Explanations play a crucial role in creating trustworthy recommender systems (RS), yet choosing a good explanation method presents challenges. Many explanation methods exist, but little guidance exists on which is best for which setting. Existing explanation generation methods often produce abstract outputs that require further formatting to become user-friendly, with a seemingly endless pool of options. Running user-based evaluations of all possible options is usually unfeasible, while automated evaluation metrics often either assess only the explainer's abstract output or require comparison with a ground truth, which is generally unavailable. Recent studies have shown that large language models (LLMs) can serve as ``judges'' for explanation evaluation, but their reliability has not yet been thoroughly explored. This paper studies the utility of LLMs in selecting an effective explanation method for a given application. We first explore their ability to generate explanation prototypes given varying information about the RS and the user. Specifically, we generate 18 distinct explanation prototypes, which are subsequently evaluated by 14 LLMs of varying sizes across two temperature settings. We compare these against human ratings derived from a user study. Our results show that while LLMs exhibit human-like rating patterns and achieve moderate rank correlation with human raters, their absolute rating agreement is low and varies substantially by model size and evaluation construct. We derive four practical recommendations: keep explanation-generation prompts concise, prefer larger models for evaluation, pre-test evaluation constructs, and audit explanations for factual accuracy, as neither humans nor LLMs reliably detect non-factual content.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01627
Large language models (LLMs) are trained on corpora that contain expressions of human judgment about films, books, music, and more. Yet whether LLMs systematically reproduce evaluative hierarchies remains unclear. Prior research on cultural bias in LLMs suggests competing expectations: models may mirror the popularity signals of internet texts, or may reproduce forms of prestige embedded in critical discourse. We probe this question through a study of film evaluations with eight models from four families (Anthropic, OpenAI, Alibaba, and Mistral), using a 200-film benchmark partitioned into critically acclaimed, commercially successful, and dual-legitimacy (critical acclaim + commercial success) films. Across 20,000 pairwise forced-choice comparisons per model analyzed with Bradley--Terry estimation, we observe a consistent critical acclaim orientation with all models: critically acclaimed yet commercially obscure films are selected over commercially successful yet critically unrecognized ones. This pattern grows with model scale within each family. In addition, nested OLS regression analyses show that evaluative orientation, public visibility, and popular reception distinctly help explain preferences. Adjusting for public visibility reverses the models' preference for dual-legitimacy films over critical acclaim-only films, while additionally accounting for popular reception attenuates much of the disadvantage of films with commercial success only. Finally, evaluative and recommendation-oriented prompt framings produce divergent rankings, suggesting that critical acclaim orientation may manifest indirectly in real-world LLM deployments.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06955
Foundation model(FM) for recommendation has shown strong ability to model long-horizon sequential user behavior. In practice, a single pretrained foundation model is often adapted to diverse downstream serving surfaces through Supervised Fine-Tuning(SFT). However, optimizing task-specific objectives such as clicks or likes does not necessarily align the serving policy with the business metrics that determine recommendation quality. We propose a three-phase progressive post-training framework that explicitly separates downstream adaptation from business-metric alignment. The adaptation stage is decomposed into Linear Probing(LP) and Full Fine-Tuning(FFT): LP first stabilizes randomly initialized downstream heads within a frozen pretrained representation space, and FFT then jointly specializes the full model for the target task. On top of this stabilized policy, Reinforcement Fine-Tuning(RFT) aligns the model with practical business objectives using a learned reward model. Rather than directly optimizing the serving policy on sparse business targets, we train the policy on dense implicit feedback and use business-metric supervision only for reward modeling. Offline experiments show that the progressive LP-FFT-RFT framework outperforms single-phase alternatives, and that reward-based alignment yields a stronger serving policy than directly using the reward model itself for ranking. Large-scale online A/B tests further show that the proposed framework improves production recommendation quality over a conventional non-foundation baseline. A reference implementation is available at this https URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06792
