Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Rethinking Group Recommender Systems in the Era of Generative AI: From One-Shot Recommendations to Agentic Group Decision Support

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Group recommender research should move from ranked lists to chat-based AI agents that facilitate the group's whole decision process.

desk verdict A useful, honest position paper for group recommender systems; the proposed agenda is plausible, but the evidence for the motivating diagnosis is thin and needs to be treated as a hypothesis. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00535 v2 pith:Y6UPRDXI submitted 2025-07-01 cs.IR cs.AI

Dietmar Jannach , Amra Delić , Francesco Ricci , Markus Zanker This is my paper
classification cs.IRcs.AI
keywords grouprecommendersystemsgenerativeAIlargelanguagemodelsagenticchat-baseddecisionsupportconversationaldecision-makingLLMagents
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

After more than twenty-five years of research on group recommender systems, almost none are used in the real world. This essay argues that the reason is a mismatch between the field's core assumptions — that groups first state preferences, a system aggregates them, and members choose from a ranked list — and how groups actually decide, namely through discussion, negotiation, and shifting preferences. The paper proposes reorienting the field toward chat-based, agentic AI: an LLM-driven recommendation agent embedded in a normal messaging conversation that facilitates the entire decision process rather than emitting one-shot recommendations. This matters because, if the diagnosis is right, the research agenda, evaluation methods, and system designs of group recommendation would all need to change substantially.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the agentic group recommendation agent: an LLM-powered participant added to an existing group chat that combines Profile, Memory, Planning, and Action components, an architecture the paper adapts from LLM-agent survey work. This agent carries the argument by showing, concretely, how preference elicitation, summarization, explanation, proactive moderation, conflict de-escalation, and follow-through can be implemented as conversational moves rather than as aggregation functions. It also supplies the target for evaluation: the success of the proposed reorientation depends on whether such an agent can actually perform these facilitator roles reliably.

What would settle it

A controlled field study would settle the matter: groups planning a real joint activity would use either (a) a chat-based LLM agent that summarizes, elicits preferences, and moderates the discussion, or (b) a conventional system that aggregates stated preferences into a ranked list. If the agentic chat condition does not beat the list-based condition on decision satisfaction, time to decision, and perceived fairness, or if users in both conditions report they would not keep using the tool, the core claim of the paper is undercut. A complementary check is a systematic survey of platform providers on why group recommendation features are absent, which would test whether design mismatch or business and privacy constraints dominate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the standard group recommender pipeline — collect individual preferences, aggregate them, return a ranked list — is built on assumptions about communication and decision-making that do not fit real groups, and that this is why the technology has barely left the lab. The alternative it envisions is an agentic group recommender: a generative-AI agent that joins the group's own chat, tracks preferences as they are expressed and revised, summarizes the state of the discussion, explains and compares options, draws in silent members, moderates conflicts, and can even take follow-up actions such as making a reservation. The paper argues that modern large language models make these facilitator roles newly feasible, so the field should move from one-shot recommendations to ongoing, conversational decision support.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the near-total absence of deployed group recommender systems is caused by mismatched system designs and unrealistic usage scenarios, rather than by business, platform, or privacy barriers; the paper infers this from rarity of deployment without systematic causal evidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Group recommender research would shift its center of gravity from aggregation algorithms to the design of conversational facilitator agents.
  • Evaluation would move beyond offline precision and recall toward human-centric measures: choice satisfaction, perceived fairness and transparency, and efficiency and quality of the decision process.
  • Practical systems would be embedded in familiar messaging platforms such as WhatsApp or Telegram, rather than standalone applications that require users to sign in and rate items.
  • LLM-based simulations of group members with distinct preferences and negotiation styles would become a standard complementary evaluation method.
  • The same agentic approach could extend beyond text chat to multimodal settings such as group video calls, with the agent participating as an avatar.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mismatch diagnosis is correct, a similar critique probably applies to individual recommender research that assumes static profiles and list-based choice, suggesting a broader shift toward conversational decision support.
  • One direct way to test the reorientation would be a real-world field study in which groups planning an outing use either an agentic chat assistant or a conventional aggregated-list system, comparing decision satisfaction and repeated use.
  • The essay's causal story could be sharpened by interviewing platform providers about why group recommendation features are absent; business, privacy, or moderation costs may turn out to dominate design mismatch as explanations.
  • The most uncertain capability is LLM-based conflict detection and de-escalation; a small benchmark in which agents are asked to identify escalating disagreements in real group chats would cheaply test feasibility.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This perspectives paper argues that the group recommender systems (GRS) research community has over-focused on preference aggregation and offline evaluation, while real-world deployment of GRS remains rare. The authors claim that common assumptions about communication processes and decision-making in groups 'often may not match the needs or expectations of users,' and they call for a reorientation toward chat-based, agentic group decision support powered by generative AI and large language models. The paper reviews literature on human decision-making and chat-based group decision support, sketches a vision of an LLM-based group recommendation agent built on Profile, Memory, Planning, and Action modules, discusses technical, behavioral, and evaluation challenges, and concludes by advocating for a research agenda centered on human-centric, multi-faceted evaluation. The authors explicitly acknowledge that key parts of their vision, including the CHARM framework, have not yet been systematically evaluated.

