ShopEase: A Generative AI-Based Multi-Agent Framework for Intelligent Enterprise Customer Support Using Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
Title:ShopEase: A Generative AI-Based Multi-Agent Framework for Intelligent Enterprise Customer Support Using Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation
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.
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2609.13856 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2609.13856v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.13856
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Submission history
From: Aakash Kumar Tiwari [view email][v1] Sat, 12 Sep 2026 10:18:34 UTC (1,509 KB)
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
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.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
A Mechanistic Study of AI-Text Detection Neurons in Frozen BERT: Sparse Probing and Activation Patching on RAID
Sep 28
-
Manifold Projection and Iterative Autoencoder Refinement for Masked Language Modeling
Sep 28
-
Not All Memories Are Equal: Hierarchical Collaborative Memory for Validity-Aware Retrieval in LLM Agents
Sep 28
-
Auditing and Repairing LLM-as-Judge Failures in a Production Text-to-SQL Pipeline
Sep 28
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.