aiqbench analysis
This research paper evaluates a multi-agent framework for enterprise customer support, demonstrating that dense retrieval methods like FAISS outperform sparse alternatives and complex reranking strategies in accuracy while maintaining efficiency. The study provides critical insights into optimizing hybrid RAG architectures for production environments by highlighting the diminishing returns of adding cross-encoder components that increase latency without improving classification performance.
ShopEase: A Generative AI-Based Multi-Agent Framework for Intelligent Enterprise Customer Support Using Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation
arXiv:2609.13856v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise customer support systems must answer customer questions correctly, retrieve the right policy information, use customer context, and pass difficult cases to human agents when needed. This paper presents ShopEase, a Generative AI-based multi-agent framework for enterprise customer support. The system combines six components: Intent, CRM, Memory, Hybrid RAG, Escalation, and Supervisor, and uses LLaMA 3.2 running locally through Ollama for response generation. The retrieval module combines FAISS (dense retrieval) and BM25 (sparse retrieval), and six configurations are evaluated: BM25-only, FAISS-only, Fair RRF, Weighted RRF, RRF with Cross-Encoder, and Top-10 Hybrid with Cross-Encoder. Instead of using a fixed mapping between intent and policy, the policy category is decided directly from the retrieved documents. The system was evaluated on 2632 held-out customer queries across six categories: Refund, Return, Shipping, Cancellation, Damaged Product, and Unknown. FAISS-only achieved the highest accuracy of 85.37\% (2247 correct predictions), closely followed by Weighted RRF at 85.07\%. BM25-only achieved only 55.74\% accuracy. Adding cross-encoder reranking did not improve results: RRF with Cross-Encoder reached 83.24\%, and Top-10 Hybrid with Cross-Encoder reached 81.88\%, while also increasing response latency. Category-level analysis shows strong performance on Shipping, Cancellation, and Return, while Unknown queries remain the main source of errors. Statistical testing using McNemar's test shows no significant difference between FAISS-only and Weighted RRF, though both perform significantly better than Fair RRF and the cross-encoder configurations. Overall, dense retrieval gives the best accuracy on this dataset, and additional reranking adds processing time without improving classification performance.
Abstract:Enterprise customer support systems must answer customer questions correctly, retrieve the right policy information, use customer context, and pass difficult cases to human agents when needed. This paper presents ShopEase, a Generative AI-based multi-agent framework for enterprise customer support. The system combines six components: Intent, CRM, Memory, Hybrid RAG, Escalation, and Supervisor, and uses LLaMA 3.2 running locally through Ollama for response generation. The retrieval module combines FAISS (dense retrieval) and BM25 (sparse retrieval), and six configurations are evaluated: BM25-only, FAISS-only, Fair RRF, Weighted RRF, RRF with Cross-Encoder, and Top-10 Hybrid with Cross-Encoder. Instead of using a fixed mapping between intent and policy, the policy category is decided directly from the retrieved documents. The system was evaluated on 2632 held-out customer queries across six categories: Refund, Return, Shipping, Cancellation, Damaged Product, and Unknown. FAISS-only achieved the highest accuracy of 85.37\% (2247 correct predictions), closely followed by Weighted RRF at 85.07\%. BM25-only achieved only 55.74\% accuracy. Adding cross-encoder reranking did not improve results: RRF with Cross-Encoder reached 83.24\%, and Top-10 Hybrid with Cross-Encoder reached 81.88\%, while also increasing response latency. Category-level analysis shows strong performance on Shipping, Cancellation, and Return, while Unknown queries remain the main source of errors. Statistical testing using McNemar's test shows no significant difference between FAISS-only and Weighted RRF, though both perform significantly better than Fair RRF and the cross-encoder configurations. Overall, dense retrieval gives the best accuracy on this dataset, and additional reranking adds processing time without improving classification performance.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.13856 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.13856v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.13856 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 339 words
Related coverage

Vertical Advantage: Transforming Industries with Lakebase and Agentic AI
Databricks · Aug 27, 2026

News
Quantum Computing Report · Jun 7, 2026

Scaling cloud migrations with agentic AI on Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · Oct 1, 2026

NVIDIA GTC Taipei at COMPUTEX: Live Updates on What’s Next in AI
NVIDIA · May 21, 2026