Significance. If the proposed reorientation is adopted, it could substantially shift the research agenda and evaluation methodology for group recommender systems, moving from list-based aggregation to facilitator-style support of natural-language group discussion. The paper is valuable as a synthesis: it connects existing but fragmented work on chat-based group recommendation, polyadic chatbots, group dynamics, and LLM-based agents, and it offers a concrete architectural sketch. A notable strength is the paper's transparency: it flags the lack of evaluation of CHARM, identifies open technical challenges in LLM agent capabilities, and calls for interdisciplinary collaboration. The central limitation is that the motivating diagnosis—that scarce real-world adoption is primarily caused by mismatched design assumptions—is asserted rather than empirically established, and the feasibility of the envisioned agentic facilitator roles remains speculative. As a perspectives piece, it is most useful as a starting point for discussion and hypothesis generation rather than as a demonstrated solution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 1, 'Most worryingly' paragraph; Section 5, Summary] The paper's call for reorientation rests on the inference that the scarcity of real-world group recommender systems is primarily caused by incorrect assumptions about communication and decision-making in academic research. This causal diagnosis is not systematically supported: the paper does not compare alternative explanations such as business incentives, single-account consumption, privacy concerns, group membership management costs, or moderation burdens on platforms. The two early deployments cited, MusicFX and PolyLens, were reportedly well received in surveys, so they do not provide evidence of design-driven failure. Because Section 5 restates the diagnosis as a reason for the reorientation ('This observation should urge us to question...'), the argument overstates its evidential basis. I recommend either presenting evidence that links the lack of adoption to design assumptions (e.g., user studies or failure analyses), or explicitly reframing the diagnosis as a working hypothesis and discussing the alternative explanations in the text.
  2. [Section 1 (claims of LLM facilitator capability) versus Section 4 (Technical Challenges)] The essay asserts that modern LLMs are able to 'facilitate decision processes at higher levels in an agentic way,' including monitoring group behavior, identifying unheard members, stimulating contributions, and de-escalating conflicts, while Section 4 acknowledges that intent detection in multi-party chat, modeling human behavior, consistent multi-step planning, and moderator role-playing are open technical challenges. The manuscript would be more balanced if the feasibility claim was explicitly labeled as a hypothesis and if the authors cited any existing empirical evidence for such capabilities in multi-party or group settings, or stated that none exists. As written, the optimistic framing in the introduction and the challenge section may leave the reader with a stronger sense of technical readiness than the paper's own analysis warrants.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3 heading] The heading 'TOW ARDS GENERATIVE AI BASED GROUP RECOMMENDATION' contains a spacing error and should be 'TOWARDS GENERATIVE AI BASED GROUP RECOMMENDATION'.
  2. [References [8] and [9]] References [8] and [9] are identical (Delic et al., 2018, J. Inf. Technol. Tour. 19, 1-4, 87-116) and should be consolidated to avoid duplication.
  3. [Reference [23]] The title of reference [23] reads 'Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Rankers for ecommender Systems'; the word 'ecommender' should be 'Recommender'.
  4. [Section 4, Technical Challenges] The phrase 'consistent multi-step plans, which provable lead to the desired goal' contains a typo; 'provable' should be 'provably'.
