Papers
arxiv:2610.30161

TauIndianBankBench: Procedure-Aware, Action-Oriented Evaluation of Tool-Using Conversational Agents

Published on Sep 30
ยท Submitted by
Krishanu Adhikary
on Oct 29
Authors:

Abstract

TauIndianBankBench evaluates language model assistants on Indian retail banking by verifying both procedural compliance and final outcomes across 1,000 simulated tasks.

Many Indian banks serve customers through FAQ pages and scripted chatbots. Assistants based on language models could respond faster and carry out requests such as blocking a card, but only if they give correct information and follow the bank's rules. These rules prescribe a procedure, a set of required steps, such as obtaining a closure quote before closing a deposit. Adapting models to this domain requires measuring how well they follow the procedure, before and after training. Benchmarks usually judge only the records left at the end of a conversation. Many required steps, however, leave the records unchanged, so an assistant that skips them can still be judged successful. We present TauIndianBankBench, an action-oriented benchmark of 1,000 Indian retail-banking tasks where an assistant helps a simulated customer. Besides the final records, it checks that the assistant took every required step and made no unrequested change. For every model, 6.5-12.0% of sessions are judged successful when only the final records are checked, although the assistant skipped a required step or made an unrequested change. Scoring both procedure and outcome shows more accurately how well language models perform in Indian retail banking.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

Hi everyone, author here! ๐Ÿ‘‹ Thanks for checking out TauIndianBankBench.

TL;DR: Most agent benchmarks only check the final database state. But many required banking steps, like getting a closure quote before closing a deposit, don't change any records, so an agent can skip them and still be marked successful. TauIndianBankBench has 1,000 Indian retail-banking tasks with a simulated customer. It scores the outcome, and it also checks that the agent completed every required step and made no unrequested changes. With outcome-only scoring, 6.5โ€“12.0% of sessions across all models were counted as successes even though the agent broke the procedure.

๐Ÿ“„ Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30161
๐Ÿ“‚ Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/NPCI/tau-indian-banking
๐Ÿ’ป Code: https://github.com/npci/TauIndianBankBench

Contributions are welcome, whether that's new tasks, procedure fixes or additional banking flows. Feel free to open a PR on the dataset repo. You're also welcome to evaluate your own models and share the results.

If you find this work useful, please upvote the paper and โค๏ธ like the dataset. It helps more people discover it!

Happy to answer any questions! ๐Ÿ™

Half the procedural bugs I've fixed weren't the model ignoring steps. It was the steps being written for a human who'd been trained on them. Nobody writes a runbook for a reader you have to explicitly tell not to skip verification. So a benchmark that scores step-following on a clean runbook is measuring the easy half. Hand the agent the version a bank actually gives a new hire, the one where "confirm identity" is quietly doing three jobs and section 4 contradicts section 2, then I'll trust the number. On the sanitised version it's a reading comprehension test, and mine pass those fine right up until the runbook changes on a Tuesday and nobody tells them.

Sign up or log in to comment

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.30161 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 1

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2610.30161 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.