Industrial recommendation systems predominantly adopt a passive ranking paradigm that infers user preferences from implicit behavioral signals (e.g., clicks, dwell time) rather than explicit, natural language inputs. As a result, users experience a persistent discrepancy between their explicit interests and what passive behavioral algorithms deliver, limiting their ability to express nuanced preferences or steer their feed in real time. To address this growing gap between how recommendations are optimized and how users wish to articulate their interests, we present Shape Your Feed (SYF), an LLM-based agentic recommendation framework that enables real-time, multimodal co-curation of content. SYF employs a three-tier architecture: (i) a Perception Flow that captures fine-grained user intent from text prompts, voice commands, and UI interactions; (ii) a Serving Flow that performs real-time agentic re-ranking and pruning of candidate items, grounded in a persistent Semantic Profile encoding evolving user preferences; and (iii) a Self-Evolution Flow that aligns system behavior with human judgments via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) and an LLM-as-a-Judge ensemble. Offline evaluations show that SYF's alignment scoring module achieves 98.85% accuracy, substantially improving over strong few-shot baselines. Large-scale online A/B experiments on production traffic further demonstrate that SYF improves feed relevance and user sentiment, indicating a practical and scalable path toward interactive, user-steerable recommendation in industrial settings.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06632
Agentic AI promises a more flexible form of digital agency: systems that can act on users' behalf, from filtering content to negotiating prices to selecting services. Whether it will empower users is an open question, and we argue that the answer depends on more than the technology. We conduct a comparative case analysis of four more mature domains where similar forms of agency arose: browser-based ad blockers, platform recommender systems, financial robo-advisors, and email spam governance. Across the cases, decisions about whose interests agents would serve were resolved through technical arrangements: API choices, protocol governance, industry standards, and default configurations. Beyond their technical form, these were political decisions. We identify this as depoliticization, a concept from political theory, here at work in technological systems. Its most consequential effect is that individual outcomes and collective contestation capacity can move in opposite directions: spam inbox quality improved substantially while the organized capacity to contest spam governance collapsed. Where intermediary institutions sustained adversarial challenge, user-aligned agency proved more durable; where proprietary infrastructure and closed standard-setting absorbed contestation, displacement compounded. We apply this to agentic AI, where governance arrangements consolidating around the Model Context Protocol and the Agentic AI Foundation are settling these configurations before the choices that define what agents can do move outside the reach of users and the public.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06510
Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit strong Python preferences when generating project-level code, but there is currently no systematic way to measure this behaviour across new models. To bridge this gap, we introduce LangChoiceBench, a project-level code-generation benchmark for measuring Python preference, recommendation-implementation consistency, and language diversity. LangChoiceBench covers 28 projects across seven software areas where Python is often a poor default. We evaluate 25 diverse LLMs and find that Python remains heavily over-selected, recommendation-implementation consistency is low, and smaller open-weight models generally show stronger Python preference and lower language diversity. We further analyse 9,826 reasoning traces and find that most Python choices are automatic or driven primarily by ease, rather than explicit consideration of project requirements. In a smaller but important set of cases, models fabricate contextual support for choosing Python - a failure mode we call phantom evidence - or produce code that contradicts the language selected in their own reasoning.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06041
Safety risks of AI are becoming increasingly evident in human interactions with AI technologies. The prominent approaches to evaluating these risks favor technical methods, such as model benchmarks and LLM simulations, often sidelining empirical research with human subjects. To examine this apparent gap in the acceptance of human research, we conduct an expert survey (n=93) and expert interviews (n=17) with AI Safety & Ethics (AISE) researchers from Technical, Sociotechnical, Governance, and Normative backgrounds. Our findings suggest that although there is a consensus that human research is valuable for generating evidence for AISE, its adoption and acceptance are constrained by perceived validity issues, tangible resource barriers, epistemic and personal preferences in methods, and infrastructural constraints from the broader research community. In particular, Technical researchers tend to value human research less and collaborate across disciplines less, suggesting an epistemic tension towards human methods. We propose recommendations for establishing the epistemic fit of human research within AISE and bridging the prohibitive limitations that researchers face, while avoiding performative 'human-washing'.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05656
