PreprintCited by 4

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

CRMArena: Understanding the Capacity of LLM Agents to Perform Professional CRM Tasks in Realistic Environments

Huang, Kung-Hsiang, Prabhakar, Akshara, Dhawan, Sidharth, Mao, Yixin, Wang, Huan, Savarese, Silvio, Xiong, Caiming, Laban, Philippe, Wu, Chien-Sheng·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems are vital for modern enterprises, providing a foundation for managing customer interactions and data. Integrating AI agents into CRM systems can automate routine processes and enhance personalized service. However, deploying and evaluating these agents is challenging due to the lack of realistic benchmarks that reflect the complexity of real-world CRM tasks. To address this issue, we introduce CRMArena, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate AI agents on realistic tasks grounded in professional work environments. Following guidance from CRM experts and industry best practices, we designed CRMArena with nine customer service tasks distributed across three personas: service agent, analyst, and manager. The benchmark includes 16 commonly used industrial objects (e.g., account, order, knowledge article, case) with high interconnectivity, along with latent variables (e.g., complaint habits, policy violations) to simulate realistic data distributions. Experimental results reveal that state-of-the-art LLM agents succeed in less than 40% of the tasks with ReAct prompting, and less than 55% even with function-calling abilities. Our findings highlight the need for enhanced agent capabilities in function-calling and rule-following to be deployed in real-world work environments. CRMArena is an open challenge to the community: systems that can reliably complete tasks showcase direct business value in a popular work environment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2411.02305

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Early self-reflection evaluations were often indirect and measured improvement coarsely by whether the final answer was corrected, with observed improvements potentially depending on prompting techniques lacking standardization.

    “Improvement was typically measured by determining if the final answer was corrected, providing only a coarse evaluation and potentially illdefined measurement, as observed improvements may depend on specific prompting techniques lacking proper standardization (Huang et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2025).”

    From Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Huang et al., 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Huang, K.-H., Prabhakar, A., Dhawan, S., Mao, Y., Wang, H., Savarese, S., Xiong, C., Laban, P., & Wu, C.-S.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
References
0
Type
Preprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review