Shisong Chen
Publications
SEA-Eval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Self-Evolving Agents Beyond Episodic Assessment
Current LLM-based agents demonstrate strong performance in episodic task execution but remain constrained by static toolsets and episodic amnesia, failing to accumulate experience or optimize strategies across task boundaries. While the Self-Evolving Agent (SEA) paradigm has been previously proposed, this paper contributes a new formal definition of SEA grounded in digital embodiment and continuous cross-task evolution, and introduces SEA-Eval, the first benchmark designed to evaluate SEA characteristics across two dimensions, intra-task execution reliability and long-term evolutionary performance. By organizing tasks into sequential streams and analyzing Success Rate and Token Consumption over time, SEA-Eval quantifies evolutionary gain and structural stability in ways that existing episodic benchmarks cannot. Empirical evaluations reveal a significant evolutionary bottleneck in current state-of-the-art frameworks, where identical success rates mask up to 31.2 times differences in token consumption and divergent evolutionary trajectories under sequential analysis. SEA-Eval provides a rigorous scientific foundation for advancing agents from mere task executors toward genuinely self-evolving digital entities.
RubricEval: A Rubric-Level Meta-Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Judges in Instruction Following
Rubric-based evaluation has become a prevailing paradigm for evaluating instruction following in large language models (LLMs). Despite its widespread use, the reliability of these rubric-level evaluations remains unclear, calling for meta-evaluation. However, prior meta-evaluation efforts largely focus on the response level, failing to assess the fine-grained judgment accuracy that rubric-based evaluation relies on. To bridge this gap, we introduce RubricEval. Our benchmark features: (1) the first rubric-level meta-evaluation benchmark for instruction following, (2) diverse instructions and responses spanning multiple categories and model sources, and (3) a substantial set of 3,486 quality-controlled instances, along with Easy/Hard subsets that better differentiates judge performance. Our experiments reveal that rubric-level judging remains far from solved: even GPT-4o, a widely adopted judge in instruction-following benchmarks, achieves only 55.97% on Hard subset. Considering evaluation paradigm, rubric-level evaluation outperforms checklist-level, explicit reasoning improves accuracy, and both together reduce inter-judge variance. Through our established rubric taxonomy, we further identify common failure modes and offer actionable insights for reliable instruction-following evaluation.