Close-loop evaluation is proposed, an evaluation method for deployed agents that 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.
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).
Agent evaluations increasingly go beyond a single success rate, reporting metrics such as cost, consistency, and robustness. Yet they typically treat the agent itself as fixed. In practice, an agent is a configurable system: users decide what to tell it, how long to let it run, and which model to use, and each of these...
Luis Wiedmann, Leander Girrbach, Cordelia Schmid et al.· 0 citations
A low-precision agent can call its full-precision (BF16) model at selected decisions as a fallback. A learned precision router chooses where to call it from the disagreement between the two models and is judged by end-to-end success. An inserted BF16 action, however, can rescue a failing task or damage a succeeding one...
Sicheng Lyu, Xin-Yu Wang, Yu Gu et al.· 0 citations
SelfSuite is presented, in which the agent's own base model, given only the world's public materials, designs a small evaluation suite of weighted judges and grounded per-task briefs, freezes it, and uses it to gate a keep-best retry and to label a typed, outcome-tracked memory.
Saeid Asgari, Emre Kıcıman, Leonardo de Oliveira Nunes et al.· 0 citations
Across three models, two reasoning regimes, and two domains, four findings hold without per-turn reasoning: displaying accurate state is unreliable, an unverified ledger the agent writes itself beats an accurate checklist it is shown, directives help in proportion to the model's obedience, and enforcement needs no obed...
When developers change one component of an agent, such as its controller, a learned model or its verifier, they usually judge the change by an aggregate task score. That score cannot tell whether improvement was attainable, which component lost value, or what the agent's own checks certify. We introduce a claim-specifi...
Tool descriptions tell an agent what an action can do, but they do not necessarily reveal whether that action is healthy or suitable at the moment of use. Execution harnesses often possess this information through monitors, traces, and recent failures while the model choosing the next action does not. We call this gap...