On Evaluating and Improving Conversational Agents in Production
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
We present a framework for evaluating and improving a large-scale, multi-agent shopping assistant in production, and report lessons from its use. Offline evaluation of such a system faces three obstacles. (i) A logged conversation cannot be replayed against a modified system, because a different response changes every turn that follows. (ii) The unchanged system itself varies from run to run. Its LLM components are stochastic, and in product search the available products, their prices, and the customer's personalization signals change. (iii) Aggregate quality scores combine distinct behaviors, so they show that quality has changed but not which behavior caused the change. Our framework addresses each obstacle in turn. For a reported behavior, an Evaluation Harness generates targeted assertions and a fixed cohort of customer scenarios. It then reproduces the behavior in a local instance of the assistant through grounded user simulation. Instead of replaying the log, the simulator writes new customer turns conditioned on the recorded messages and context. Repeated runs of the unchanged system form a stored baseline. An Improvement Orchestrator turns the assertion results into hypotheses, implements each as an isolated modification, and compares it with the baseline using paired percentile bootstrap intervals over scenario-level differences. When an investigation ends, the harness may propose revisions to future evaluations, subject to human approval and without altering past decisions. We report production investigations with this framework. Assertion profiles showed which positions of a product carousel a failure affected, and repeated runs distinguished a real improvement from run-to-run fluctuation. Audits of the evaluation itself found a judge that lacked the evidence it needed and a model setting that was configured but not applied.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (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 45 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2026.
Builds on
45 of 59 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2026RealUserSim: Bridging the Reality Gap in Agent Benchmarking via Grounded User Simulation7 Apr
- 2026Lost in Simulation: LLM-Simulated Users are Unreliable Proxies for Human Users in Agentic Evaluations23 Jan
Other references · 43
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2024τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domainscited by 1,280
- 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
- 2022Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineerscited by 1,020
- 2024The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discoverycited by 1,002
- 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
- 2023Large Language Models as Optimizerscited by 830
- 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 803
- 2022Large Language Models Can Self-Improvecited by 656
31 more
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 651
- 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
- 2025The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-Level Automated Scientific Discovery via Agentic Tree Searchcited by 375
- 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 299
- 2024ToolSandbox: A Stateful, Conversational, Interactive Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Tool Use Capabilitiescited by 272
- 2024LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Taskscited by 236
- 2025Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systemscited by 170
- 2020Estimating means of bounded random variables by bettingcited by 164
- 2022Game-theoretic statistics and safe anytime-valid inferencecited by 145
- 2024Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferencescited by 142
- 2023Large language models can accurately predict searcher preferencescited by 129
- 2019Safe Testingcited by 98
- 2023Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgmentcited by 84
- 2026Self-Harness: Harnesses That Improve Themselvescited by 79
- 2023EvalLM: Interactive Evaluation of Large Language Model Prompts on User-Defined Criteriacited by 73
- 2023Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Modelscited by 68
- 2020TREC CAsT 2019: The Conversational Assistance Track Overviewcited by 64
- 2020Evaluating Conversational Recommender Systems via User Simulationcited by 46
- 2025SimulatorArena: Are User Simulators Reliable Proxies for Multi-Turn Evaluation of AI Assistants?cited by 45
- 2026Rethinking the Evaluation of Harness Evolution for Agentscited by 39
- 2023User Simulation for Evaluating Information Access Systemscited by 30
- 2024Constructing Domain-Specific Evaluation Sets for LLM-as-a-judgecited by 28
- 2024How Reliable is Your Simulator? Analysis on the Limitations of Current LLM-based User Simulators for Conversational Recommendationcited by 25
- 2023Exploiting Simulated User Feedback for Conversational Search: Ranking, Rewriting, and Beyondcited by 23
- 2014What Teachers Should Know about the Bootstrap: Resampling in the Undergraduate Statistics Curriculumcited by 14
- 2024Retrieve, Annotate, Evaluate, Repeat: Leveraging Multimodal LLMs for Large-Scale Product Retrieval Evaluationcited by 12
- 2026ConvApparel: A Benchmark Dataset and Validation Framework for User Simulators in Conversational Recommenderscited by 10
- 2026Who Drifted: the System or the Judge? Anytime-Valid Attribution in LLM Evaluation Pipelinescited by 8
- 2026The Coin Flip Judge? Reliability and Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluationcited by 7
- 2026CELEUS: Certifiable and Efficient LLM Evaluation via E-Processescited by 4
- 2026GAUGE: When Not to Trust LLM-as-a-Judge in User-Simulated Evaluation of Task-Oriented Agentscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Operationalising Multi-Dimensional Evaluation for Conversational Agents: A Scalable, Governed Pipeline with Selective Re-evaluation and Model Benchmarking
- 2026Build, Judge, Optimize: A Blueprint for Continuous Improvement of Multi-Agent Consumer Assistants
- 2026Iterating Toward Better Search: A Two-Agent Simulation Framework for Evaluating Agentic Search Architectures in E-Commerce
- 2026Shopping Reasoning Bench: An Expert-Authored Benchmark for Multi-Turn Conversational Shopping Assistants
- 2026EComAgentBench: Benchmarking Shopping Agents on Long-Horizon Tasks with Distributed Hidden Intent
- 2026CustomerSim: Benchmarking and Aligning Multimodal Language Models as Retail User Simulators
- 2023Salespeople vs SalesBot: Exploring the Role of Educational Value in Conversational Recommender Systems
- 2026RealWorldShop: Benchmarking and Improving Conversational Shopping Agents in Real-World E-commerce