Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Build, Judge, Optimize: A Blueprint for Continuous Improvement of Multi-Agent Consumer Assistants

Alejandro Breen Herrera, Aayush Sheth, Steven G. Xu, Zhucheng Zhan, Charles Wright, Marcus Yearwood, Hongtai Wei, Sudeep Das · Mar 3, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Conversational shopping assistants (CSAs) represent a compelling application of agentic AI, but moving from prototype to production reveals two underexplored challenges: how to evaluate multi-turn interactions and how to optimize tightly coupled multi-agent systems. Grocery shopping further amplifies these difficulties, as user requests are often underspecified, highly preference-sensitive, and constrained by factors such as budget and inventory. In this paper, we present a practical blueprint for evaluating and optimizing conversational shopping assistants, illustrated through a production-scale AI grocery assistant. We introduce a multi-faceted evaluation rubric that decomposes end-to-end shopping quality into structured dimensions and develop a calibrated LLM-as-judge pipeline aligned with human annotations. Building on this evaluation foundation, we investigate two complementary prompt-optimization strategies based on a SOTA prompt-optimizer called GEPA (Shao et al., 2025): (1) Sub-agent GEPA, which optimizes individual agent nodes against localized rubrics, and (2) MAMuT (Multi-Agent Multi-Turn) GEPA (Herrera et al., 2026), a novel system-level approach that jointly optimizes prompts across agents using multi-turn simulation and trajectory-level scoring. We release rubric templates and evaluation design guidance to support practitioners building production CSAs.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

69/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 65%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Pairwise Preference, Rubric Rating

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Conversational shopping assistants (CSAs) represent a compelling application of agentic AI, but moving from prototype to production reveals two underexplored challenges: how to evaluate multi-turn interactions and how to optimize tightly coupled multi-agent systems."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Llm As Judge, Simulation Env

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Conversational shopping assistants (CSAs) represent a compelling application of agentic AI, but moving from prototype to production reveals two underexplored challenges: how to evaluate multi-turn interactions and how to optimize tightly coupled multi-agent systems."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Conversational shopping assistants (CSAs) represent a compelling application of agentic AI, but moving from prototype to production reveals two underexplored challenges: how to evaluate multi-turn interactions and how to optimize tightly coupled multi-agent systems."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Conversational shopping assistants (CSAs) represent a compelling application of agentic AI, but moving from prototype to production reveals two underexplored challenges: how to evaluate multi-turn interactions and how to optimize tightly coupled multi-agent systems."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Conversational shopping assistants (CSAs) represent a compelling application of agentic AI, but moving from prototype to production reveals two underexplored challenges: how to evaluate multi-turn interactions and how to optimize tightly coupled multi-agent systems."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Pairwise Preference, Rubric Rating
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Unit of annotation: Multi Dim Rubric
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Llm As Judge, Simulation Env
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon, Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Conversational shopping assistants (CSAs) represent a compelling application of agentic AI, but moving from prototype to production reveals two underexplored challenges: how to evaluate multi-turn interactions and how to optimize tightly coupled multi-agent systems.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Conversational shopping assistants (CSAs) represent a compelling application of agentic AI, but moving from prototype to production reveals two underexplored challenges: how to evaluate multi-turn interactions and how to optimize tightly coupled multi-agent systems.
  • Grocery shopping further amplifies these difficulties, as user requests are often underspecified, highly preference-sensitive, and constrained by factors such as budget and inventory.
  • In this paper, we present a practical blueprint for evaluating and optimizing conversational shopping assistants, illustrated through a production-scale AI grocery assistant.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Simulation environment) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Conversational shopping assistants (CSAs) represent a compelling application of agentic AI, but moving from prototype to production reveals two underexplored challenges: how to evaluate multi-turn interactions and how to optimize tightly…
  • In this paper, we present a practical blueprint for evaluating and optimizing conversational shopping assistants, illustrated through a production-scale AI grocery assistant.
  • We introduce a multi-faceted evaluation rubric that decomposes end-to-end shopping quality into structured dimensions and develop a calibrated LLM-as-judge pipeline aligned with human annotations.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Conversational shopping assistants (CSAs) represent a compelling application of agentic AI, but moving from prototype to production reveals two underexplored challenges: how to evaluate multi-turn interactions and how to optimize tightly…
  • We introduce a multi-faceted evaluation rubric that decomposes end-to-end shopping quality into structured dimensions and develop a calibrated LLM-as-judge pipeline aligned with human annotations.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference, Rubric Rating

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Llm As Judge, Simulation Env

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.