  5. [Section 4, Understanding Group-Decision Making in Online Environments] The acronym 'GDDS' is introduced as 'Group Decision Support Systems (GDDS)'; the standard acronym in the literature is 'GDSS', and the paper should either use 'GDSS' or define its intended meaning clearly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the essay is an explicitly argued perspective piece with no fitted parameters, no equations, and no prediction that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a perspectives/opinion essay rather than a derivation-based paper. It makes no quantitative derivation, fits no parameters, and offers no empirical 'predictions' that could be forced by construction. The central claim—that common assumptions in group recommender research may not match user needs and that agentic, chat-based decision support is a promising reorientation—is explicitly presented as an argument and a vision ('we argue', 'we envision', 'we call for a reorientation'). Supporting material is drawn predominantly from external literature on group dynamics, conversational recommender systems, and polyadic chatbots, not from the authors' own prior results. The self-citations that do appear (CHARM [6], CAJO [56], Karahodža et al. [33], and related prior user studies) function as transparent provenance for ideas the essay builds on, rather than as evidence that proves the central claim. In fact, the essay acknowledges that the CHARM framework 'has not yet been systematically evaluated' and repeatedly flags key LLM facilitator capabilities—intent detection, human behavior modeling, consistent multi-step planning, and moderator role-playing—as open challenges in Section 4. The causal inference from scarce real-world deployment to design mismatch is arguable and untested, but that is a correctness or evidence risk, not circularity, because the conclusion is not defined in terms of its inputs and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation. No circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central argument rests on two unproven domain assumptions: that LLM capabilities transfer to multi-party facilitation, and that chat is the natural adoption medium. The more problematic premise is the ad hoc diagnosis of why adoption has failed, which is asserted without evidence. No free parameters are fitted, and the only invented entity is the proposed AI recommendation agent.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Group decision-making typically follows multi-stage, interactive processes (Orientation, Discussion, Decision, Implementation) that benefit from facilitation.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 via Forsyth's group dynamics [17] to justify chat-based support; treated as established social psychology knowledge, not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption LLMs can act as zero-shot recommenders, summarize text, and detect user intents with sufficient accuracy for group decision support.
    Cited from prior works [23, 15, 22] in Section 3; these capabilities are assumed to extend to multi-party group settings, which the paper itself notes is an open challenge.
  • ad hoc to paper The scarcity of real-world GRS deployments is primarily due to mismatched assumptions about user needs and usage scenarios.
    Asserted in Section 1 and 5 as the motivation for reorientation; no empirical evidence connects deployment failure specifically to design assumptions.
  • domain assumption Users prefer to make group decisions inside familiar chat environments rather than in dedicated GRS tools.
    Suggested in Section 1 ('it is probably much more likely that a group of friends might use a messenger app'); based on plausibility and earlier observational studies [10], but not directly tested for the proposed agent scenario.
invented entities (1)
  • AI-based group recommendation agent (Profile, Memory, Planning, Action modules)
    purpose: Joins group chats to summarize discussion, elicit preferences, explain recommendations, moderate conflicts, and perform follow-up actions such as reservations.
    Proposed as a vision in Section 3, adapted from Wang et al. [62] and Peng et al. [55]. No prototype, implementation, or falsifiable prediction is provided, so it has no independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rethinking Group Recommender Systems in the Era of Generative AI: From One-Shot Recommendations to Agentic Group Decision Support." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y6UPRDXI

