Skip to content
AI Atlas
PaperActive

EVA-Bench: A New End-to-end Framework for Evaluating Voice Agents

arxiv.org/abs/2605.13841

quality89

Updated 2 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026

paper_01M294GQ1JB1N52VCRFXHN0Y3Q

Published
11 Sept 2026
T1 · 2 h ago
arXiv
2605.13841
T1 · 2 h ago
Category
cs.SD
T1 · 2 h ago

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history · Abstract

1 claims · 1 propertiesShow all properties

Abstractabstract1

Claim history for Abstract
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
-cross Abstract: Voice agents are increasingly deployed across enterprise applications. However, no existing benchmark jointly addresses realistic conversation simulation and comprehensive voice-specific evaluation. We present EVA-Bench, an end-to-end evaluation framework that addresses both. On the simulation side, EVA-Bench orchestrates dynamic bot-to-bot audio conversations with automatic simulation validation that detects user simulator error and appropriately regenerates conversations before scoring. On the measurement side, EVA-Bench introduces two composite metrics: EVA-A (Accuracy) and EVA-X (Experience). EVA-Bench includes 213 scenarios across three enterprise domains, a controlled perturbation suite for accent and noise robustness, and multi-trial measurements that distinguish peak from reliable capability. Across 12 systems spanning all three architectures, we find: (1) no system simultaneously exceeds 0.5 on both EVA-A pass@1 and EVA-X pass@1; (2) peak and reliable performance diverge substantially (median pass@k--pass^k gap of 0.44 on EVA-A); and (3) accent and noise perturbations expose substantial robustness gaps, with effects varying across architectures, systems, and metrics (mean $\Delta$ up to 0.314). We release EVA-Bench under an open-source license.currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →