The DOI matches its DataCite record.
CRMArena: Understanding the Capacity of LLM Agents to Perform Professional CRM Tasks in Realistic Environments
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents
Yehudai, A., Eden, L., Li, A., Uziel, G., Zhao, Y., Bar-Haim, R., Cohan, A., & Shmueli-Scheuer, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.16416 · Cited by 26
TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Tasks
Xu, F. F., Song, Y., Li, B., Tang, Y., Jain, K., Bao, M., Wang, Z. Z., Zhou, X., Guo, Z., Cao, M., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.14161 · Cited by 17
R2D2: Remembering, Replaying and Dynamic Decision Making with a Reflective Agentic Memory
Huang, T., Basu, K., Abdelaziz, I., Kapanipathi, P., May, J., & Chen, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1464 · Cited by 4
“…AI agents designed to navigate and perform natural language-described tasks within web environments—have become increasingly integral to applications such as online customer service (Huang et al., 2025), automated data retrieval (Huang et al., 2024), and personalized digital assistants.”
Magentic Marketplace: An Open-Source Environment for Studying Agentic Markets
Bansal, G., Hua, W., Huang, Z., Fourney, A., Swearngin, A., Epperson, W., Payne, T., Hofman, J. M., Lucier, B., Singh, C., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.25779
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
- arXiv
- 2411.02305
- 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