Closed-Loop Agent Evaluation: Layered Measurement and Self-Calibration
Organizations: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
Abstract
Once an agent is live, teams want to know whether it is doing its job, not just whether it throws errors. Yet most evaluation is one-off: a benchmark run, a look at traces, a single score. Its conclusions neither check themselves nor reach the agent. We propose closed-loop evaluation, an evaluation method for deployed agents. It models evaluation as performance estimation under biased raters and censored outcomes, and it requires every level's conclusion to trace back to atomic data and to be computed by versioned rules. The method covers four levels of analysis (span, trace, conversation and engagement), measures along a spine of Execution, Substance, Trajectory and Results, treats Conduct as a constraint throughout, and uses Provenance and Adjudication components to certify the evidence and the evaluators. Evaluator agents generated by an Agent Factory carry these components, each with a domain knowledge pack and an adapter harness. Two loops close the evaluation: an inner loop audits the evidence, rules and metrics themselves, and an outer loop uses per-component regression checks to drive agent improvement. We also give a pipeline that runs this process automatically. Using the business-analysis agent SharpInsight as a case and porting the method to public conversation data, we show how problems differ across levels and how evidence-and-rule judgment is more reliable than holistic scoring (ICC 0.86 vs. 0.81; kappa 0.81 vs. 0.63).
Figures & tables
| Level | Atomic data | Deterministic analysis | Case performance | Only this level answers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Span | step type, order, omission; task progress | chain completeness; stage of abnormal stop | no thinking step: 15.7% fail (0.0% with); 85% of stops by 20% progress | which step broke |
| Trace | latency, delivery status, checklist | per-mode baselines; D , S , item pass rates | 3.6% fail; answers within 5 s fail 38.7% | was this turn delivered |
| Conversation | request replay, context repair, session termination | friction F ; rule-derived outcome | 5.6% with failure; 16.7% at 5+ turns | what users went through |
| Engagement | return, gap, redo, business events | retention net of redo; censoring flag | 10.3% of users met failure; redo 38.6% (6.4% after success) | did the outcome hold |
| Audit | Finding | Inner-loop action | After correction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provenance check | 13 of 120 sampled sessions came from one internal account | move cleaning before sampling | 107 sessions, all real users |
| Evidence coverage | a median of about 6% of deep-report text reached evaluators | widen context projection to full text | same reports: S 0.92 → 0.79 |
| Judgment method | direct LLM scores have large residuals; outcome κ only 0.63 | switch to atomic data plus deterministic analysis | ICC 0.81 → 0.86; κ 0.63 → 0.81 |
| Rule lexicon | 87% of “human” ( ) rule hits were “AI” ( ) | replace phrases; add false-friend list | 0 hits in the full log after correction |
| Goodhart test | raw 7-day return higher after failure (79.1% vs. 60.4%) | redefine net of redo | no longer higher after failure (47.5% vs. 55.7%, intervals overlap) |
| Agreement between models | low-agreement items counted as flags, e.g. overclaiming 53 by Opus, 15 by Sonnet (κ 0.21) | remove pending a new definition | Conduct flags 63 → 14 |
| Metric | Base | Per-turn | Calibrated | Min. rise |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Failure | 3.6% | 36% | 0.9% | +3.2 pp |
| Deep failure | 8.0% | 30% | 0.3% | +9.7 pp |
| Normal latency | 40 s | 63% | 0.9% | +46% |
| Replay | 13.6% | 76% | 0.8% | +18.1 pp |
| Replay after failure | 51.5% | 18% | 0.6% | +35.5 pp |
| Disclosure | 1.6% | 34% | 0.7% | +2.1 pp |
AI Agent Evaluation
AI agent evaluation measures whether tool-using systems complete tasks reliably, safely, and efficiently across interactive settings.
See all 544 papers