# Iterating Toward Better Search: A Two-Agent Simulation Framework for Evaluating Agentic Search Architectures in E-Commerce

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12924 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.12924/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 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.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Social simulation and multi-agent debate](https://mlsanity.com/agents/social-simulation-and-multi-agent-debate/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08560/) (2023)
- [AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14387/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [Non-Determinism of "Deterministic" LLM Settings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04667/) (2024)
- [PersonaLens: A Benchmark for Personalization Evaluation in Conversational AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09902/) (2025)
- [Can LLM Agents Simulate Multi-Turn Human Behavior? Evidence from Real Online Customer Behavior Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20749/) (2025)
- [OPeRA: A Dataset of Observation, Persona, Rationale, and Action for Evaluating LLMs on Human Online Shopping Behavior Simulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.05606/) (2025)
- [LLM Agent Meets Agentic AI: Can LLM Agents Simulate Customers to Evaluate Agentic-AI-based Shopping Assistants?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.21501/) (2025)
- [Agent-in-the-Loop: A Data Flywheel for Continuous Improvement in LLM-based Customer Support](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.06674/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [A Decision-Centered Reference Architecture for Trustworthy Agentic Commerce](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.18347/) (2026)

## 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.