@inproceedings{bodhwani-etal-2026-gauge,
title = "{GAUGE}: When Not to Trust {LLM}-as-a-Judge in User-Simulated Evaluation of Task-Oriented Agents",
author = "Bodhwani, Umesh and
Tran, Thanh and
Wei, Kai",
editor = "Atanasova, Pepa and
Haffari, Gholamreza and
Wang, Minghan",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track",
month = oct,
year = "2026",
address = "Budapest, Hungary",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.emnlp-industry.190/",
pages = "3197--3216",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-460-6",
abstract = "Comparing and selecting task-oriented LLM agents increasingly relies on a low-cost offline evaluation gate: persona-driven LLM user-simulators converse with each candidate, an LLM-as-a-judge scores the transcripts, and the higher-scoring agent is promoted. We introduce GAUGE, a reusable offline protocol that measures whether this gate{'}s ranking matches a grounded verifiable reward across 25 agents from six providers on the $\tau^2$-bench and SimulatorArena benchmarks, separating two kinds of evaluation validity that release practices conflate: ranking validity and construct validity. First, a satisfaction-success gap: satisfaction carries essentially no information about task success, as conversations rated satisfied by our blind panel are decorrelated from actual success, with 57.5{\%} of them failing the customer{'}s task, a pattern consistent across five rater populations, both benchmarks, and every subjective dimension we rated. Second, while the gate{'}s ranking is robust across the broad capability span, it loses resolution among the near-equal strong agents: this decision-disagreement rate jumps from $<$1{\%} on wide-reward pairs to 31{\%} on close pairs. The gate is thus human-validated yet mis-anchored. As a remedy, we propose a calibrate-then-trust cadence in which a judge-free completion bit is a zero-cost tripwire for truncation regressions."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="bodhwani-etal-2026-gauge">
<titleInfo>
<title>GAUGE: When Not to Trust LLM-as-a-Judge in User-Simulated Evaluation of Task-Oriented Agents</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Umesh</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bodhwani</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Thanh</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Tran</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kai</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wei</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-10</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Pepa</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Atanasova</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Gholamreza</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Haffari</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Minghan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Budapest, Hungary</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-460-6</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Comparing and selecting task-oriented LLM agents increasingly relies on a low-cost offline evaluation gate: persona-driven LLM user-simulators converse with each candidate, an LLM-as-a-judge scores the transcripts, and the higher-scoring agent is promoted. We introduce GAUGE, a reusable offline protocol that measures whether this gate’s ranking matches a grounded verifiable reward across 25 agents from six providers on the τ²-bench and SimulatorArena benchmarks, separating two kinds of evaluation validity that release practices conflate: ranking validity and construct validity. First, a satisfaction-success gap: satisfaction carries essentially no information about task success, as conversations rated satisfied by our blind panel are decorrelated from actual success, with 57.5% of them failing the customer’s task, a pattern consistent across five rater populations, both benchmarks, and every subjective dimension we rated. Second, while the gate’s ranking is robust across the broad capability span, it loses resolution among the near-equal strong agents: this decision-disagreement rate jumps from <1% on wide-reward pairs to 31% on close pairs. The gate is thus human-validated yet mis-anchored. As a remedy, we propose a calibrate-then-trust cadence in which a judge-free completion bit is a zero-cost tripwire for truncation regressions.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">bodhwani-etal-2026-gauge</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.emnlp-industry.190/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-10</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>3197</start>
<end>3216</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T GAUGE: When Not to Trust LLM-as-a-Judge in User-Simulated Evaluation of Task-Oriented Agents
%A Bodhwani, Umesh
%A Tran, Thanh
%A Wei, Kai
%Y Atanasova, Pepa
%Y Haffari, Gholamreza
%Y Wang, Minghan
%S Proceedings of the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track
%D 2026
%8 October
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Budapest, Hungary
%@ 979-8-89176-460-6
%F bodhwani-etal-2026-gauge
%X Comparing and selecting task-oriented LLM agents increasingly relies on a low-cost offline evaluation gate: persona-driven LLM user-simulators converse with each candidate, an LLM-as-a-judge scores the transcripts, and the higher-scoring agent is promoted. We introduce GAUGE, a reusable offline protocol that measures whether this gate’s ranking matches a grounded verifiable reward across 25 agents from six providers on the τ²-bench and SimulatorArena benchmarks, separating two kinds of evaluation validity that release practices conflate: ranking validity and construct validity. First, a satisfaction-success gap: satisfaction carries essentially no information about task success, as conversations rated satisfied by our blind panel are decorrelated from actual success, with 57.5% of them failing the customer’s task, a pattern consistent across five rater populations, both benchmarks, and every subjective dimension we rated. Second, while the gate’s ranking is robust across the broad capability span, it loses resolution among the near-equal strong agents: this decision-disagreement rate jumps from <1% on wide-reward pairs to 31% on close pairs. The gate is thus human-validated yet mis-anchored. As a remedy, we propose a calibrate-then-trust cadence in which a judge-free completion bit is a zero-cost tripwire for truncation regressions.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.emnlp-industry.190/
%P 3197-3216
Markdown (Informal)
[GAUGE: When Not to Trust LLM-as-a-Judge in User-Simulated Evaluation of Task-Oriented Agents](https://aclanthology.org/2026.emnlp-industry.190/) (Bodhwani et al., EMNLP 2026)
ACL