arXiv AI

Whose hotel does the AI recommend? An algorithm audit of reputation signals in LLM-assisted hotel selection

arXiv:2606. 16344v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Travelers increasingly ask large language model (LLM) assistants which hotel to book, making these systems gatekeepers of property visibility -- yet what moves their recommendations is undocumented.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 17

"If I Had to Buy Just ONE: Galaxy S26 Ultra": Auditing AI-Generated Product Recommendations

arXiv:2609.18729v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Consumers increasingly use AI chatbots for advice on what to buy. With companies like OpenAI and Google monetising their AI through advertising, this...

By Lucas G. Uberti-Bona Marin, Thales Bertaglia, Giovanni Astante, Bram Rijsbosch, Gijs van Dijck, Anik\'o Hann\'ak, Gerasimos Spanakis, Konrad Kollnig
arXiv AI
Sep 17

Whom Do AI Agents Work For? Role Assignment Induces Sponsorship Bias in LLM Recommenders

The paper investigates how role assignment in large language model (LLM) recommenders influences sponsorship bias. By assigning the agent’s principal as either a traveler or a booking platform, the authors find that platform delegation reduces the penalty applied to sponsored listings and weakens consumer skepticism triggered by disclosure. The study also shows that stricter terminology and attribution to the platform widen the divergence in agent evaluations, indicating that current disclosure mandates are insufficient to protect consumers in AI-mediated commerce.

By Davood Wadi, Yu Ma
arXiv AI
6d ago

PriceBench: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Price, Quality, and Brand Preferences in LLM Booking Agents

PriceBench is a diagnostic benchmark that extracts price, quality, and brand preferences from large language models (LLMs) by analyzing their hotel booking choices. Using a logit choice model, the study evaluated 28 LLMs from eight providers across 3,600 booking tasks involving 179 New York City hotels. Results show that more capable LLMs exhibit stronger, more consistent preferences, while weaker models either lock onto a single position or show near-indifference, with significant variation in price sensitivity and price/quality trade-offs across providers.

By Pavel Kireyev
arXiv AI
Aug 17

Whose doctor does the AI recommend? An algorithm audit of reputation and demographic signals in large language model-assisted physician choice

arXiv:2608. 14399v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Patients increasingly ask large language model (LLM) assistants which doctor to see, making these systems AI infomediaries: algorithms that intermediate one person's choice among other people and thereby decide, silently and at scale, which physicians become visible.

By Syeda Anshrah Gillani, Mirza Samad Ahmed Baig
arXiv AI
Jun 17

Would a Large Language Model Pay Extra for a View? Inferring Willingness to Pay from Subjective Choices

arXiv:2602. 09802v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in applications such as travel assistance and purchasing support, they are often required to make subjective choices on behalf of users in settings where no objectively correct answer exists.

By Manon Reusens, Sofie Goethals, Toon Calders, David Martens
arXiv AI
Aug 20

The Lifecycle of LLM-as-a-Judge for Large-Scale Recommendation Explanations

The paper introduces a lifecycle framework for LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to evaluate recommendation explanations at Netflix. It outlines four phases—Birth, Training, Deployment, and Monitoring—detailing how each stage addresses specific technical and operational challenges. The authors report that after five weeks of A/B testing, judge-aligned explanations increased novel content viewing and successful browse-to-play sessions without quality takedowns.

By Emma Yanyang Kong, JJ Tan, Ishan Gupta, Lars Olds, Claire Campbell, David Fagnan, Veli Balin, Rohan Gosain, Louis Garcia, Minsu Jang
arXiv AI
Sep 15

Safety as a Constraint: Fine-Tuning a LLM Recommender to Explain Itself

The paper presents a method for fine‑tuning a large language model (LLM) recommender to generate personalized, non‑harmful explanations for its recommendations. By training two LLM‑judge reward models and using constrained GRPO, the authors achieve a significant increase in the PASS rate for all three criteria, from 0.649 to 0.956 on their own judges and from 0.677 to 0.931 on an independent judge. The fine‑tuned model maintains its original recommendation performance, demonstrating that LLM‑based recommenders can be adapted to complex tasks without loss of effectiveness.

By Jiashu He, Emma Yanyang Kong, JJ Tan, David Fagnan