retail operations teams

Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are extending agent-mediated commerce on the Web from shopping for consumers to operating businesses for sellers. In online-to-offline (O2O) commerce, decisions are issued through Web-based platforms but realized through costly physical execution. Evaluating such agents requires going beyond individual transactions to ask whether decisions made online turn into sustained economic returns. We introduce AutoVend, a benchmark in which one LLM agent manages 20 vending machines across five site types through a Web-based operating interface for 180 simulated days. Its data-grounded simulator combines a shared warehouse, procurement lead times, paid replenishment, inventory expiration, and recurring operating costs. We evaluate five LLM agents against a rule-based inventory-control baseline and diagnose their site coordination, execution, and performance over time. Four of five evaluated LLM agents fall short of this baseline, and returns per dollar of inference cost rank models differently from returns alone. Operational analyses show that gains in individual metrics do not consistently yield stronger economic growth, as inventory and execution costs erode these gains. Trajectory analysis further reveals difficulties in grounding feasible actions, managing inventory commitments, and converting feedback into effective policy revisions.

Abstract: Industrial artificial intelligence (AI) planning systems combine predictive models, optimization logic, controls, and governance rules, but improvement in the complete policy does not show whether one addition made an independent contribution or whether that contribution justifies its burden. We address this attribution problem with an observable evidence standard that separates opportunity to act, executed-plan change, operational consequence, equivalence, uncertainty, and operating scope. Using forecast-to-plan replay on Favorita, M5, and Walmart data, we apply the standard to heterogeneous planning additions. Three limits of single-indicator evaluation emerge. First, a composite policy can conceal negligible component contribution: one control changed only 15 of 681 executed plans. Second, changing execution does not guarantee stable benefit: the evaluated multi-period capability helped in several long-lead settings but was 7.6% more costly under tight capacity. Third, indirect evidence can prioritize review but cannot complete attribution. Independent runs produced different paths in 19 of 599 cases that a rule-based check predicted would be unchanged. Although a lower-cost diagnostic matched the full-evaluation winner in only 55.0% of cases, it selected an option within the $10^{-6}$ cost-equivalence tolerance in 79.5%; the remaining cases prevented the proxy from authorizing acceptance. These experiments establish capability-level contribution evidence; the organization completes the value decision by weighing it against implementation and sustaining burden. The resulting capability evidence record links the observations to validation, deployment scope, fallback, monitoring, redesign, and retirement decisions.

Abstract: Reinforcement learning environments are now a primary lever for improving large language model (LLM) capabilities in post-training, yet most agentic benchmarks remain static: the world moves only when the agent acts, the reward is a terminal verdict, and the pass bar is set arbitrarily. We introduce StoreBench, a live-commerce environment in which an agent runs a mid-size online apparel store on a production-grade commerce backend, testing long-horizon planning and economic judgment under uncertainty. Customers order around the clock, suppliers reprice and fail, and market shocks arrive with partial or no warning. The agent acts through the same 29 merchant tools a human operator would use, under a windowed operation budget that makes simulated time a function of actions taken, so model latency cannot influence simulated time. Pass thresholds are calibrated against scripted anchor policies, the reward is hardened against a catalogue of reward hacks, and every episode replays identically given a sequence of actions. We evaluate seven frontier LLMs on 11 scenarios of 30 to 45 days and a full simulated year, over three world seeds at matched reasoning effort. No model matches the scripted smart-triage policy on average: the best, DeepSeek-V4-Pro, passes 49% of task-seed cells against the heuristic's 97%. Human experts working through the same tools and budgets outscore every model (mean composite 0.708 vs. 0.700). Over a full simulated year under the Claude Code harness, most models show dramatic performance improvement. In a GRPO post-training run, Qwen3.5-27B trained on only five disjoint tasks raises its mean composite on the held-out evaluation tasks from 0.136 to 0.373. We release five example training-split tasks, ten sample trajectories, and the scoring and verification tooling; the full environment and evaluation suite are withheld to keep the benchmark uncontaminated.