跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.04203 · v1

Toward User-Centered Agentic Recommendation: When Does Platform Competition Benefit Users?

首次提交 2026-11-03 10:41
版本更新 2026-11-03 10:41
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:40
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Conventional recommender systems operate within platform-specific catalogs, limiting access to potentially valuable resources across platforms. We propose user-centered agentic recommendation, a paradigm in which user agents compare recommendations from competing platform agents, and formalize their interaction as a repeated game. Platforms strategically modify descriptions without changing intrinsic item value, while each user agent assesses platform credibility using feedback from consumed items only. Our analysis shows that expanded resource access need not improve user welfare: strategic misrepresentation and limited verification can offset the benefits of platform competition. We quantify when platform credibility assessment allows users to benefit from broader access despite strategic exaggeration. Our analysis identifies resource and reporting conditions that guarantee higher average welfare than the original platform with an interaction budget linear in platform count. Experiments on synthetic and Amazon-grounded markets show that credibility assessment can improve finite-horizon utility, while its benefits depend on market size and mechanism parameters.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-03 10:41 · 最新观测版本

Toward User-Centered Agentic Recommendation: When Does Platform Competition Benefit Users?

Conventional recommender systems operate within platform-specific catalogs, limiting access to potentially valuable resources across platforms. We propose user-centered agentic recommendation, a paradigm in which user agents compare recommendations from competing platform agents, and formalize their interaction as a repeated game. Platforms strategically modify descriptions without changing intrinsic item value, while each user agent assesses platform credibility using feedback from consumed items only. Our analysis shows that expanded resource access need not improve user welfare: strategic misrepresentation and limited verification can offset the benefits of platform competition. We quantify when platform credibility assessment allows users to benefit from broader access despite strategic exaggeration. Our analysis identifies resource and reporting conditions that guarantee higher average welfare than the original platform with an interaction budget linear in platform count. Experiments on synthetic and Amazon-grounded markets show that credibility assessment can improve finite-horizon utility, while its benefits depend on market size and mechanism parameters.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