Role-Playing Agent Evaluation

How do LLM agents' strategies differ, and how much can instructions to adopt a persona change their behavior over a game? We study these questions with AgentMonopoly, an environment where agents communicate, buy and trade properties, and make decisions that affect later turns. We compare models from four families, each at two sizes, in games with identical models, different sizes of the same family, or different families. We also assign one agent a persona, a description of how it should behave, intended to change a tendency observed in games without that persona. The tested models differ in how often they trade, waive rent, and manage cash and properties. Larger models do not consistently win more games. Persona instructions change the words agents use and some of their actions, but the changes do not always match the role across all decisions. These results show why persona following should be assessed through actions and outcomes as well as language. As our findings are conditional on the tested checkpoints, prompts, and five seeds per configuration, the open-source nature of AgentMonopoly provides the experimental infrastructure for further extending these comparisons. Our code is available at https://github.com/SuELS-Group/Agent_Monopoly.

Research on LLM sycophancy has largely focused on propositional agreement, in which models echo users' beliefs, preferences, or judgments. Adult intimate roleplay presents a different case because what the user seeks may be preservation of a preferred relational position within a generated scene. Using a controlled prompt-based audit of 2,016 outputs from two open-weight LLMs, we identify four recurrent relational moves: legitimating desire, presenting the user as wanted, preserving non-rejection while communicating limits, and keeping intimacy available within fantasy or roleplay frames. Bringing the sycophancy literature into dialogue with sexual script theory, we conceptualize this configuration as desirability confirmation, an output-level pattern that captures how user-pleasing can operate through relational positioning. The findings extend sycophancy research and intimate-AI evaluation beyond binary compliance or refusal by showing how outputs can differ in the ways they communicate boundaries, preserve relational acceptance, and mark intimacy as fictional.

Role-Playing Language Agents (RPLAs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes applications such as healthcare assistance, customer support, and education, where maintaining consistent personas, ethical constraints, and behavioral coherence under adversarial pressure is critical. Existing evaluation approaches rely on static benchmarks or isolated single-turn prompts that fail to capture cumulative behavioral failures emerging over extended interactions. We present a modular multi-agent platform for adversarially stress-testing RPLAs through structured, multi-turn dialogue. The system coordinates three agents: a strategy-driven Interrogator Agent that applies six progressive adversarial strategies, a Target Agent representing the RPLA under evaluation, and an automated Judging Agent that scores behavior across role fidelity, drift, ethical deviation, and consistency dimensions. Through experiments across three personas and three LLM families, we demonstrate that multi-strategy adversarial evaluation reveals failure modes invisible to single-strategy testing, reducing overall robustness scores by 0.17--0.20 points on average. Cross-model validation confirms consistent degradation patterns across Llama-3.3-70B, GPT-4o-mini, and Claude-3.5-Haiku, with Authority Challenge and Emotional Manipulation emerging as the most effective attack strategies. Automated judging achieves strong human alignment ($r = 0.82$, Fleiss' $κ= 0.71$). This work is released as an open-source platform to support AI safety and reproducible RPLA benchmarking. While the framework enables systematic discovery of failure modes, we acknowledge potential ethical risks associated with adversarial testing methodologies and emphasize responsible usage for improving AI safety.

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.

