Learning Library

← Back to Library

Evaluating Autonomous AI Agents’ Reliability

Key Points

  • Gartner forecasts that by 2028 one‑third of all generative‑AI interactions will involve autonomous agents capable of understanding intent, planning, and executing actions without human oversight.
  • Unlike deterministic traditional software, AI agents are dynamic and non‑deterministic, making rigorous evaluation essential to ensure reliable behavior.
  • A practical illustration is an AI‑driven real‑estate assistant that uses LLM‑based dialogue, tool integration (search, calendar scheduling, mortgage calculations, pre‑approval), and memory to guide customers toward homes.
  • Evaluating such agents requires testing diverse user scenarios—partial or withheld information, failed searches, and potential manipulative prompting—to verify robustness and ethical conduct.
  • Comprehensive route analysis and safeguards are critical before deploying these autonomous agents into production environments.

Full Transcript

# Evaluating Autonomous AI Agents’ Reliability **Source:** [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=446x7GqXdaA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=446x7GqXdaA) **Duration:** 00:09:01 ## Summary - Gartner forecasts that by 2028 one‑third of all generative‑AI interactions will involve autonomous agents capable of understanding intent, planning, and executing actions without human oversight. - Unlike deterministic traditional software, AI agents are dynamic and non‑deterministic, making rigorous evaluation essential to ensure reliable behavior. - A practical illustration is an AI‑driven real‑estate assistant that uses LLM‑based dialogue, tool integration (search, calendar scheduling, mortgage calculations, pre‑approval), and memory to guide customers toward homes. - Evaluating such agents requires testing diverse user scenarios—partial or withheld information, failed searches, and potential manipulative prompting—to verify robustness and ethical conduct. - Comprehensive route analysis and safeguards are critical before deploying these autonomous agents into production environments. ## Sections - [00:00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=446x7GqXdaA&t=0s) **Evaluating Dynamic Autonomous AI Agents** - Gartner forecasts that by 2028 a third of generative AI interactions will rely on autonomous, intent‑driven agents, whose non‑deterministic, learning‑capable nature makes rigorous evaluation essential—as illustrated by a real‑estate assistant example. - [00:03:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=446x7GqXdaA&t=205s) **Assessing Agent Interaction and Compliance** - The speaker outlines key questions for handling incomplete or withheld customer data, stresses appropriate tone, and proposes a metric‑driven framework—including performance, regulatory, and robustness measures—to evaluate and curb undesirable agent behaviors. - [00:06:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=446x7GqXdaA&t=397s) **Testing, Evaluating, and Optimizing Agent** - The speaker outlines running scenario tests, assessing tool integrations and performance metrics, deciding trade‑offs between accuracy and latency, and iteratively refining prompts and flow to improve the AI agent. ## Full Transcript
0:00In its press release in March 2025, 0:02Gartner predicted that by the year 2028, 0:06onethird of all Gen AI interactions will 0:09be using autonomous agents and action 0:11models. What that means is that in the 0:14near future, a large portion of AI 0:16systems will be able to function without 0:18human intervention. They will be able to 0:21understand intent, 0:24plan actions, 0:32execute actions. 0:38And unlike traditional software 0:40applications, they will be able to learn 0:46and adapt 0:48as they go. 0:51Today we are already seeing this in the 0:54form of AI agents. 1:01While traditional software applications 1:03tend to be deterministic in nature, AI 1:06agents because of the decision making 1:08and reasoning involved in planning 1:10actions and executing actions, they tend 1:13to be dynamic 1:18and non-deterministic. 1:24Now it is exactly this dynamic and 1:27nondeterministic nature of AI agents 1:29that makes evaluation of AI agents 1:31extremely important. Let's understand 1:34this with an example. Let's say you are 1:37building an AI agent that helps 1:39customers find their dream home. Now you 1:42could go about this in multiple ways but 1:44one way to do that is by having an LLM 1:48based component that has back and forth 1:51interactions with the customers. 1:54This component is responsible for 1:56extracting key pieces of information 1:57from the customer like what is the 1:59square footage that they're looking for, 2:01what are the beds and beds that they 2:02prefer, what is the locality that 2:05they're looking for and things like 2:06that. Now, it's going to take that 2:08information and it's going to search a 2:10database to retrieve all the available 2:12homes that meet that criteria. And in 2:14order to do that, we need to power this 2:16agent with tools. Now, the tools could 2:20be anything. For one, we have search 2:25where it searches a database. We could 2:28also have a calendar tool that actually 2:30makes a call to the calendar and 2:32schedules a meeting with a realtor or a 2:36showing with a realtor. 2:38The agent could also call a function 2:40that computes the mortgage payment for 2:43the customer to make a decision. It 2:45could also initiate a pre-approval 2:48process if needed. 2:52Now, in order for the agent to do all of 2:54that and to make sure that it's not 2:56asking the customer repeated uh 2:58questions, we need to make sure that it 3:00also contains memory where it can store 3:03logs and other key pieces of information 3:06in order to conduct a natural 3:08conversation with the customer. Now, as 3:10you can see, there's a lot going on 3:12here, which is exactly why a lot could 3:14go wrong. We need to make sure that we 3:17look at all the different routes this 3:18agent is taking to make sure that it is 3:21ready to be put into production. 