Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Counsel, a novel meta-evaluation dataset designed to address the challenges of evaluating agentic systems by providing process-level critiques from LLMs and corresponding human meta-evaluations. The dataset includes critiques from open-weight LLM judges on two benchmarks, tau-bench and DA-Code, and demonstrates high inter-annotator reliability, indicating that human evaluators can consistently assess the quality of LLM critiques. Key findings reveal that more capable LLM judges and increased reasoning effort lead to better alignment with human evaluations, with the best model achieving approximately 88% agreement on error location and 65% on reasoning quality.
LLM critiques can be systematically evaluated for alignment with human judgment, revealing that better models significantly enhance evaluation reliability.
As agentic systems tackle increasingly complex multi-step tasks, evaluating their trajectories presents a major bottleneck - human annotation of a single trajectory on popular agentic benchmarks can take hours, making it difficult to scale evaluations for measuring performance or curating training data. This has driven widespread reliance on automated approaches such as LLM-as-a-judge (LLMJ) to critique agents at the process and outcome-levels at scale, however, the soundness of LLMJ critiques often goes unmeasured. Here, we introduce Counsel, the first public dataset of meta-evaluations for agentic tasks. Counsel consists of process-level critiques from open-weight LLMJs on two agent benchmarks: tau-bench (customer support agents) and DA-Code (coding agents), and human meta-evaluations of these critiques. Human annotators label critiques on each flagged error as "spot on", "correct location but poor reasoning", or "should not have flagged", achieving reliable inter-annotator agreement (Krippendorff's alpha of 0.78). The resulting dataset stratifies LLMJ critiques by human alignment across both error location within a trajectory and reasoning quality, serving as valuable data to calibrate, improve, or train LLMJs for agents. Comparing open-weight judges, we find that more capable judge models and more reasoning effort both enabled improved human agreement, with the strongest judge reaching ~88% agreement on location and ~65% on reasoning. Counsel is generated using open-weight models and is permissively licensed for broad community use, which we hope will enable rigorous study and improved alignment of LLM-based evaluators for agentic systems.
DeepMind