CARTBench: Rubric-Based Evaluation of Shopping Advice for Complex and Ambiguous Requests with Timelines
Abstract
Large language model (LLM) shopping assistants now recommend products in multi-turn conversations. However, reliable evaluation faces Data scarcity and Difficulty Standardizing Criteria. To address these obstacles, we introduce CARTBench for CART (Complex and Ambiguous Requests with Timelines). For Data scarcity, we curate cases from real commercial shopping needs across 17 retail domains, pairing timestamped dialogue with 1,603 product records. For Difficulty Standardizing Criteria, we develop case-specific rubrics guided by Ideal Response Principles, distilled from excellent replies manually selected from successfully completed orders. These principles also guide Principle-Guided CART Prompting, our structured recommendation strategy. The experimental benchmark contains 1,328 expert-annotated criteria across Core, Excellence, and Safety. To answer the CART question, we evaluate 7 flagship commercial API models, including GPT-6.1-Sol and Claude-Opus-5, and 35B+ parameters open-weight models. In the first full-suite evaluation under the frozen rubrics, 3 of 10 models exceed 90% on Core, while none exceeds 45% on Excellence. Therefore, we identify an understanding-to-execution gap between required behavior and high-quality purchase advice. To examine these limitations, we diagnose shared failures in product evidence and unresolved needs, linked to changing requirements and decisive unknowns. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Da1yuqin/CARTBench.
Community
We introduce CARTBench, a benchmark for evaluating shopping advice for Complex and Ambiguous Requests with Timelines. It contains 169 timestamped shopping cases across 17 retail domains, with 1,603 product records and 1,328 case-specific rubric criteria covering Core, Excellence, and Safety.
Code: https://github.com/Da1yuqin/CARTBench
Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/dayll/CARTBench
This one clicked for me: over 90% on Core but under 45% on Excellence is exactly how shopping advice feels, since a safe answer is easy and a good one has to surface the unresolved needs. Did the best Excellence models ask more clarifying questions before recommending?
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- RealWorldShop: Benchmarking and Improving Conversational Shopping Agents in Real-World E-commerce (2026)
- ProcessPrefBench: Evaluating Cross-Task Transfer of Individual Process Preferences from Naturalistic Human–AI Interaction (2026)
- E-GenRM: Generative Reward Modeling for Open-Ended E-Commerce Shopping Agents (2026)
- Re2A: Situated Conversational Recommendation via Rubric-based Preference Reasoning and Alignment (2026)
- Evaluating Open-Weight E-Commerce Agents with Environment-Grounded Verification (2026)
- Beyond Preference Following: Benchmarking Profile-Query Arbitration in Personalized Text Transformation (2026)
- RubricAtlas: Mining Type-Level Rubrics from Expert Reports to Evaluate Deep Research Agents (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 1
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper