PrefIx: Understand and Adapt to User Preference in Human-Agent Interaction (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Current benchmarks evaluate task accuracy but overlook how agents interact . Preference-aware agents show 7.6% average UX improvement and 18.5% gain in preference alignment. |
| Approach: | They propose a configurable environment that evaluates both what agents accomplish and how they interact. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves performance and improves user experience by 7.6% and 18.5% respectively. |
Similar Papers
An Evaluation Mechanism of LLM-based Agents on Manipulating APIs (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have remarkable capabilities across a variety of tasks, such as language, mathematics, coding, and etc. |
| Approach: | They propose to decompose tool use capability into seven aspects and form a thorough evaluation schema for generic agents. |
| Outcome: | The proposed agent acts like a super-APP and can manipulate API-based tools. |
PersonaGym: Evaluating Persona Agents and LLMs (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
Vinay Samuel, Henry Peng Zou, Yue Zhou, Shreyas Chaudhari, Ashwin Kalyan, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Ameet Deshpande, Karthik R Narasimhan, Vishvak Murahari
| Challenge: | Persona agents are LLM agents conditioned to act according to an assigned persona . evaluating how faithfully these agents adhere to their personas remains a challenge . |
| Approach: | a new study evaluates persona agents' ability to act according to an assigned persona . a persona agent's person score is a human-aligned automatic metric that can be used to evaluate a model . |
| Outcome: | a new evaluation framework and a human-aligned automatic metric show that persona agents can perform better. |
A Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Asaf Yehudai, Lilach Eden, Alan Li, Guy Uziel, Yilun Zhao, Roy Bar-Haim, Arman Cohan, Michal Shmueli-Scheuer
| Challenge: | This paper provides the first comprehensive survey of evaluation methods for LLM-based agents . LLMs are static, having fixed knowledge, and confined to text-to-text interaction. |
| Approach: | They analyze the evaluation of LLM-based agents across five perspectives . they identify current trends and key gaps in evaluation methods . |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation frameworks and tools are based on five perspectives . the results highlight current trends and identify gaps in future research . |
Agentic CLEAR: Automating Multi-Level Evaluation of LLM Agents (2026.acl-demo)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Agentic systems are becoming more capable of defining strategies, taking actions, and solving complex, multi-step tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose an automatic, dynamic, and easy-to-use evaluation framework that provides textual insights into agent behavior on three levels of granularity: system, trace, and node. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework produces high-quality, data-driven, insightful feedback on system, trace, and node. |
AlignUSER: Human-Aligned LLM Agents via World Models for Recommender System Evaluation (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluation practices for recommender systems rely on few-shot prompting and offline metrics are often misaligned with online behavior. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that learns world-model-driven agents from human interactions. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework enables agents to express rich preferences and feedback in natural language and interact with recommender systems in a simulation. |
Dissecting Human and LLM Preferences (2024.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a recent study shows that human and Large Language Model preferences are important for model fine-tuning and evaluation. |
| Approach: | They dissect the preferences of human and 32 different Large Language Models to understand their quantitative composition. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model is compared with 32 different large language models using real-world user-model conversations. |
Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preference (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Evaluating and ranking the capabilities of different LLMs is crucial for understanding their performance and alignment with human preferences. |
| Approach: | They propose a system-level evaluation framework that ranks LLMs based on their alignment with human preferences. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework aims to rank LLMs based on their performance and alignment with human preferences. |
Can LLMs Help You at Work? A Sandbox for Evaluating LLM Agents in Enterprise Environments (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Enterprise systems are crucial for enhancing productivity and strategic growth, but data is fragmented across multiple sources and access controls are complex. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark that simulates enterprise settings with 500 diverse tasks . they show that even the most capable models achieve only 41.8% task completion . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark shows that even the most capable models achieve only 41.8% task completion. |
Towards Preference Following in Tool Calling Language Agents (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Currently, large language model (LLM)-based agents can't follow user preferences when calling tools. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark to evaluate agents' ability to identify personalized user preferences from interaction histories and to adhere to these preferences when calling tools. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model achieves 51.16% accuracy on the APOLLO benchmark, while GPT-4o achieves only 51.13% accuracy. |
CoopValue: Revealing LLM Value Preferences Through Multi-Agent Cooperation (2026.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations of large language models rely on single-agent dilemmas or static binary-choice tasks, offering limited insight into how cooperation contexts influence LLM behavior. |
| Approach: | They propose a multi-agent evaluation framework that assesses LLMs’ value preferences through cooperative scenarios. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework assesses LLMs’ value preferences through cooperative scenarios. |