@misc{pith2026250700535,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rethinking Group Recommender Systems in the Era of Generative AI: From One-Shot Recommendations to Agentic Group Decision Support},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y6UPRDXI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00535}
}
read the original abstract

More than twenty-five years ago, first ideas were developed on how to design a system that can provide recommendations to groups of users instead of individual users. Since then, a rich variety of algorithmic proposals were published, e.g., on how to acquire individual preferences, how to aggregate them, and how to generate recommendations for groups of users. However, despite the rich literature on the topic, barely any examples of real-world group recommender systems can be found. This lets us question common assumptions in academic research, in particular regarding communication processes in a group and how recommendation-supported decisions are made. In this essay, we argue that these common assumptions and corresponding system designs often may not match the needs or expectations of users. We thus call for a reorientation in this research area, leveraging the capabilities of modern Generative AI assistants like ChatGPT. Specifically, as one promising future direction, we envision group recommender systems to be systems where human group members interact in a chat and an AI-based group recommendation agent assists the decision-making process in an agentic way. Ultimately, this shall lead to a more natural group decision-making environment and finally to wider adoption of group recommendation systems in practice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00535 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Group Decision Making Scenario systems provide functionalities that go beyond reactive answering to user prompts. They can, for instance, construct plans for future actions, explain their reasoning, or invoke external tools to fulfill their tasks. Wang et al. [62] propose a general architecture for building LLM-based autonomous agents, consisting of four key components: Profile, Memory, Planning, Action (cf [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Capabilities of the Group Recommendation Agent, adapted from [55]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. AgentGR: Semantic-aware Agentic Group Decision-Making Simulator for Group Recommendation

    cs.IR 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    AgentGR uses semantic-aware LLM agents to simulate group decision dynamics and improve group recommendation accuracy over traditional aggregation methods.

  2. Autonomous Information Seeking: A Roadmap for Agentic Recommender Systems

    cs.IR 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    Agentic recommender systems are organized by agent role (assisted, as-recommender, as-simulator) crossed with autonomy levels L2–L5, yielding a roadmap of architectures, evaluation limits, and open challenges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aboelela, Elaine Larson, Suzanne Bakken, Olveen Carrasquillo, Allan Formicola, Sherry A

    Sally W. Aboelela, Elaine Larson, Suzanne Bakken, Olveen Carrasquillo, Allan Formicola, Sherry A. Glied, Janet Haas, and Kristine M. Gebbie. 2007. Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature. Health Services Research 42 (2007), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00621.x

    work page arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    Li Chen, Marco de Gemmis, Alexander Felfernig, Pasquale Lops, Francesco Ricci, and Giovanni Semeraro. 2013. Human Decision Making and Recommender Systems. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 3, 3 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2533670.2533675 Rethinking Group Recommender Systems in the Era of GenAI 1:15

    work page arXiv 2013

  3. [3]

    David Contreras, Maria Salamó, and Ludovico Boratto. 2021. Integrating Collaboration and Leadership in Conversa- tional Group Recommender Systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 39, 4 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3462759

    work page doi:10.1145/3462759 2021

  4. [4]

    Ravindranath Chowdary, and Chintoo Kumar

    Sriharsha Dara, C. Ravindranath Chowdary, and Chintoo Kumar. 2019. A survey on group recommender systems. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 54 (2019), 271 – 295. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:57427621

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Yashar Deldjoo, Zhankui He, Julian McAuley, Anton Korikov, Scott Sanner, Arnau Ramisa, René Vidal, Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, and Silvia Milano. 2024. A Review of Modern Recommender Systems Using Generative Models (Gen-RecSys). In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Barcelona, Spain) (KDD...

