Benchmarking Agents in Insurance Underwriting Environments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.00456v1
• Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2026 02:12:11 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking Agents in Insurance Underwriting Environments
• Authors: Amanda Dsouza, Ramya Ramakrishnan, Charles Dickens, Bhavishya Pohani, Christopher M Glaze,
• Abstract summary: Existing benchmarks overemphasize open-domains such as code, use narrow accuracy metrics, and lack authentic complexity.<n>We present UNDERWRITE, an expert-first, multi-turn insurance underwriting benchmark designed in close collaboration with domain experts.
• Score: 0.9728664856449597
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As AI agents integrate into enterprise applications, their evaluation demands benchmarks that reflect the complexity of real-world operations. Instead, existing benchmarks overemphasize open-domains such as code, use narrow accuracy metrics, and lack authentic complexity. We present UNDERWRITE, an expert-first, multi-turn insurance underwriting benchmark designed in close collaboration with domain experts to capture real-world enterprise challenges. UNDERWRITE introduces critical realism factors often absent in current benchmarks: proprietary business knowledge, noisy tool interfaces, and imperfect simulated users requiring careful information gathering. Evaluating 13 frontier models, we uncover significant gaps between research lab performance and enterprise readiness: the most accurate models are not the most efficient, models hallucinate domain knowledge despite tool access, and pass^k results show a 20% drop in performance. The results from UNDERWRITE demonstrate that expert involvement in benchmark design is essential for realistic agent evaluation, common agentic frameworks exhibit brittleness that skews performance reporting, and hallucination detection in specialized domains demands compositional approaches. Our work provides insights for developing benchmarks that better align with enterprise deployment requirements.

Related papers

• BeyondSWE: Can Current Code Agent Survive Beyond Single-Repo Bug Fixing? [61.247730037229815]
  We introduce BeyondSWE, a comprehensive benchmark that broadens existing evaluations along two axes - resolution scope and knowledge scope.<n>To investigate the role of external knowledge, we develop SearchSWE, a framework that integrates deep search with coding abilities.<n>This work offers both a realistic, challenging evaluation benchmark and a flexible framework to advance research toward more capable code agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T17:52:01Z)
• The Necessity of a Unified Framework for LLM-Based Agent Evaluation [46.631678638677386]
  General-purpose agents have seen fundamental advancements.<n> evaluating these agents presents unique challenges that distinguish them from static QA benchmarks.<n>We propose that a unified evaluation framework is essential for the rigorous advancement of agent evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T08:18:37Z)
• Benchmarking that Matters: Rethinking Benchmarking for Practical Impact [2.952553461344481]
  We propose a vision centered on curated real-world-inspired benchmarks, practitioner-accessible feature spaces and community-maintained performance databases.<n>Real progress requires coordinated effort: A living benchmarking ecosystem that evolves with real-world insights and supports both scientific understanding and industrial use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T15:42:15Z)
• OutboundEval: A Dual-Dimensional Benchmark for Expert-Level Intelligent Outbound Evaluation of Xbench's Professional-Aligned Series [36.88936933010042]
  OutboundEval is a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in intelligent outbound calling scenarios.<n>We design a benchmark spanning six major business domains and 30 representative sub-scenarios, each with scenario-specific process decomposition, weighted scoring, and domain-adaptive metrics.<n>We introduce a dynamic evaluation method that adapts to task variations, integrating automated and human-in-the-loop assessment to measure task execution accuracy, professional knowledge application, adaptability, and user experience quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T08:27:58Z)
• How can we assess human-agent interactions? Case studies in software agent design [52.953425368394306]
  We make two major steps towards the rigorous assessment of human-agent interactions.<n>We propose PULSE, a framework for more efficient human-centric evaluation of agent designs.<n>We deploy the framework on a large-scale web platform built around the open-source software agent OpenHands.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-10T19:04:28Z)
• DRBench: A Realistic Benchmark for Enterprise Deep Research [81.49694432639406]
  DRBench is a benchmark for evaluating AI agents on complex, open-ended deep research tasks in enterprise settings.<n>We release 15 deep research tasks across 10 domains, such as Sales, Cybersecurity, and Compliance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:47:20Z)
• Multi-Modal Requirements Data-based Acceptance Criteria Generation using LLMs [17.373348983049176]
  We propose RAGcceptance M2RE, a novel approach to generate acceptance criteria from multi-modal requirements data.<n>We show that our approach effectively reduces manual effort, captures nuanced stakeholder intent, and provides valuable criteria.<n>This research underscores the potential of multi-modal RAG techniques in streamlining software validation processes and improving development efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-09T08:35:40Z)
• Interactive Agents to Overcome Ambiguity in Software Engineering [61.40183840499932]
  AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on ambiguous and underspecified user instructions.<n>Making unwarranted assumptions and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes.<n>We study the ability of LLM agents to handle ambiguous instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T17:12:26Z)
• More than Marketing? On the Information Value of AI Benchmarks for Practitioners [42.73526862595375]
  In academia, public benchmarks were generally viewed as suitable measures for capturing research progress.<n>In product and policy, benchmarks were often found to be inadequate for informing substantive decisions.<n>We conclude that effective benchmarks should provide meaningful, real-world evaluations, incorporate domain expertise, and maintain transparency in scope and goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-07T03:35:39Z)
• The BrowserGym Ecosystem for Web Agent Research [151.90034093362343]
  BrowserGym ecosystem addresses the growing need for efficient evaluation and benchmarking of web agents.<n>We propose an extended BrowserGym-based ecosystem for web agent research, which unifies existing benchmarks from the literature.<n>We conduct the first large-scale, multi-benchmark web agent experiment and compare the performance of 6 state-of-the-art LLMs across 6 popular web agent benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T23:43:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.