Explore/benchmark/Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Science
I

Keyang Xuan, Peiyang Song, Pan Lu, Pengrui Han, Wenkai Li, Zhenyu Zhang, Zexue He, Wenyue Hua, Manling Li, Jiaxuan You, Adrian Weller, Yizhong Wang, Jiaxin Pei/Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design ScienceUnknown

AI evaluation is undergoing a structural change. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as systems that act over time through tools, environments, users, and other agents, while many evaluation practices still inherit assumptions from response-centered benchmarks (e.g., fixed inputs, isolated outputs, and outcome judgments that can be made from a single response). The field has begun to build interactive benchmarks, but the resulting landscape is fragmented: benchmarks differ in what interaction artifacts they admit, how trajectories are scored, and what claims their results support. This position paper argues that interactive evaluation should be treated as a principled evaluation paradigm, not merely a new family of agent benchmarks. Simply adopting previous evaluation paradigms does not suffice. We define evaluation as an autonomous mapping from evidence to judgments, and show that interactive evaluation changes both sides of this mapping: the evidence becomes interaction-generated trajectories, while the evaluation procedure must assess process, recoverability, coordination, robustness, and system-level performance. Building on this definition, we propose a two-axis taxonomy, derive design principles and reporting standards, examine representative scenarios, and analyze how longstanding evaluation challenges reappear at the trajectory level.

benchmark
GitHubCompare
Refreshed 4d ago
OverviewActivity52wAlternativesDocs
Stars0
Forks0
HF Downloads—30d
Last commit—
Refreshed4d ago
Project healthUnknownNo activity data.
Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.
Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.
AgentHub Score
48 / 100
Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →
Active project
48Score
Growth
40C
Activity
30C
Documentation
70C+
Maturity
45C
Community
42C
Production
58C
GitHub stars · 90 days0 +0.0%
30d90d1y
latest release
Commit activity · 52 weeksActive contributor activity
LowHigh
JunSepDecMarNow
Practical assessment
Should you use it?

✓ Best for

  • Research and experimentation
  • Prototype development
  • Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

  • Active community
  • Open source
  • Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

  • Untested at scale without validation
  • Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

  • Review changelog before updating
  • Verify license for commercial use
Technical details
What's inside
Language—
License—
Sourcearxiv
Open source✗ No
Commercial use—
Docs—
Demo—

AgentHub Score

48
Score 48/100
Below average

Alternatives

C
crewai
26.1k · Multi-Agent
87
A
autogen
42.7k · Multi-Agent
71
S
smolagents
11.2k · Coding
84
O
openai-agents-python
9.4k · Multi-Agent
81
Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——
Indexed by AgentHub crawler4d ago
Monitor for new releasesongoing