Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jane Lo

dblp:413/7478 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 33% Reinforcement learning · 33% Trustworthy machine learning · 33%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
agent evaluation
0.912025
Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey · KDD (2) 2025
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
LLM agents
0.912025
Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey · KDD (2) 2025
Information retrieval › evaluation
benchmark
0.312025
Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey · KDD (2) 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

survey · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey
abstract
The rise of LLM-based agents has opened new frontiers in AI applications, yet evaluating these agents remains a complex and underdeveloped area.This survey provides an in-depth overview of the emerging field of LLM agent evaluation, introducing a twodimensional taxonomy that organizes existing work along (1) evaluation objectives-what to evaluate, such as agent behavior, capabilities, reliability, and safety-and (2) evaluation process-how to evaluate, including interaction modes, datasets and benchmarks, metric computation methods, and tooling.In addition to taxonomy, we highlight enterprise-specific challenges, such as role-based access to data, the need for reliability guarantees, dynamic and longhorizon interactions, and compliance, which are often overlooked in current research.We also identify the future research directions, including holistic, more realistic, and scalable evaluation.This work aims to bring clarity to the fragmented landscape of agent evaluation and provide a framework for systematic assessment, enabling researchers and practitioners to evaluate LLM agents for real-world deployment.
Mahmoud Mohammadi, Jane Lo, Wendy Yip
KDD (2)3