arXiv:2606. 30863v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agents typically assume an expert user -- one with well-formed preferences about what they want -- and default to clarifying questions whenever the task is underspecified.
arXiv:2603. 21613v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recommender agents built on Large Language Models offer a promising paradigm for personalized recommendation.
arXiv:2608.22266v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In the context of information seeking, conversational agents are undergoing an evolution from reactive tools to proactive, personalized assistants. A c...
arXiv:2607. 19739v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Although large language models (LLMs) have recently gained traction in recommender systems due to their strong reasoning capabilities and extensive world knowledge, previous LLM-based agents suffer from hallucination and context-length limitations, and thus are not suitable for full-ranking recommendation tasks.
The rapid integration of large language model-based agents into recommender systems has driven a shift from static, ranking-based pipelines toward autonomous and interactive systems that can reason, plan, and act. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of this emerging landscape by introducing a unified taxonomy grounded in the level of autonomy and three core paradigms of agentic recommender systems: agent-assisted recommendation, agent-as-recommender, and agent-as-user-simulator.
Although large language models (LLMs) have recently gained traction in recommender systems due to their strong reasoning capabilities and extensive world knowledge, previous LLM-based agents suffer from hallucination and context-length limitations, and thus are not suitable for full-ranking recommendation tasks. To circumvent these limitations through architectural design rather than modifying the LLM itself, we propose an agent-based recommendation framework, memory-based $\textbf{P}$ersonalized $\textbf{R}$ecommendation $\textbf{T}$ool learning via autonomous language $\textbf{A}$gents (PRTA), in which an LLM acts as a central planner interacting with multiple recommendation models as tools.
arXiv:2609.37588v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Users of language-based assistive agents often make ambiguous requests. In response, an assistant can either directly act on its interpretation of the...
Users of language-based assistive agents often make ambiguous requests. In response, an assistant can either directly act on its interpretation of the request --- risking misalignment with the user --...
arXiv:2607. 25253v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Online recommendation has traditionally taken place after a user enters a platform, which determines the candidate pool and the ranking shown to the user.
arXiv:2511. 22130v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: To navigate ever-shifting real-world environments, agents must grapple with incomplete knowledge and adapt their strategies through experience.
CAR A is a recommendation framework that treats recommendation as a structured decision‑making process. It separates recommendation into two stages: candidate filtering, which narrows the search space using coarse preference constraints, and dual‑perspective decision modeling, which captures decisions through affective and rational judgments. A boundary‑aware KTO strategy is introduced to prioritize instructions that the model can solve occasionally but not consistently, thereby enriching preference signals. Experiments on three Amazon Reviews domains show CAR A outperforms baselines, achieving up to a 10.15% relative improvement on most metrics.
arXiv:2606. 10156v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As recommender systems transition toward agentic, multi-turn conversational interfaces, evaluation paradigms have struggled to keep pace.
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.