arXiv (All)
open access
Certified Selective Automation of LLM Agent Evaluation
Evaluating LLM agents still ends with a human reading trajectories, because automatic judges carry no guarantee on how often they are wrong. We ask the operational question: what fraction of agent evaluation can a judge take over, with a certificate that the error rate among auto-decided trajectorie
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Beyond Correctness: Validity-Oriented Evaluation of Biomedical LLM Judges#793950
- Beyond Correctness: Validity-Oriented Evaluation of Biomedical LLM Judges#789931
- Is your AI Model Accurate Enough? The Difficult Choices Behind Rigorous AI Development and the EU AI Act#1035453
- From Agent Traces to Trust: A Survey of Evidence Tracing and Execution Provenance in LLM Agents#998246
- Beyond Consensus: Downward Bias and Role Asymmetry in Multi-Agent LLM Judges for Subjective Evaluation#799580
Record · ID 1119393
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive