mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

BazaarBench: Delegation Safety in Decentralized C2C Marketplaces Run by LLM Agents

arXiv 2610.06748 ↗First posted 5 Oct 2026cs.MA cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Financial trading and forecasting agents

Abstract (arXiv)

In decentralized consumer-to-consumer (C2C) marketplaces, people list goods, negotiate with strangers, and rate one another, so trust rests on reputation. Large language model (LLM) agents now act for users, raising risks to their money, privacy, and reputation. We introduce BazaarBench, a simulated C2C marketplace and benchmark for evaluating the safety of these agents. It tracks ownership, item condition, and commitments across transactions, combining record checks with rubric-based LLM judgments to identify six failure types across five stages. We run three base markets for 30 simulated days, each with 100 agents using one model and inventories drawn from a public eBay sample. Across 45 continuations, we evaluate five models under ordinary instructions, deadline pressure, or adversarial instructions to exploit other traders. Each continuation runs for seven simulated days from a copy of a market's day-30 state. The tested model controls the same 20 selected agents, retaining their personas, inventories, and histories, while the other 80 keep the base model. All five models attempt to promise the same item to multiple buyers under ordinary instructions. Adding targets and deadlines increases these attempts for every model. Under adversarial instructions, the share of tested sellers' committed transactions completed despite unavailable items or overstated conditions rises from 15.4% to 33.4%, reaching 55.5% for GPT-5.4. Averaged across models and markets, simulated weekly earnings per tested agent rise from USD 20 under ordinary instructions to USD 33 under adversarial instructions. Most of the increase comes from items the sellers never held. We release the simulator, saved market states, evaluation code, and records covering 357,608 agent model calls for evaluating new models and developing safer marketplace agents.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Financial trading and forecasting agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Strategic Exploitation in LLM Agent Markets: A Simulation Framework for E-Commerce Trust
  2. 2026Can LLM Agents Price Competitively? A Dynamic Multi-Attribute Auction Benchmark for Agentic Commerce
  3. 2026Agent Bazaar: Enabling Economic Alignment in Multi-Agent Marketplaces
  4. 2026A Decision-Centered Reference Architecture for Trustworthy Agentic Commerce
  5. 2026MerchantBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Long-Term Coherence in E-Commerce Operations
  6. 2026E-Commerce Bench: Evaluating LLM Agents on Long-Horizon Autonomous Business Operation
  7. 2026Paying for Honesty Without Knowing the Truth: Reputation-Penalty Design for LLM Marketplace Agents
  8. 2026Agentic Commerce World: An Auditable and Verifiable Environment for Vibe Commerce