Shopping assistants are shifting from ranked product lists toward structured decision support, where systems must synthesize shopper context, product evidence, and next-step guidance into a coherent recommendation experience. This changes the unit of evaluation: a fluent response can still fail by ignoring shopper context, contradicting itself across components, or leaving defects too vague to localize. Existing personalization, grounding, and LLM-as-a-judge benchmarks cover pieces of this problem, but they do not define a joint evaluation target for structured shopping-assistant responses. We formulate this missing evaluation target as PACE: Personalized, Actionable, Compositional, and Evidence-grounded evaluation. We instantiate PACE with two artifacts: PACEShop, a benchmark dataset that makes the target measurable through 22,625 controlled records with structured personas, auditable evidence pools, GOOD/BAD labels, and gold defect family and location annotations; and PACEJudge, a training-free judging protocol that makes the target reportable through a structured output contract. Our experiments show that generic judges can recognize broad quality but fail to recover the diagnostic fields required for PACE; PACEShop makes these failures verifiable, and PACEJudge improves persona-source, cross-component, grounding, and family/location closure without retraining, showing that realistic shopping-assistant evaluation requires a task-matched output contract rather than only a stronger backbone or scalar prompt.

Recent research shows that LLM Agents can generate “believable” human behaviors via prompt-only methods, and such agents have been increasingly adopted in downstream applications. However, existing evaluation of these agents only focuses on qualitative believability (whether human raters think they are accurate), leaving open questions of whether LLM agents can accurately generate step-by-step actions mimicking a particular human’s behavior in a multi-turn interaction task. In this work, we take shopping as a case study and present the first large-scale quantitative evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs’ ability to accurately simulate human behavior. Using real-world data from 31,865 online shopping sessions containing 230,965 user actions, our evaluation reveals that prompt-based LLMs (DeepSeek-R1, Llama, Claude) achieve only 11.86% accuracy in generating human actions, highlighting a substantial gap in actual behavioral accuracy. Through experiments, we also showcase that strategies as simple as fine-tuning LLMs on real human click-through data augmented with synthesized reasoning traces can greatly enhance models’ performance. The fine-tuned Qwen2.5-7B achieves 17.26% action generation accuracy and 33.86% F1 score on final purchase prediction, representing substantial improvements of 5.4% and 13.85% over prompt-only baselines. This work establishes the first rigorous benchmark and dataset for human behavior simulation and provides actionable insights for developing more accurate LLM agents for future downstream applications.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enhances the question answering (QA) abilities of large language models (LLMs) by integrating external knowledge. However, adapting general-purpose RAG systems to specialized fields such as science and medicine poses unique challenges due to distribution shifts and limited access to domain-specific data. To tackle this, we propose SimRAG, a self-training approach that equips LLMs with joint capabilities of question answering and question generation for domain adaptation. Our method first fine-tunes LLMs on instruction-following, question-answering, and search-related data. Then, it prompts LLMs to generate diverse domain-relevant questions from unlabeled corpora, with an additional filtering strategy to retain high-quality synthetic examples. By leveraging these synthetic examples, the LLMs can improve their performance on domain-specific RAG tasks. Experiments on 11 datasets across three different domains verify the efficacy of SimRAG over baselines by 1.2%–8.6%.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success across a wide range of tasks; however, they still encounter challenges in reasoning tasks that require understanding and inferring relationships between distinct pieces of information within text sequences. This challenge is particularly pronounced in tasks involving multi-step processes, such as logical reasoning and multi-hop question answering, where understanding implicit relationships between entities and leveraging multi-hop connections in the given context are crucial. Graphs, as fundamental data structures, explicitly represent pairwise relationships between entities, thereby offering the potential to enhance LLMs’ reasoning capabilities. External graphs have proven effective in supporting LLMs across multiple tasks. However, in many reasoning tasks, no pre-existing graph structure is provided. Can we structure implicit knowledge derived from context into graphs to assist LLMs in reasoning? In this paper, we propose Reasoning with Graphs (RwG) by first constructing explicit graphs from the context and then leveraging these graphs to enhance LLM reasoning performance on reasoning tasks. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in improving both logical reasoning and multi-hop question answering tasks.