Iterating Toward Better Search: A Two-Agent Simulation Framework for Evaluating Agentic Search Architectures in E-Commerce
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
We present a modular two-agent simulation framework for evaluating conversational shopping assistant architectures. An independent buyer agent, configured with personas, missions, and patience levels, is paired with an interchangeable responder that integrates with a real e-commerce search API. Holding the buyer constant across experiments enables controlled comparison of responder designs on identical scenarios. Using 2011 conversations across 14 persona buckets, we establish four empirical findings. First, rolling-window memory outperforms intent-extraction memory on all quality metrics while being 35% faster per query. Second, illustrating rapid evidence-driven iteration, a systematic failure analysis of a responder version enables targeted fixes that reduce failure and near-failure rates by 62% across the full dataset. Third, swapping the responder LLM backbone from Gemini~2.5 to Llama~3.3~70B costs 0.16--0.45 points despite identical architecture. Finally, we document systematic philosophical disagreement between frontier LLM judges: Gemini rewards process correctness while Claude demands concrete outcomes, despite using the same evaluation prompt.
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 13 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2026.
Builds on
13 of 16 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025LLM Agent Meets Agentic AI: Can LLM Agents Simulate Customers to Evaluate Agentic-AI-based Shopping Assistants?25 Sep
- 2025Can LLM Agents Simulate Multi-Turn Human Behavior? Evidence from Real Online Customer Behavior Data26 Mar
Other references · 11
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2023MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systemscited by 1,295
- 2023AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedbackcited by 738
- 2023Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?cited by 729
- 2024Non-Determinism of "Deterministic" LLM Settingscited by 84
- 2025PersonaLens: A Benchmark for Personalization Evaluation in Conversational AI Assistantscited by 44
- 2025OPeRA: A Dataset of Observation, Persona, Rationale, and Action for Evaluating LLMs on Human Online Shopping Behavior Simulationcited by 26
- 2025Agent-in-the-Loop: A Data Flywheel for Continuous Improvement in LLM-based Customer Supportcited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Build, Judge, Optimize: A Blueprint for Continuous Improvement of Multi-Agent Consumer Assistants
- 2026On Evaluating and Improving Conversational Agents in Production
- 2026Characterizing Web Search by Conversational LLM Agents: From Search Decisions and Strategies to Results and Responses
- 2026EComAgentBench: Benchmarking Shopping Agents on Long-Horizon Tasks with Distributed Hidden Intent
- 2026RealWorldShop: Benchmarking and Improving Conversational Shopping Agents in Real-World E-commerce
- 2025OptAgent: Optimizing Query Rewriting for E-commerce via Multi-Agent Simulation
- 2026Shopping Reasoning Bench: An Expert-Authored Benchmark for Multi-Turn Conversational Shopping Assistants
- 2026HotelQuEST: Balancing Quality and Efficiency in Agentic Search