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Amra Delic, Hanif Emamgholizadeh, and Francesco Ricci. 2023. CHARM: A Group Recommender ChatBot. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 31st ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP ’23 Adjunct) . 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1145/3563359.3597388

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Amra Delic, Hanif Emamgholizadeh, Francesco Ricci, and Judith Masthoff. 2024. Supporting Group Decision-Making: Insights from a Focus Group Study. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, UMAP 2024. 301–306. https://doi.org/10.1145/3627043.3659538

    arXiv 2024

  8. [9]

    Amra Delic, Julia Neidhardt, Thuy Ngoc Nguyen, and Francesco Ricci. 2018. An observational user study for group recommender systems in the tourism domain.J. Inf. Technol. Tour.19, 1-4 (2018), 87–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40558- 018-0106-Y

    work page doi:10.1007/s40558- 2018

Show all 69 references
  1. [10]

    Amra Delic, Julia Neidhardt, Thuy Ngoc Nguyen, Francesco Ricci, Laurens Rook, Hannes Werthner, and Markus Zanker. 2016. Observing Group Decision Making Processes. InProceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys ’16) . 147–150. https://doi.org/10.1145/29...

    2016

  2. [11]

    Amra Delic, Julia Neidhardt, and Hannes Werthner. 2018. Group Decision Making and Group Recommendations. In 2018 IEEE 20th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI) , Vol. 01. 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1109/CBI.2018.00018

    2018

  3. [12]

    Colin Eden. 2020. Behavioral Considerations in Group Support . Springer International Publishing, Cham, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_34-1

    2020 doi

  4. [13]

    Alexander Felfernig, Ludovico Boratto, Martin Stettinger, and Marko Tkali. 2018. Group Recommender Systems: An Introduction (1st ed.). Springer

    2018

  5. [14]

    Alexander Felfernig, Christoph Zehentner, Gerald Ninaus, Harald Grabner, Walid Maalej, Dennis Pagano, Leopold Weninger, and Florian Reinfrank. 2012. Group Decision Support for Requirements Negotiation. In Advances in User Modeling. 105–116

    2012

  6. [15]

    Yue Feng, Shuchang Liu, Zhenghai Xue, Qingpeng Cai, Lantao Hu, Peng Jiang, Kun Gai, and Fei Sun. 2023. A Large Language Model Enhanced Conversational Recommender System. arXiv:2308.06212 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2308. 06212

    2023 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Kevin A. Fischer. 2023. Reflective Linguistic Programming (RLP): A Stepping Stone in Socially-Aware AGI (SocialAGI). arXiv:2305.12647 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12647

    2023 arXiv

  8. [17]

    D.R. Forsyth. 2019. Group Dynamics (7 ed.). Cengage

    2019

  9. [18]

    Luke Friedman, Sameer Ahuja, David Allen, Zhenning Tan, Hakim Sidahmed, Changbo Long, Jun Xie, Gabriel Schubiner, Ajay Patel, Harsh Lara, Brian Chu, Zexi Chen, and Manoj Tiwari. 2023. Leveraging Large Language Models in Conversational Recommender Systems. arXiv:2305.07961 [cs....

    2023 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Shengyue Guan, Haoyi Xiong, Jindong Wang, Jiang Bian, Bin Zhu, and Jian guang Lou. 2025. Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Survey. arXiv:2503.22458 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.22458

    2025

  11. [20]

    Necdet Gurkan and Bei Yan. [n. d.]. Chatbot Catalysts: Improving Team Decision-Making Through Cognitive Diversity and Information Elaboration. In ICIS 2023 Proceedings. https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10545067

    2023

  12. [21]

    Francesca Guzzi, Francesco Ricci, and Robin Burke. 2011. Interactive multi-party critiquing for group recommendation. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys ’11) . 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2043932.2043980

    2011

  13. [22]

    Zhankui He, Zhouhang Xie, Rahul Jha, Harald Steck, Dawen Liang, Yesu Feng, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Nathan Kallus, and Julian Mcauley. 2023. Large Language Models as Zero-Shot Conversational Recommenders. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Informati...