Attorneys, judges, and pro se filers increasingly use AI to draft legal documents, yet these tools frequently fabricate citations. Despite predictions that newer models would hallucinate less or that court sanctions would deter negligent filers, we found over 1,000 filings containing fabricated citations---with this number growing year-over-year. This study evaluates whether AI-based systems can mitigate these errors by automatically detecting hallucinations. We propose a taxonomy of legal citation hallucinations grounded in actual court filings and introduce a dataset of 1,300 brief excerpts containing injected errors. Benchmarking five models in agentic and non-agentic settings as well as Claude Code reveals that while the latest iterations perform better---GPT-5 achieves 84.4% recall and a 55.0% F1 score in an agentic framework---all models struggle with subtle error categories. Agentic verification remains resource-intensive, with GPT-5 averaging 15.3 steps per excerpt. Furthermore, restricted information access limits the efficacy of even the best agents. This gap creates policy concerns, as it disadvantages both AI systems and litigants who lack subscriptions to commercial legal databases. Together, our dataset, tools, and policy recommendations provide a foundation for building and auditing reliable legal citation checking tools.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.21155
Context-aware recommender systems have long recognized that factors such as location, time, and weather shape where and what people choose to eat. Existing weather-aware food and point-of-interest recommenders, however, typically treat weather generically -- mapping conditions to preferences through hand-crafted rules or specially trained context models -- and do not capture that the culturally appropriate response to weather is itself region-specific: a rainy evening calls for hot tea and fried snacks in one culinary culture and for very different comfort food in another. Encoding such weather-by-region-by-cuisine interactions as explicit rules or training data is brittle and does not scale. We present a weather- and location-aware agentic dining-recommendation system that takes a different approach: a large language model (LLM) orchestrates tools for location and weather retrieval and then reasons in natural language over the combined context, drawing on the cultural and culinary world knowledge already latent in the model to produce region-sensitive, weather-appropriate recommendations without per-region rule tables or specialized training. We describe the agent architecture, the tool-orchestration flow (Google location services and a weather service feeding an OpenAI LLM), and the reasoning mechanism, and we report on a working prototype that was implemented and briefly deployed end-to-end. We discuss design trade-offs -- cost, latency, ambiguity handling, and fallbacks -- and we are explicit about limitations, including the absence of a formal user study and the risk of cultural stereotyping in locality-based inference. The contribution is architectural: a simple, extensible pattern for incorporating environmental and cultural context into agentic recommendation through LLM reasoning rather than engineered rules.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07593
AI-supported care planning can help clinicians, patients, caregivers, and care teams coordinate complex decisions across clinical, functional, psychosocial, and environmental needs. However, many AI systems present recommendations as fixed outputs, limiting stakeholders' ability to inspect, challenge, and revise plans when they conflict with clinical judgment, patient values, or real-world feasibility. We present CoPlan - a Co-Intelligent and Contestable Interface for Human-AI Care Planning. CoPlan uses a multi-agent workflow in which specialized AI agents generate candidate interventions and supporting or challenging arguments, while human care planners can accept, reject, modify, or add arguments before final plan generation. Through this design, CoPlan combines co-intelligence, in which humans and AI agents contribute complementary expertise, with contestability, where recommendations remain open to inspection, revision, and justification. We demonstrate CoPlan in an aging-in-place care planning scenario. The system supports adaptive care team recruitment, role-based argument review, final care plan generation, and practical follow-up through scheduling agents. This work contributes a contestable care planning interface and a design framing for trustworthy human-AI care planning that preserves human agency and clinical accountability.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05107
Retail investors lack access to the kind of personalized, tax-aware portfolio management that institutional clients take for granted -- existing robo-advisors use static, rule-based allocation, and institutional-grade systems require account minimums and technology stacks unavailable to individual investors. We present a fully built, integration-tested application that closes this gap: a FastAPI backend and web dashboard that let a user describe an investment goal in plain language (e.g. "I want steady growth but need to sell some shares next month for a down payment"), routes that goal to one of six investment mandates, and produces a live, broker-integrated portfolio recommendation from athree-phase reinforcement learning system -- a self-supervised cross-asset encoder, a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) allocation policy with a learned intent router, and a lightweight LoRA adapter that personalizes recommendations from an individual's revealed brokerage behavior without retraining the shared model. The system is functionally complete and integration-tested end-to-end against a live brokerage API (Alpaca, paper-trading mode), including multi-user authentication, a trust first preview-before-apply confirmation flow, daily email digests, and an auditable action-integrity chain, but has not yet been opened to real end-users; we report this honestly as an emerging, pre-deployment application with a concrete path to full deployment, alongside 14-day walk-forward backtests (bootstrapped confidence intervals included) as preliminary, pre-deployment validation rather than production performance. We also report several practical engineering lessons -- silently-inactive integration paths, hanging third-party API calls, and the value of end-to-end empirical verification over trusting checkpoint metadata -- that we believe generalize to other applied RL systems built on external, live data sources.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05255