Role-playing with large language models is fundamentally a session-level task, requiring agents to sustain character identity and interaction quality across extended multi-turn conversations. Yet existing evaluation and optimization methods remain largely turn-level, failing to capture long-horizon quality. We propose DynSess, a unified session-level framework for role-playing agents. DynSess-Eval scores complete dialogue sessions via rubrics targeting long-horizon behaviors. Leveraging its session-level rewards, we construct high-quality training trajectories through multi-turn lookahead search and train DynSess-Character with two complementary variants: DSPO (off-policy) and GSRPO (on-policy). Experiments show that DynSess-Eval aligns with human judgments substantially better than prior evaluators, and blind human evaluation further shows that DynSess-Character matches the strongest character model despite using substantially fewer parameters, while maintaining strong role consistency and interactive ability. Our dataset and code will be released to facilitate future research.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) in interactive systems has enabled the creation of dynamic, open-ended Role-Playing Agents (RPAs). However, evaluating these agents remains a significant challenge, as standard NLP metrics fail to capture the nuances of role adherence, logical consistency, and long-term narrative stability. This paper introduces RPA-Check, a multi-stage automated evaluation framework designed to objectively assess the performance of LLM-based RPAs in complex, constraints-heavy environments. Our methodology is based on a four-step pipeline: (1) Dimension Definition, establishing high-level qualitative behavioral criteria; (2) Augmentation, where these requirements are expanded into granular boolean checklist indicators; (3) Semantic Filtering, to ensure indicator objectivity, no redundancy and agent isolation; and (4) LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation, which employs chain-of-thought verification to score agent fidelity. We validate this framework by applying it to LLM Court, a serious game for forensic training involving several quantized local models. Experimental results across five distinct legal scenarios demonstrate the framework's ability to identify subtle trade-offs between model size, reasoning depth, and operational stability. Notably, the findings reveal an inverse relationship between parametric scale and procedural consistency, showing that smaller, adequately instruction-tuned models (8-9B) can outperform larger architectures prone to user-alignment bias or sycophancy. RPA-Check thus provides a standardized and reproducible metric for future research in generative agent evaluation within specialized domains.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable potential in developing role-playing agents (RPAs). However, current evaluation frameworks rely heavily on well-known fictional characters, raising a critical concern: models may be leveraging their internal training memory of these characters rather than demonstrating role-playing capabilities. This reliance often leads to significant performance degradation when RPAs encounter unseen or out-of-distribution personas. To address this, we propose a more rigorous evaluation protocol designed to decouple role-playing proficiency from character recognition. Our experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that anonymizing characters degrades performance, confirming that name exposure provides implicit cues that mask a model's true capability. To mitigate this, we investigate diverse personality augmentation as a method to enhance role fidelity in anonymous settings. We systematically analyze the impact of various personality-description methods on agent behavior and consistency. Our results show that incorporating personality information consistently improves RPA performance. This work establishes a more equitable evaluation standard and validates a scalable, personality-enhanced framework for constructing robust RPAs.

Multimodal Role-Playing Agents (MRPAs) are attracting increasing attention due to their ability to deliver more immersive multimodal emotional interactions. However, existing studies still rely on pure textual benchmarks to evaluate the text responses of MRPAs, while delegating the assessment of their multimodal expressions solely to modality-synthesis metrics. This evaluation paradigm, on the one hand, entangles semantic assessment with modality generation, leading to ambiguous error attribution, and on the other hand remains constrained by the heavy reliance on human judgment. To this end, we propose MERRY, a semantically decoupled evaluation framework for assessing Multimodal Emotional and Role consistencies of Role-playing agents. This framework introduce five refined metrics for EC and three for RC. Notably, we transform the traditional subjective scoring approach into a novel bidirectional-evidence-finding task, significantly improving the human agreement of LLM-as-Judge evaluations. Based on MERRY, we conduct extensive evaluations. Our empirical results primarily reveal that: (1) Training on synthetic datasets tends to reduce emotional consistency, whereas training on real-world datasets improves it; (2) Existing models suffer from emotional templatization and simplification, exhibiting positive-bias and performance bottleneck in fine-grained negative emotions; (3) Simple prompting method strengthens the weak models but constrains the strong ones, while simple fine-tuning method suffers from poor role generalization. Codes and dataset are available.

Modeling opinion change through social interactions is important for understanding polarization, misinformation, and societal conflict. Recent work simulates opinion dynamics with role-playing LLM agents (RPLAs), but multi-agent simulations often display unnatural group behavior (e.g., premature convergence) and lack empirical benchmarks for assessing alignment with real human group interactions. We introduce DEBATE, a benchmark for evaluating the authenticity of opinion dynamics in multi-agent RPLA simulations. DEBATE contains multi-round public messages and private Likert-scale beliefs from U.S.-based participants across 107 topics; the cleaned benchmark used in our experiments contains 2,788 participants in 697 groups, enabling evaluation at the utterance and group levels. We instantiate digital-twin RPLAs with seven LLMs and evaluate across two settings: next-message prediction and full dynamics simulation, using stance-based opinion-dynamics metrics. In zero-shot settings, RPLA groups exhibit strong opinion convergence relative to human groups. Across group-generalization tests with unseen participant groups and topic-generalization tests with unseen discussion topics, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) for Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct improves stance prediction of individuals and convergence prediction at the group level, though discrepancies in opinion change and belief updating remain. The dataset and benchmark website are publicly available.