Skip to main content

Search AEX CONTINUUM

Titles, abstracts, authors, keywords and DOIs across all five collections.

4 results for “agent evaluation” in keywordSearch & filters ↓

PublishingReview ArticlePeer reviewed

A Survey of Evaluation Practices for Language-Model Agents: What is measured, how it is measured, and what is missing

Kofi Mensah, Ingrid Novak, Lena Hartwell

Version 2 · 4 reviewer reports · 22 May 2026 · 10.xxxx/ctm.pb.2026.0003

As language-model agents move from demonstrations to deployments, the way they are evaluated determines which claims can be trusted. We review how agents are evaluated in the literature, organising practice along four axes: the task environment, the success criterion, the treatment of variance, and the reporting of cost. We identify recurring weaknesses: success is often judged by another model without validation, runs are rarely repeated, cost and latency are reported in under a third of studies, and environment versions are seldom pinned. We close with a checklist for evaluation reports and open problems, including measurement of safety-relevant side effects.

Abstract PDF 6,210 2,87011 cited
BooksMonograph

Evaluating Language Model Agents: Principles, metrics and practice

Lena Hartwell, Kofi Mensah

1st edition · 312 pages · ISBN 978-0-00-100001-2 · 30 September 2026 · 10.xxxx/ctm.bk.2026.0001

A practical and rigorous guide to measuring what agents actually do. The book develops a measurement framework for tool-using language agents, covers reliability, cost and safety metrics, and shows how to design benchmarks, report variance and avoid the most common evaluation mistakes. Worked examples and code accompany every chapter.

Read book PDF 5,240 2,8606 cited
PublishingResearch ArticlePeer reviewed

Statistical Power in Agent Benchmarks: How Many Runs Are Enough?

Hana Kovács, Kofi Mensah, Carlos Medina

Version 2 · 3 reviewer reports · 14 August 2026 · 10.xxxx/ctm.pb.2026.0008

Most agent benchmarks report one run per task, yet agents are stochastic. We analyse run-to-run variance on four public agent benchmarks and derive the number of repeated runs needed to detect a given difference between two systems at conventional power. For differences smaller than five points, single-run comparisons have less than 40% power on all four benchmarks. We provide a sequential testing procedure that stops early when the evidence is clear, and show that it halves the cost of repeated evaluation while keeping the false-positive rate below 5%.

Abstract PDF 2,740 1,1033 cited