    2023

  14. [23]

    Yupeng Hou, Junjie Zhang, Zihan Lin, Hongyu Lu, Ruobing Xie, Julian McAuley, and Wayne Xin Zhao. [n. d.]. Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Rankers for ecommender Systems. InAdvances in Information Retrieval: 46th European Conference on Information Retrieval, ECIR 2024 . 364...

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    Yupeng Hou, Junjie Zhang, Zihan Lin, Hongyu Lu, Ruobing Xie, Julian McAuley, and Wayne Xin Zhao. 2023. Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Rankers for Recommender Systems. arXiv:2305.08845 [cs.IR] 1:16 Dietmar Jannach, Amra Delić, Francesco Ricci, and Markus Zanker

    2023 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Xu Huang, Weiwen Liu, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, Hao Wang, Defu Lian, Yasheng Wang, Ruiming Tang, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Understanding the planning of LLM agents: A survey. arXiv:2402.02716 [cs.AI] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.02716

    2024 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Andrea Iovine, Fedelucio Narducci, and Giovanni Semeraro. 2020. Conversational Recommender Systems and natural language: : A study through the ConveRSE framework. Decis. Support Syst. 131 (2020), 113250. https: //doi.org/10.1016/J.DSS.2020.113250

    2020

  18. [27]

    Anthony Jameson and Barry Smyth. 2007. Recommendation to Groups. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 596–627. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72079-9_20

    2007 doi

  19. [28]

    Willemsen, and Alexander Felfernig

    Anthony Jameson, Martijn C. Willemsen, and Alexander Felfernig. 2022. Individual and Group Decision Making and Recommender Systems. Springer US, New York, NY, 789–832. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-2197-4_21

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    Dietmar Jannach. 2022. Evaluating Conversational Recommender Systems. Artificial Intelligence Review 56 (2022), 2365–2400

    2022

  21. [30]

    Dietmar Jannach and Christine Bauer. 2020. Escaping the McNamara Fallacy: Towards more Impactful Recommender Systems Research. AI Magazine 41, 4 (2020), 79–95

    2020

  22. [31]

    Dietmar Jannach, Ahtsham Manzoor, Wanling Cai, and Li Chen. 2021. A Survey on Conversational Recommender Systems. Comput. Surveys 54, 5 (2021), 1–26

    2021

  23. [32]

    Yucheng Jin, Li Chen, Wanling Cai, and Xianglin Zhao. 2024. CRS-Que: A User-centric Evaluation Framework for Conversational Recommender Systems. ACM Trans. Recomm. Syst. 2, 1, Article 2 (March 2024). https://doi.org/10. 1145/3631534

    2024

  24. [33]

    Esma Karahodža, Amra Delić, and Francesco Ricci. 2025. Conceptual Framework for Group Dynamics Modeling from Group Chat Interactions. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP Adjunct ’25) . 5. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2025

  25. [34]

    Machiel Keestra, Lucas Rutting, Ger Post, Mieke de Roo, Sylvia Blad, and Linda de Greef. 2016. An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research: Theory and Practice . Amsterdam University Press

    2016

  26. [35]

    Marc Kilgour and Colin Eden (Eds.)

    D. Marc Kilgour and Colin Eden (Eds.). 2019. Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation . Springer. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1

    2019 doi

  27. [36]

    Soomin Kim, Jinsu Eun, Changhoon Oh, Bongwon Suh, and Joonhwan Lee. 2020. Bot in the Bunch: Facilitating Group Chat Discussion by Improving Efficiency and Participation with a Chatbot. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, H...

