# Shopping Reasoning Bench: An Expert-Authored Benchmark for Multi-Turn Conversational Shopping Assistants

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12608 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.12608/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 18 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.01206/) (2022)
- [DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.19437/) (2024)
- [LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06120/) (2025)
- [HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Health](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.08775/) (2025)
- [Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.22954/) (2025)
- [eCeLLM: Generalizing Large Language Models for E-commerce from Large-scale, High-quality Instruction Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08831/) (2024)
- [PRBench: Large-Scale Expert Rubrics for Evaluating High-Stakes Professional Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.11562/) (2025)
- [ShoppingBench: A Real-World Intent-Grounded Shopping Benchmark for LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.04266/) (2025)
- [ProfBench: Multi-Domain Rubrics requiring Professional Knowledge to Answer and Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.18941/) (2025)
- [Shopping MMLU: A Massive Multi-Task Online Shopping Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.20745/) (2024)
- [ShoppingComp: Are LLMs Really Ready for Your Shopping Cart?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.22978/) (2025)
- [SessionIntentBench: A Multi-task Inter-session Intention-shift Modeling Benchmark for E-commerce Customer Behavior Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.20185/) (2025)
- [ChatShopBuddy: Towards Reliable Conversational Shopping Agents via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.06065/) (2026)
- [Towards Reliable Evaluation of Large Language Models for Multilingual and Multimodal E-Commerce Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.20632/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Agentic Commerce World: An Auditable and Verifiable Environment for Vibe Commerce](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.02441/) (2026)
- [Designing Reliable LLM-as-a-Judge Measurement Systems for Multi-Turn Business Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.33955/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Conversational shopping assistants now serve hundreds of millions of customers, yet no existing benchmark jointly evaluates the open-ended multi-turn reasoning, domain expertise, and criterion-level quality that real shopping conversations demand. Shopping reasoning is unique among language model applications. Unlike factual question answering or verifiable code generation, it requires balancing subjective preferences, budget constraints, and cross-product trade-offs across multi-turn dialogue, capabilities absent from previous e-commerce and general-purpose benchmarks. We introduce the Shopping Reasoning Bench, an expert-authored benchmark of 525 missions (232 single-turn, 293 multi-turn) with 10863 importance-weighted binary rubrics authored by retail domain experts. These criteria are organized under a taxonomy of five reasoning categories and fifteen subcategories covering diverse demands such as preference refinement, trade-off analysis, and compatibility assessment. An evaluation of nine models across three families (GPT, Claude, Gemini) shows that pass rates reach only 57--77% overall. On multi-turn missions, all models score 13--29 points lower on optional above-and-beyond criteria than on required ones, and performance degrades 4--18 points as conversations progress. These gaps show that current models handle basic shopping assistance but fall short of expert-level advice, making Shopping Reasoning Bench a challenging testbed for future shopping assistant development.