arXiv AI

PACEShop: Evaluating Personalized, Actionable, Compositional, and Evidence-grounded Shopping Assistants

PACEShop introduces a new evaluation framework, PACE, for shopping assistants that emphasizes personalized, actionable, compositional, and evidence‑grounded responses. The benchmark dataset contains 22,625 records with structured personas, auditable evidence pools, and detailed defect annotations, while PACEJudge offers a training‑free protocol for assessing these dimensions. Experiments demonstrate that generic judges miss key diagnostic fields, whereas PACEJudge improves evaluation across persona alignment, cross‑component consistency, grounding, and defect localization without retraining.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 16

Evaluating Open-Weight E-Commerce Agents with Environment-Grounded Verification

The paper introduces a deterministic, reproducible e‑commerce environment that pre‑commits customer and trajectory parameters, enabling a simulated consumer to attempt purchasing a target cart with the help of an evaluated model. The environment records every assistant action and state, allowing post‑trial evaluation of specific conversation components and applying penalties based on tool‑call accuracy. Using this setup, the authors benchmark eight open‑weight agents (20B–35B parameters) across 160 trials and 44 metrics, revealing nuanced performance issues such as under‑action, over‑purchase, unsupported product attributes, and poor search that are hidden by overall success rates.

By Nimit Shah, Haitz S\'aez de Oc\'ariz Borde
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 21

BACON: Budgeted Human Calibration for Modeling and Evaluation with Multiple AI Judges

arXiv:2607. 16239v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI judges offer a scalable, low-cost alternative to human evaluation, but their outputs can be biased relative to human preferences and highly item-dependent, varying across judges, tasks, and domains.

By Lei Shi, Anlan Zhang, Rita Lyu, Zhengmian Hu, Tong Yu, David Arbour, Avi Feller, Saayan Mitra, Ritwik Sinha
arXiv AI
Aug 20

The Lifecycle of LLM-as-a-Judge for Large-Scale Recommendation Explanations

The paper introduces a lifecycle framework for LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to evaluate recommendation explanations at Netflix. It outlines four phases—Birth, Training, Deployment, and Monitoring—detailing how each stage addresses specific technical and operational challenges. The authors report that after five weeks of A/B testing, judge-aligned explanations increased novel content viewing and successful browse-to-play sessions without quality takedowns.

By Emma Yanyang Kong, JJ Tan, Ishan Gupta, Lars Olds, Claire Campbell, David Fagnan, Veli Balin, Rohan Gosain, Louis Garcia, Minsu Jang
arXiv AI
Jun 3

CoEval: Ranking Language Models for Custom Tasks Without Labeled Data or Trustworthy Benchmarks

arXiv:2606. 03650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Choosing or ranking language models for a specific application is hardest when no task-specific labeled data exists, and standard public benchmarks cannot be trusted, their items having likely leaked into pretraining, so scores reflect memorization rather than fitness.

By Alexander Apartsin, Yehudit Aperstein
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

CAST: Critique-Aware Supervision for Training Reliable Long-Horizon Tool-Calling Agents

CAST is a critique‑aware training framework that transforms sparse task outcomes into action‑level supervision for both critique learning and policy optimization. By analyzing agent trajectories, CAST synthesizes structured rationales that explain action validity under partial observability, enabling the creation of richer training data. Fine‑tuned Qwen3‑family models trained with CAST show significant reliability gains, outperforming GPT‑OSS‑120B by over 10% on Retail tasks and improving Telehealth performance by 9% in an out‑of‑domain setting.

By Amir Saeidi, Zehua Zhang, Rishitosh Singh, Naman Ahuja, Vivek Gupta, Ali Payani, Gaowen Liu, Jayanth Srinivasa, Chitta Baral
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

GAUGE: When Not to Trust LLM-as-a-Judge in User-Simulated Evaluation of Task-Oriented Agents

GAUGE is a new offline protocol that evaluates whether the common practice of using an LLM-as-a-judge to rank task‑oriented agents actually aligns with a verifiable reward. Across 25 agents from six providers on two benchmarks, GAUGE finds that user satisfaction scores are largely uncorrelated with task success, and that the judge’s ranking loses precision when agents are closely matched in performance. The study highlights a gap between ranking validity and construct validity in current evaluation practices.

By Umesh Bodhwani, Thanh Tran, Kai Wei
arXiv Machine Learning
5d ago

EAVer: Long-Form Factuality Verification as an End-to-End Agentic Policy

arXiv:2609.22223v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-form factuality verification is commonly implemented as a static decompose-search-verify pipeline, with separately prompted modules processing c...

By Kening Zheng, Aoying Zheng, Zhigang Chang, Yazhi Guo, Miaotian Guo, Qingwei Zong, Xianhai Xie, Weiqiang Jin, Chengze Li, Hanrong Zhang, Jie Yang, Wei-Chieh Huang, Lingzhe Zhang, Liancheng Fang, Xin Zou, Hanqian Li, Jiahao Huo, Yibo Yan, Zizhuang Deng, Lei Miao, Wei Guo, Haihong Tang, Bo Zheng, Philip S. Yu
arXiv AI
Jul 17

CatalogAgent: A Supervisor-mediated Self-Learning System Enabling Context Engineering for GenAI Models

arXiv:2607. 14396v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Product catalogs are the backbone of e-commerce sites, yet a large number of structured attributes (SAs) -- such as material, color, and shape -- often have missing values.

By Zhu Cheng (Xuan), Zhenming Wang (Xuan), Yu (Xuan), Tang, Dan Liu, Bryan Zhang, Athanasios N. Nikolakopoulos, Pranav Souri Itabada, Jing Zhang, Chih-Chi Chou, Peng Gao, Fatemeh Mansoori, Bharat Bojja, Sarath Chander, Sameer Thombare, Umit Batur, Tarik Arici