The paper introduces SalesLLM, a bilingual (Chinese/English) benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in realistic sales dialogues. It comprises 30,074 scripted configurations and 1,805 curated multi‑turn scenarios from Financial Services and Consumer Goods, with controllable difficulty and personas. An automatic evaluation pipeline uses an LLM judge for sales‑process progress and fine‑tuned BERT classifiers for end‑of‑dialogue buying intent, while a user model, CustomerLM, is trained to improve simulation fidelity. SalesLLM scores correlate strongly with human ratings (Pearson r = 0.86) and reveal that top Chinese LLMs match junior‑to‑intermediate human salespeople but not experts, with cross‑lingual consistency remaining poor.
By Xuanbo Su, Wenhao Hu, Le Zhan, Yuting Xie, Kailin Lyu, Kaijie Chen, Ziwei Li, Yeqiang Wang, Haibo Su, Yunzhang Chen, Ling Huang
arXiv:2606. 12924v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present a modular two-agent simulation framework for evaluating conversational shopping assistant architectures.
By Jetlir Duraj, Jayanth Yetukuri, Shuang Zhou, Dhruv Varma, Rui Kong, Ishita Khan, Qunzhi Zhou
arXiv:2607. 12085v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating retail conversational agents requires methods beyond lexical-overlap metrics to assess intent alignment, factuality, helpfulness, clarity, tone, and overall response quality.
By Niranjan Kumar M, Balaji Nagarajan, Karthik Nair, Faysal Satter, Nithin Surendran
The paper evaluates the use of large language models (LLMs) as judges for assessing conversational voice agents, comparing human judgments with GPT‑4.1 and GPT‑5 across telecom and retail interactions. It examines agreement, metric‑level correlations, and consistency across three evaluation configurations (p0, p1, p2) to determine how reliably LLMs can judge conversational quality and safety. The study finds that LLM‑based evaluation can be effective but its reliability varies by metric and configuration, suggesting a hybrid approach where LLMs handle scalable assessment while humans focus on metrics requiring contextual interpretation.
By Anupam Purwar, Shashank Singh, Kritika Srivastava
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:2608. 11434v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Mobile agent benchmarks increasingly rely on LLM-based judges to evaluate task completion, yet the reliability of these judges on mobile agent trajectories remains largely unexamined.
By Ziqiang Wan, Li Gu, Zhixiang Chi, Zhi Liu, Seyed Mehdi Ayyoubzadeh, Yuanhao Yu, Yang Wang