unmeasured. Here, we introduce Counsel, the first public dataset of meta-evaluations for agentic tasks. Counsel consists of process-level critiques from open-weight LLMJs on two agent benchmarks: tau-bench (customer support agents) and DA-Code (coding agents), and human meta-evaluations of these critiques. Human annotators label critiques on each flagged error as "spot on", "correct location but poor reasoning", or "should not have flagged", achieving reliable inter-annotator agreement (Krippendorff's alpha of 0.78). The resulting dataset stratifies LLMJ critiques by human alignment across both error location within a trajectory and reasoning quality, serving as valuable data to calibrate, improve, or train LLMJs for agents. Comparing open-weight judges, we find that more capable judge models and more reasoning effort both enabled improved human agreement, with the strongest judge reaching ~88% agreement on location and ~65% on reasoning. Counsel is generated using open-weight models and is permissively licensed for broad community use, which we hope will enable rigorous study and improved alignment of LLM-based evaluators for agentic systems.
Sashank Pisupati, Henry Broomfield, Eujeong Choi +5
Comparing and selecting task-oriented LLM agents increasingly relies on a low-cost offline evaluation gate: persona-driven LLM user-simulators converse with each candidate, an LLM-as-a-judge scores the transcripts, and the higher-scoring agent is promoted. We introduce GAUGE, a reusable offline protocol that measures whether this gate's ranking matches a grounded verifiable reward across 25 agents from six providers on the τ2-bench and SimulatorArena benchmarks, separating two kinds of evaluation validity that release practices conflate: ranking validity and construct validity. First, a satisfaction-success gap: satisfaction carries essentially no information about task success, as conversations rated satisfied by our blind panel are decorrelated from actual success, with 57.5% of them failing the customer's task, a pattern consistent across five rater populations, both benchmarks, and every subjective dimension we rated. Second, while the gate's ranking is robust across the broad capability span, it loses resolution among the near-equal strong agents: this decision-disagreement rate jumps from <1% on wide-reward pairs to 31% on close pairs. The gate is thus human-validated yet mis-anchored. As a remedy, we propose a calibrate-then-trust cadence in which a judge-free completion bit is a zero-cost tripwire for truncation regressions.
Task-oriented conversational agents are evaluated using curated or automatically generated benchmarks, yet benchmark quality is rarely assessed. Poor benchmarks may contain inconsistent tasks, simplistic scenarios, or limited policy coverage, leading to unreliable evaluations. We introduce a reference-free framework that uses LLM judges to assess benchmark consistency, complexity, and policy coverage, while providing actionable diagnostics of weaknesses. We validate the framework by demonstrating agreement with independent human annotations and by evaluating benchmarks generated by LLMs of varying capabilities, as well as benchmarks subjected to controlled quality-degrading perturbations. Across domains and judge models, the proposed metrics consistently distinguish between benchmark quality levels. We further demonstrate the framework's applicability to manually curated benchmarks. Our framework offers a practical approach for evaluating synthetic and manually curated conversational-agent benchmarks.