arXiv subjects

Shishir Dash

Publications and source records attributed to Shishir Dash.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Autoresearch for Marketplace Catalogs: From Legacy Forms to AI-Native Matching

Two-sided service marketplaces are moving from deterministic request-form intake to AI-native probabilistic matching, enabled by large language models (LLMs) that infer intent, preferences, and latent constraints from natural language. Relying on inferred intent rather than fixed-form fields forces these platforms to regenerate the provider-side preference taxonomy underwriting matching, search, and pricing: attributes interpretable to service providers while remaining a useful signal for marketplace decisions. We present an autoresearch loop that generates this taxonomy, one occupation at a time, and has been deployed in production at a major U.S. consumer services marketplace since April 2026, spanning 132 occupations. Instead of one global hierarchy, the loop treats each occupation as an independent generation problem and runs iterative propose-evaluate-keep refinement cycles. Each candidate tag set is scored by a recalibrated six-rubric LLM-as-judge framework, and a 7-critic panel of distinct personas contributes weighted penalties to an adjusted score, with no hard vetoes. A separate parity-mapping stage maps legacy request-form Q&A pairs back to the generated taxonomy, yielding both a coverage signal and an interface for human quality assurance; it does so by first inferring the provider attribute each legacy question was meant to measure, rather than translating questions to tags literally.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating Enterprise Analytics Agents: An End-to-End, Trace-Backed Methodology

Enterprise analytics agents are not only text-to-SQL systems. They interpret business intent and choose metric definitions. They select data sources, execute tools, inspect results, and produce natural-language answers. Those answers may influence operational, financial, or executive decisions. Grading final answers hides where these agents fail. A plausible answer can use the wrong source of truth. It can skip a required decomposition, claim causality without support, or change its table interpretation across repeated runs. We present an end-to-end evaluation methodology for analytics agents. The methodology grades agent behavior across three families: semantic understanding, execution quality, and reliability. Grading uses question banks with human-written golden answers, repeated runs, and runtime traces. Each run first passes a run-validity check, then receives tiered, abstention-aware scores that feed a decision framework rather than a release gate. We instantiate the methodology on a controlled internal analytics agent at a large online marketplace. The case study uses 50 analytics questions, two anonymous model configurations, and three randomized repetitions per configuration, yielding 300 traces. The higher-capability configuration reduced early refusal from 73% to 0% and increased real-data answers from 21% to 73%. However, it also exhausted the tool-round budget on 16% of runs. It overran the schema-exploration budget on 77% of traces. It changed its table interpretation on 41 of 50 questions. On finance questions with structured golden answers, source table use and escalation improved, but canonical decomposition remained weak in both configurations. These results show why trust in analytics agents requires end-to-end, trace-backed evaluation rather than SQL correctness or final answer quality alone.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Certifying What Helps Customer-Return Timing: A Screen-and-Confirm Test for Conditioning Signals, and Why Decay Is Nearly Enough

Practitioners enrich customer-return models with ever more signals (lifetime value, category, recency/frequency, calendar, geography), and the temporal-point-process (TPP) literature follows suit with covariate- and external-covariate-conditioned intensities. But does any of it improve the timing, and how would you know? A null ("feature X doesn't help") is only meaningful if the model could have found a signal. We make two contributions--a method and a measurement--to answer this credibly. (i) A screen-and-confirm protocol that certifies whether a candidate signal improves a TPP's event-timing likelihood: a positive control plants a coupling of known strength and confirms the model recovers it, so a real-data null can be read as "no signal" rather than "weak method." The control is validated for categorical and continuous encodings, and on a real clock-driven dataset (NYC taxi hour-of-day). (ii) A model-free ceiling quantifying how little of customer-return timing is point-predictable at all (a single-digit percentage of gap variance from any covariate; returns are near-memoryless). With these we certify a clean result on three public benchmarks (Amazon, Taobao, RetailRocket) and a real marketplace (Thumbtack): the inter-event clock--continuous-time decay, long known to beat frozen-intensity models--is nearly sufficient, and the conditioning the field keeps adding is redundant or harmful on top of it (statistically null on the public benchmarks, at most 0.06 NLL; null to mildly harmful on the marketplace). We do not claim to discover that decay helps; our contribution is the tools that turn "conditioning doesn't help" into a checkable, certified statement--plus an honest-evaluation account of the read-out/leakage pitfalls we hit and retracted.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

When Offline Evaluation Misleads: A Diagnostic Protocol for Reward and Policy Selection in Delayed-Feedback Contextual Bandits

Personalizing marketing messages with contextual multi-armed bandits (CMABs) drives real business value, yet the objective that ultimately matters - a downstream conversion - is observed only weeks later, too late to drive online learning. Teams therefore train the bandit on a fast proxy reward, and separately must judge whether a contextual bandit is worth its complexity over sending one best message. Settling both decisions with the usual offline checks - a batch off-policy estimate, a marginal arm-discrimination test, a confidence interval - can mislead systematically under delayed feedback. We give an ordered diagnostic protocol that screens a reward-and-policy candidate on two axes, alignment (does optimizing the reward move the north-star?) and learnability (can the bandit identify the reward-optimal policy?), before trusting any reported lift. We validate it where the truth is known - a public off-policy-evaluation benchmark and a controllable synthetic generator - and illustrate it on a deployed large-marketplace push system (where, with five arms and one split, the evidence is directional rather than powered). Two lessons recur. (N1) A single offline number can mis-rank rewards: a denser reward signal gives the bandit more to learn from, so rewards that look tied in a static estimate pull apart once learning happens online. (N2) If you cannot tell in advance which single message is best, a per-user policy partly just avoids betting on the wrong one - that looks like personalization but is really robustness, so a "personalization premium" is easily overstated. Our contribution is methodological rather than algorithmic: the ordered protocol, the two lessons it surfaces, and the end-to-end experience of applying it to a delayed-feedback CMAB.

cs.LG↗