The emergence of agentic recommender systems powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) represents a paradigm shift in personalized recommendations, leveraging LLMs’ advanced reasoning and role-playing capabilities to enable autonomous, adaptive decision-making. Unlike traditional recommendation approaches, agentic recommender systems can dynamically gather and interpret user-item interactions from complex environments, generating robust recommendation strategies that generalize across diverse scenarios. However, the field currently lacks standardized evaluation protocols to systematically assess these methods. To address this critical gap, we propose: (1) an interactive textual recommendation simulator incorporating rich user and item metadata and three typical evaluation scenarios (classic, evolving-interest, and cold-start recommendation tasks); (2) a unified modular framework for developing agentic recommender systems; and (3) the first comprehensive benchmark comparing over 10 classical and agentic recommendation methods. Our findings demonstrate the superiority of agentic systems and establish actionable design guidelines for their core components. The benchmark environment has been rigorously validated through an open challenge and remains publicly available with a maintained leaderboard at https://tsinghua-fib-lab.github.io/AgentSocietyChallenge/pages/overview.html. The benchmark is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/SGJQovo/AgentRecBench.

With the rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs), recent studies employed LLMs as recommenders to provide personalized information services for distinct users. Despite efforts to improve the accuracy of LLM-based recommendation models, relatively little attention is paid to beyond-utility dimensions. Moreover, there are unique evaluation aspects of LLM-based recommendation models, which have been largely ignored. To bridge this gap, we explore four new evaluation dimensions and propose a multidimensional evaluation framework. The new evaluation dimensions include: 1) history length sensitivity, 2) candidate position bias, 3) generation-involved performance, and 4) hallucinations. All four dimensions have the potential to impact performance, but are largely unnecessary for consideration in traditional systems. Using this multidimensional evaluation framework, along with traditional aspects, we evaluate the performance of seven LLM-based recommenders, with three prompting strategies, comparing them with six traditional models on both ranking and re-ranking tasks on four datasets. We find that LLMs excel at handling tasks with prior knowledge and shorter input histories in the ranking setting, and perform better in the re-ranking setting, beating traditional models across multiple dimensions. However, LLMs exhibit substantial candidate position bias issues, and some models hallucinate nonexistent items much more often than others. We intend our evaluation framework and observations to benefit future research on the use of LLMs as recommenders. The code and data are available at https://github.com/JiangDeccc/EvaLLMasRecommender.

In the era of information explosion, numerous items emerge every day, especially in feed scenarios. Due to the limited system display slots and user browsing attention, various recommendation systems are designed not only to satisfy users' personalized information needs but also to allocate items' exposure. However, recent recommendation studies mainly focus on modeling user preferences to present satisfying results and maximize user interactions, while paying little attention to developing item-side fair exposure mechanisms for rational information delivery. This may lead to serious resource allocation problems on the item side, such as the Snowball Effect. Furthermore, unfair exposure mechanisms may hurt recommendation performance. In this paper, we call for a shift of attention from modeling user preferences to developing fair exposure mechanisms for items. We first conduct empirical analyses of feed scenarios to explore exposure problems between items with distinct uploaded times. This points out that unfair exposure caused by the time factor may be the major cause of the Snowball Effect. Then, we propose to explicitly model item-level customized timeliness distribution, Global Residual Value (GRV), for fair resource allocation. This GRV module is introduced into recommendations with the designed Timeliness-aware Fair Recommendation Framework (TaFR). Extensive experiments on two datasets demonstrate that TaFR achieves consistent improvements with various backbone recommendation models. By modeling item-side customized Global Residual Value, we achieve a fairer distribution of resources and, at the same time, improve recommendation performance.