MTVA-Bench: Evaluating the Language Model Inside Cascaded Voice Agents
cs.AI
Submitted: 2026-09-17
Updated: 2026-09-17
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Generally, most voice agents are cascaded systems, i.e., an ASR model transcribes the caller's audio, a language model reads the transcript and decides what to say and which backend tools to call,
Terminology
Abstract
Generally, most voice agents are cascaded systems, i.e., an ASR model transcribes the caller's audio, a language model reads the transcript and decides what to say and which backend tools to call, and a TTS model speaks the reply. Nearly all of the decision making happens in the language model, but existing evaluations measure it either too broadly or too narrowly. End-to-end voice benchmarks score the full pipeline, so recognition errors and model errors mix into a single number. LLM benchmarks isolate the model but they do not evaluate what makes real phone calls hard, such as transcription issues, caller's voice being split across messages and the requirement that replies follow the language and script specified. We introduce the Multi-Turn Voice Agent Benchmark (MTVA-Bench), which evaluates the language model on the same conditions it faces inside a cascaded system. The caller is played by an LLM following a set of rubrics and tool calls are answered by a mock backend which responds to the arguments the model actually sent. The benchmark contains 49 agents working across 490 reviewed scenarios and supports 7 languages. Scoring is a combination of deterministic checks on tool calls with two LLM judges, one that scores scenario specific rules and one that grades conversation quality without access to the task. Both judges must cite specific messages from the transcript. Task and conversation scores are weighted equally, since a call can complete its task and still go badly for the caller. In a seven-model study, six of the models select the correct tool within 6.4 points of one another, but their overall scores span 24.4 points. Most of the gap comes from argument values, action ordering, rule compliance, and what the model says around its tool calls.
Sources
- HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health
- $\tau^2$-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment
- VoiceAgentBench: Are Voice Assistants ready for agentic tasks?
- EVA-Bench: A New End-to-end Framework for Evaluating Voice Agents
- Moshi: a speech-text foundation model for real-time dialogue
- VAmoS Bench: Voice Agent Simulation Bench
- Benchmarking LLM Judges for Voice-Agent Evaluation: Reliability, Calibration, and Human Oversight
- MTalk-Bench: Evaluating Speech-to-Speech Models in Multi-Turn Dialogues via Arena-style and Rubrics Protocols
- $\tau$-Voice: Benchmarking Full-Duplex Voice Agents on Real-World Domains
- PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Research
- $\tau$-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains
Related papers
- MAVEN-T: Reinforced Heterogeneous Distillation for Real-Time Multi-Agent Trajectory Prediction
- Model Discovery Agent: LLM-assisted Bayesian experiment design for data-efficient discovery of mechanistic world models
- The Clinician's Veto: Navigating Trust, Liability, and Uncertainty in Autonomous AI Prescribing
- MindHelper: Closed-Loop Embodied Mental-State Reasoning for Precision Intervention
- Incumbent Advantage: Brand Bias and Cognitive Manipulation Dynamics in LLM Recommendation Systems
- VSAL: A Vision Solver with Adaptive Layouts for Graph Property Detection