aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces PULSE, a framework that improves the evaluation of LLM agents by integrating human feedback with ML predictions to better capture collaborative workflows rather than just automation accuracy. By applying this method in software engineering, the authors demonstrate a 40% reduction in confidence intervals compared to standard A/B testing and reveal significant discrepancies between benchmark scores and real-world user satisfaction. These findings suggest that future agent design assessments must prioritize human-centric metrics over isolated model performance to ensure practical utility.
How can we assess human-agent interactions? Case studies in software agent design
arXiv:2510.09801v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While benchmarks measure the accuracy of LLM-powered agents, they mostly assume full automation, failing to represent the collaborative nature of real-world use cases. In this paper, we make two major steps towards the rigorous assessment of human-agent interactions. First, we propose PULSE, a framework for more efficient human-centric evaluation of agent designs, which comprises collecting user feedback, training an ML model to predict user satisfaction, and computing results by combining human satisfaction ratings with model-generated pseudo-labels. Second, we deploy PULSE in software engineering -- one of the highest-impact, real-world domains for LLM agents -- via a large-scale web platform built around the open-source agent OpenHands. Across 15k users, we evaluate how three agent design decisions impact developer satisfaction rates. We also show how PULSE can lead to more robust conclusions about agent design, reducing confidence intervals by 40\% compared to a standard A/B test. Finally, we find substantial discrepancies between in-the-wild results with benchmark performance (e.g., the anti-correlation between claude-sonnet-4 and gpt-5), underscoring the limitations of benchmark-driven evaluation. Our framework PULSE provides guidance for future evaluations, and our findings identify opportunities for better software agent designs.
Abstract:While benchmarks measure the accuracy of LLM-powered agents, they mostly assume full automation, failing to represent the collaborative nature of real-world use cases. In this paper, we make two major steps towards the rigorous assessment of human-agent interactions. First, we propose PULSE, a framework for more efficient human-centric evaluation of agent designs, which comprises collecting user feedback, training an ML model to predict user satisfaction, and computing results by combining human satisfaction ratings with model-generated pseudo-labels. Second, we deploy PULSE in software engineering -- one of the highest-impact, real-world domains for LLM agents -- via a large-scale web platform built around the open-source agent OpenHands. Across 15k users, we evaluate how three agent design decisions impact developer satisfaction rates. We also show how PULSE can lead to more robust conclusions about agent design, reducing confidence intervals by 40\% compared to a standard A/B test. Finally, we find substantial discrepancies between in-the-wild results with benchmark performance (e.g., the anti-correlation between claude-sonnet-4 and gpt-5), underscoring the limitations of benchmark-driven evaluation. Our framework PULSE provides guidance for future evaluations, and our findings identify opportunities for better software agent designs.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2510.09801 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2510.09801v3 [cs.AI] for this version)
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 197 words