3:24The key questions that you need to be 3:25asking are what if the customer provides 3:28partial information? What route is the 3:30agent taking? Then what if the customer 3:32does not want to provide a piece of 3:34information? Is the agent resorting to 3:37manipulative behavior to nudge the 3:39customer into providing that? Because 3:40that is wrong. What happens if the agent 3:43extracts the information, does a search, 3:46but nothing comes up? Now, these are key 3:48questions, and we also need to make sure 3:50that the agent is adopting the right 3:52tone. We need to make sure that it's not 3:54being sarcastic or passive aggressive or 3:56making snide comments on the customer's 3:58preferences. Now, that is also important 4:01to ensure a good customer experience. 4:04Because there is so much going on, it's 4:06very important to evaluate these agents. 4:09Now let's look at certain 4:10recommendations on how we can go about 4:12structuring these evaluations to make 4:14sure that we minimize these erratic 4:16behaviors that the agents can have. So 4:19you would start off by determining your 4:21metrics. Now these metrics could be 4:24performance metrics. They could also be 4:26use case specific metrics or metrics 4:28from the standpoint of regulatory 4:30compliance. Some examples include 4:32metrics such as accuracy, latency, error 4:36rate, task completion rate, etc. You 4:38could also be looking at regulatory 4:40compliance metrics such as bias, 4:43explanability, source attribution, HAP 4:46score, toxicity score, etc. You could 4:48also be looking at adversarial 4:50robustness because it's really 4:52important. Let me explain why. Let's say 4:55you have a customer who wants to scam 4:57your application, who wants to be a 4:59fraud. So, they might trick your agent 5:02into dulging information that it's not 5:04supposed to be dulging. In that case, 5:06it's very important that you configure 5:08adversarial robustness to make sure that 5:10your agent is behaving predictably in 5:12different kinds of scenarios. 5:15Now, once you have those metrics figured 5:17out, the next thing you would do is you 5:19would prepare data. Now, when you do 5:22this, you need to make sure that you 5:24account for all kinds of scenarios and 5:27all kinds of routes that your agent is 5:29likely to take. Simulate as many real 5:32world scenarios as possible. Also in 5:35your metrics if you have metrics that 5:37require ground truth data make sure you 5:39capture that data set so that you can 5:41compute the metrics once you capture or 5:44agent outputs. So once you have that 5:47data figured out the next thing you 5:49would do is you would write a code. 5:55So if you have ground truth data you 5:57need code to compare that data with the 5:59output of your agent to compute the 6:02metrics that are necessary. So you would 6:04be writing that code that does the 6:06comparison for you in this stage. Let's 6:08say you're also using some techniques 6:10like LLM as a judge. Now this is a very 6:12popular technique where you would use a 6:15large language model to look at the 6:16output of an agent and determine if it's 6:19good or not. So if you are using that 6:21technique, you would be writing the 6:23prompts for LLM as a judge. 6:30Now once you have the code written out 6:32the next thing that you would do is you 6:34will run the tests. 6:39Now you will run the tests for all the 6:41different scenarios and capture the 6:43data. In this stage you will also be 6:45testing out the tool integrations that 6:48you have configured here. You will make 6:50sure that all the tool calling is 6:51happening as expected so that the 6:53customer gets a seamless experience 6:55while using your agent. Now once you 6:59finish running the tests, you would then 7:01assess the outcomes. 7:09You would look at all the data that you 7:10have captured and make an assessment on 7:13your agent. Now if there are certain 7:15trade-offs that you need to do at that, 7:17this is the stage where you would be 7:19making those calls. For example, if you 7:21if you have poor metrics on both 7:23accuracy and latency, you have to make a 7:26call on which metric you're going to 7:27sacrifice to get a better outcome on the 7:29other. So after you make those 7:32assessments, you will take note of those 7:34things and you will also figure out, you 7:36know, what portions of your AI agents 7:38you're going to tweak in order to 7:39optimize the flow and make it better. 7:42Once you have those figured out, then 7:44you would go about the actual task of 7:46optimizing 7:50and of course you will be iterating. 7:56So you will optimize the flow in order 7:58to make sure that those metrics that are 8:01important for you are being calculated 8:04and are actually giving you a good 8:06result. You would also make sure that 8:09the tool calling, if there are any 8:10issues in the tool calling, you are also 8:12going to debug that in this stage. And 8:14you will also have to probably fine-tune 8:16certain prompts that you're using either 8:18in the agent or in your LLM as a judge 8:21to make sure that it's yielding the 8:23expected outcome. Once you do all the 8:25optimization, you would obviously 8:27iterate. It's extremely important to 8:29understand that building agents is an 8:32iterative process and testing agents is 8:35also an iterative process because it's 8:37impossible to come up with all the 8:38different scenarios that your agent 8:40might take that might happen in 8:41production. So it's very important to 8:44also configure uh monitoring of agents 8:47in production and to funnel all the data 8:50back from production into the 8:51development so you build a more robust 8:53and a better next version of your 8:55agents. I hope you found this 8:57information helpful.