TauIndianBankBench: Procedure-Aware, Action-Oriented Evaluation of Tool-Using Conversational Agents
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
Hi everyone, author here! ๐ 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, 6.5โ12.0% of sessions across all models were counted as successes even though the agent broke the procedure.
๐ Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.30161
๐ Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/NPCI/tau-indian-banking
๐ป 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 โค๏ธ like the dataset. It helps more people discover it!
Happy to answer any questions! ๐
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.
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 1
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper