From Retrieval to Customer Context: Evaluating Frontier-Model Systems for Voice-of-Customer Analysis
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:From Retrieval to Customer Context: Evaluating Frontier-Model Systems for Voice-of-Customer Analysis
Abstract:Organizations increasingly use frontier language models to analyze customer feedback, but answer quality also depends on how that feedback is organized and made available. We define a \emph{customer context graph} as a unified model of customer and business context. Typed relationships connect customer objects (feedback, conversations, users, and accounts), operational objects (tickets, support agents, opportunities, and competitors), and analytical or action objects (taxonomy concepts, evidence, insights, work items, and outcomes). This lets an agent investigate not only what customers say, but why, who is affected, what action followed, who owns it, and whether it was resolved. For this experiment, the graph is populated from public Cursor feedback; the same architecture can support any type of feedback source. We compare Agentic RAG, a Deep Research Agent, and a Customer Context Graph-backed Agent on the same 9,432 public Cursor feedback records using 30 realistic product, incident, comparison, and metadata questions. Without exhaustive ground truth, we jointly score responses on answer quality (coverage and organization), analytical depth (specificity and decomposition), and evidence quality (citation support and traceability), using a comparative rubric calibrated on 28 of the 30 questions. We sample cited records against their claims and weight the three dimensions equally. Under this aligned rubric, the Customer Context Graph-backed Agent scores 0.961 overall, versus 0.710 for the Deep Research Agent and 0.651 for Agentic RAG, and leads the Deep Research Agent on 27 of 30 paired questions (sign-test p < 10^(-5); strictly best on 26 of 30). Its largest advantage is analytical depth (0.967 versus 0.642), reflecting more specific, hierarchically developed findings with quantified themes and traceable evidence...
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2610.09375 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2610.09375v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.09375
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Additional Features
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 — Machine Learning
-
Algebraic Integer Quantization for Machine Learning Applications
Oct 12
-
CircuitTree: Composing Circuits into A Syllable Transcriber
Oct 12
-
Behind-the-Meter Photovoltaic Visibility from Net Smart Meters: Deployment Regimes and Operational Insights
Oct 12
-
GlucoPRISM: Protocol-Supervised Pretraining for Cross-Cohort Glucose Transfer
Oct 12
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.