Evaluating Open-Weight E-Commerce Agents with Environment-Grounded Verification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A shopping conversation has many routes to the same cart, and a task-success rate reduces all of them to one score. We build a deterministic and reproducible e-commerce environment that precommits each trial's customer and trajectory parameters, including the persona, difficulty, target cart, and an item reveal schedule. A simulated consumer attempts to buy a target cart from the environment with assistance from the evaluated model. The environment guides the simulator's actions and records every assistant action alongside the environment state at that point. After the trial, these records allow the evaluator to assess individual parts of the conversation against the retained evidence. For example, the evaluator penalizes a search for failing to surface a target product only when the customer has already mentioned that product. We further use this evidence to apply different penalties to tool calls depending on how the assistant's actions compare with an expected tool-call set. Our environment also interacts with the simulator bidirectionally, reading its output to stop the trial when the simulator determines that the customer has become too frustrated and injecting directives in real time that specify when to explore, defer buying an item, or recall a previous exchange. This interaction creates an open-ended and verifiable simulation. Across eight open-weight agents from 20B to 35B parameters, with 160 trials per agent and 44 metrics, the resulting capability profiles distinguish under-action, over-purchase, unsupported product attributes, and poor search, all of which terminal success obscures.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Sep 2026.
Builds on
22 of 30 references.
References · 22
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 2,006
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,402
- 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,282
- 2022WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agentscited by 1,251
- 2023Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Webcited by 1,242
- 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
- 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 897
- 2024AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agentscited by 339
- 2024ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilitiescited by 295
10 more
- 2023FacTool: Factuality Detection in Generative AI -- A Tool Augmented Framework for Multi-Task and Multi-Domain Scenarioscited by 251
- 2024Bridging Language and Items for Retrieval and Recommendation: Benchmarking LLMs as Semantic Encoderscited by 224
- 2025AgentRewardBench: Evaluating Automatic Evaluations of Web Agent Trajectoriescited by 108
- 2026Mind the Sim2Real Gap in User Simulation for Agentic Taskscited by 54
- 2026Lost in Simulation: LLM-Simulated Users are Unreliable Proxies for Human Users in Agentic Evaluationscited by 40
- 2026Stop Comparing LLM Agents Without Disclosing the Harnesscited by 34
- 2025ShoppingBench: A Real-World Intent-Grounded Shopping Benchmark for LLM-based Agentscited by 28
- 2025WebMall -- A Multi-Shop Benchmark for Evaluating Web Agentscited by 17
- 2026Log analysis is necessary for credible evaluation of AI agentscited by 10
- 2025COMPASS: Benchmarking Constrained Optimization in LLM Agentscited by 9
Built on by
Not cited yet.