    2020

  28. [37]

    Soomin Kim, Jinsu Eun, Joseph Seering, and Joonhwan Lee. 2021. Moderator Chatbot for Deliberative Discussion: Effects of Discussion Structure and Discussant Facilitation. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW1 (2021), 87:1–87:26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449161

    2021 doi

  29. [38]

    Mohammad Amin Kuhail, Imran Taj, Saifeddin Alimamy, and Bayan Abu Shawar. 2024. A review on polyadic chatbots: trends, challenges, and future research directions. Knowledge and Information Systems online first (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-024-02287-0

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    Sung-Chul Lee, Jaeyoon Song, Eun-Young Ko, Seongho Park, Jihee Kim, and Juho Kim. 2020. SolutionChat: Real-time Moderator Support for Chat-based Structured Discussion. In CHI ’20. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376609

    2020

  31. [40]

    Yaniv Leviathan and Yossi Matias. 2018. Google Duplex: An AI System for Accomplishing Real-World Tasks Over the Phone. https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natural-conversation.html

    2018

  32. [41]

    Elisabeth Lex, Dominik Kowald, Paul Seitlinger, Thi Ngoc Trang Tran, Alexander Felfernig, and Markus Schedl. 2021. Psychology-informed Recommender Systems. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 15, 2 (2021), 134–242. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000090

    2021 doi

  33. [42]

    Xitong Li. 2018. Impact of Average Rating on Social Media Endorsement: The Moderating Role of Rating Dispersion and Discount Threshold. Info. Sys. Research 29, 3 (2018), 739–754. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2017.0728

    2018

  34. [43]

    Junling Liu, Chao Liu, Renjie Lv, Kang Zhou, and Yan Zhang. 2023. Is ChatGPT a Good Recommender? A Preliminary Study. arXiv:2304.10149 [cs.IR]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Tariq Mahmood and Francesco Ricci. 2009. Improving recommender systems with adaptive conversational strategies. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia (HT ’09) . 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1557914.1557930

    2009

  36. [45]

    Bilyana Martinovski. 2021. Role of Emotion in Group Decision and Negotiation. In Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation, D. Marc Kilgour and Colin Eden (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, 157–192. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-030-49629-6_5

    2021

  37. [46]

    Judith Masthoff. 2015. Group Recommender Systems: Aggregation, Satisfaction and Group Attributes . Springer US, 743–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7637-6_22

    2015 doi

  38. [47]

    Judith Masthoff and Amra Delic. 2022. Group Recommender Systems: Beyond Preference Aggregation. InRecommender Systems Handbook, Francesco Ricci, Lior Rokach, and Bracha Shapira (Eds.). Springer US, 381–420. https://doi.org/10. Rethinking Group Recommender Systems in the Era of...

    2022

  39. [49]

    McCarthy and Theodore D

    Joseph F. McCarthy and Theodore D. Anagnost. 1998. MusicFX: an arbiter of group preferences for computer supported collaborative workouts. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ’98). 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1145/289444.289511

    1998

  40. [50]

    Kevin McCarthy, Lorraine McGinty, Barry Smyth, and Maria Salamó. 2006. The Needs of the Many: A Case-Based Group Recommender System. In Advances in Case-Based Reasoning . 196–210

    2006

  41. [51]

    Shabnam Najafian, Amra Delic, Marko Tkalcic, and Nava Tintarev. 2021. Factors Influencing Privacy Concern for Explanations of Group Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP ’21). 14–23. https://doi.org/10....

    2021

  42. [52]

    Ngoc Nguyen and Francesco Ricci. 2017. A Chat-Based Group Recommender System for Tourism . 17–30. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51168-9_2

    2017 doi

  43. [53]

    Ingrid Nunes and Dietmar Jannach. 2017. A Systematic Review and Taxonomy of Explanations in Decision Support and Recommender Systems. User-Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 27, 3–5 (2017), 393–444

    2017

  44. [54]

    Konstan, and John Riedl

    Mark O’Connor, Dan Cosley, Joseph A. Konstan, and John Riedl. 2001. PolyLens: A Recommender System for Groups of Users. In ECSCW 2001: Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work . 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48019-0_11

