mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Build, Judge, Optimize: A Blueprint for Continuous Improvement of Multi-Agent Consumer Assistants

arXiv 2603.03565 ↗First posted 3 Mar 2026cs.AI cs.CL cs.LGcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate

Abstract (arXiv)

Conversational shopping assistants (CSAs) represent a compelling application of agentic AI, but moving from prototype to production reveals two underexplored challenges: how to evaluate multi-turn interactions and how to optimize tightly coupled multi-agent systems. Grocery shopping further amplifies these difficulties, as user requests are often underspecified, highly preference-sensitive, and constrained by factors such as budget and inventory. In this paper, we present a practical blueprint for evaluating and optimizing conversational shopping assistants, illustrated through a production-scale AI grocery assistant. We introduce a multi-faceted evaluation rubric that decomposes end-to-end shopping quality into structured dimensions and develop a calibrated LLM-as-judge pipeline aligned with human annotations. Building on this evaluation foundation, we investigate two complementary prompt-optimization strategies based on a SOTA prompt-optimizer called GEPA (Shao et al., 2025): (1) Sub-agent GEPA, which optimizes individual agent nodes against localized rubrics, and (2) MAMuT (Multi-Agent Multi-Turn) GEPA (Herrera et al., 2026), a novel system-level approach that jointly optimizes prompts across agents using multi-turn simulation and trajectory-level scoring. We release rubric templates and evaluation design guidance to support practitioners building production CSAs.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 6 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Mar 2026.

Builds on

6 of 17 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025LLM Agent Meets Agentic AI: Can LLM Agents Simulate Customers to Evaluate Agentic-AI-based Shopping Assistants?25 Sep

Other references · 5

  1. 2025GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learningcited by 449
  2. 2025HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Healthcited by 385
  3. 2024TextGrad: Automatic "Differentiation" via Textcited by 250
  4. 2025MultiAgentBench: Evaluating the Collaboration and Competition of LLM agentscited by 169
  5. 2025Leveraging LLMs as Meta-Judges: A Multi-Agent Framework for Evaluating LLM Judgmentscited by 16

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026On Evaluating and Improving Conversational Agents in Production
  2. 2026Shopping Reasoning Bench: An Expert-Authored Benchmark for Multi-Turn Conversational Shopping Assistants
  3. 2026Iterating Toward Better Search: A Two-Agent Simulation Framework for Evaluating Agentic Search Architectures in E-Commerce
  4. 2026ChatShopBuddy: Towards Reliable Conversational Shopping Agents via Reinforcement Learning
  5. 2026Operationalising Multi-Dimensional Evaluation for Conversational Agents: A Scalable, Governed Pipeline with Selective Re-evaluation and Model Benchmarking
  6. 2025FaMA: LLM-Empowered Agentic Assistant for Consumer-to-Consumer Marketplace
  7. 2026RealWorldShop: Benchmarking and Improving Conversational Shopping Agents in Real-World E-commerce
  8. 2026EComAgentBench: Benchmarking Shopping Agents on Long-Horizon Tasks with Distributed Hidden Intent