    2001 doi

  45. [55]

    Qiyao Peng, Hongtao Liu, Hua Huang, Qing Yang, and Minglai Shao. 2025. A Survey on LLM-powered Agents for Recommender Systems. arXiv:2502.10050 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.10050

    2025 arXiv

  46. [56]

    Francesco Ricci and Amra Delić. 2025. Widening the Role of Group Recommender Systems with CAJO. arXiv:2504.05934 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.05934

    2025 arXiv

  47. [57]

    Laurens Rook, Adem Sabic, and Markus Zanker. 2020. Engagement in proactive recommendations.Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 54, 1 (2020), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-018-0529-0

    2020 doi

  48. [58]

    Markus Schedl, Oleg Lesota, Stefan Brandl, Mohammad Lotfi, Gustavo Junior Escobedo Ticona, and Shahed Masoudian

  49. [59]

    Wentao Shi, Xiangnan He, Yang Zhang, Chongming Gao, Xinyue Li, Jizhi Zhang, Qifan Wang, and Fuli Feng. 2024. Large Language Models are Learnable Planners for Long-Term Recommendation. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in I...

    2024

  50. [60]

    Shilpa Singhal and Kunwar Pal. 2024. State of art and emerging trends on group recommender system: a comprehensive review. International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval 13 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13735-024-00329-5

    2024 doi

  51. [61]

    Nava Tintarev and Judith Masthoff. 2007. A Survey of Explanations in Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Web Personalisation, Recommender Systems and Intelligent User Interfaces (WPRSIUI’07) . IEEE Computer Society, 801–810. https://doi.org...

    2007

  52. [62]

    Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, Wayne Xin Zhao, Zhewei Wei, and Jirong Wen. 2024. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Frontiers of Computer Science 18, 6 (2024), 186345....

    2024 doi

  53. [63]

    Likang Wu, Zhi Zheng, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hao Wang, Hongchao Gu, Tingjia Shen, Chuan Qin, Chen Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Qi Liu, Hui Xiong, and Enhong Chen. 2023. A Survey on Large Language Models for Recommendation. arXiv:2305.19860 [cs.IR]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [64]

    Bei Yan and Necdet Gurkan. 2023. It Depends on the Timing: The Ripple Effect of AI on Team Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

    2023

  55. [65]

    Asaf Yehudai, Lilach Eden, Alan Li, Guy Uziel, Yilun Zhao, Roy Bar-Haim, Arman Cohan, and Michal Shmueli-Scheuer

  56. [66]

    Zhiwen Yu, Xingshe Zhou, Yanbin Hao, and Jianhua Gu. 2006. TV Program Recommendation for Multiple Viewers Based on user Profile Merging. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 16, 1 (2006), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257- 006-9005-6

    2006 doi

  57. [67]

    Zhang and Justin Cranshaw

    Amy X. Zhang and Justin Cranshaw. 2018. Making Sense of Group Chat through Collaborative Tagging and Summa- rization. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3274465

    2018 doi

  58. [68]

    Jizhi Zhang, Keqin Bao, Wenjie Wang, Yang Zhang, Wentao Shi, Wanhong Xu, Fuli Feng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2025. Envisioning Recommendations on an LLM-Based Agent Platform. Commun. ACM 68, 05 (April 2025), 48–57. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3699952

    2025 doi

  59. [69]

    Jesús Álvarez Márquez and Jürgen Ziegler. 2018. Negotiation and Reconciliation of Preferences in a Group Recom- mender System. Journal of Information Processing 26 (02 2018), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.2197/ipsjjip.26.186

    2018 doi

  60. [2024]

    arXiv:2408.12492 [cs.IR] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2408.12492

    The Importance of Cognitive Biases in the Recommendation Ecosystem. arXiv:2408.12492 [cs.IR] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2408.12492

    arXiv

  61. [2025]

    arXiv:2503.16416 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16416

    Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents. arXiv:2503.16416 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16416

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.