Research agents increasingly conduct multi-round machine-learning experiments in industrial recommendation settings and retain the resulting trajectories to guide later decisions. Yet a completed trajectory is not automatically evidence: generated artifacts may be unsupported or incomplete, executed rounds may be invalid or confounded, and later modifications may obscure earlier findings. We study \textbf{trajectory-to-evidence conversion}, asking what a completed research process has actually established. We introduce an evidence-grounded framework that couples bounded verification of consequential artifacts with post-execution claim qualification. A context-isolated generate--verify--repair process checks artifacts for evidence violations and missing downstream requirements before release. After execution, validity and attribution checks consolidate evidence across rounds, qualify intervention-level claims as actionable repairs, diagnostic guards, or withheld findings, and preserve admitted claims as auditable records with explicit provenance and applicability boundaries. A hybrid LLM-assisted controller subsequently applies, defers, or rejects records based on available target evidence. Record audits characterize which claims survive qualification, while downstream diagnostics identify affirmative applicability judgment as a bottleneck for the tested controller. Across paper-to-target adaptations, later rounds often improve on the first, while final rounds frequently underperform an earlier best, exposing non-monotonic trajectory evolution. Candidates produced through the complete workflow also yielded positive online lifts relative to deployed baselines.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05235
The daily allocation of the finite 24-hour time budget is strongly associated with physical, mental, and cognitive health. While predictive models can estimate the relationship between time-use compositions and health outcomes such as body mass index, life satisfaction, and cognition, most optimization approaches focus only on maximizing expected benefit and do not consider the uncertainty inherent in data-driven prediction. Ignoring uncertainty in health-related decisions can lead to unrealistic time-use recommendations. To address this gap, we introduce an uncertainty quantification Quality Diversity (QD) framework for a more reliable time-use recommendation. Objective functions are derived using compositional data analysis using a large child cohort dataset n > 1000, to capture the relationship between daily activity compositions and multiple health indicators. We develop a new approach that incorporates predictive uncertainty into QD processes and produces more reliable recommendations that balance the expected health benefits with the confidence of the model. We explore the solution space through variable-based and objective-based behavioral representations, revealing diverse high-quality time-use composition and explicit relationships between health outcomes under uncertainty. By embedding uncertainty directly into optimization, our framework shifts the time-use recommendations toward regions of lower uncertainty while preserving high-quality structures for more reliable decision-making in behavioral health.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05230
Industrial recommendation strategy iteration heavily relies on large-scale A/B experimentation. Traditional tuning requires experts to repeatedly design strategies, configure experiments, analyze results, and adjust parameters, making the process labor-intensive and time-consuming. Meanwhile, valuable knowledge from historical experiments is often fragmented, making systematic reuse difficult through manual expert effort alone. Existing RAG agents partially alleviate this burden by retrieving prior strategies, but typically organize experience in a flat manner, overlooking the hierarchical relationships among business scenarios, recommendation stages, optimization objectives, and experimental contexts. This often results in mismatched retrieval and limited cross-scenario transfer, while preventing agents from continuously refining strategies and parameters through sequential A/B feedback. % To address these limitations, we propose A/B Agent, a closed-loop A/B agent for industrial recommendation strategy optimization. The framework comprises three tightly coupled core components: Historical Strategy Knowledge Organization, Autonomous Target-Aware Strategy Generation, and Experiment-Guided Strategy Self-Evolution. It organizes historical strategies into a hierarchical experience tree, retrieves transferable evidence through multi-path Tree-RAG to generate executable strategies, and continuously analyzes online A/B feedback to guide autonomous tuning and update the experience tree for self-evolution. Extensive offline and online evaluations demonstrate its effectiveness, including a 4.829% improvement in GMV in a real-world short-video e-commerce recommendation system while maintaining positive gains across all guardrail metrics.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04625
Social media recommendation feeds often optimize for users' immediate impulses rather than preferences they would hold after deeper reflection. Some systems address this misalignment by incorporating users' explicit preferences via a configuration page or in-feed controls instead of just behavioral signals. However, users typically have evolving preferences, and their stated preferences and behavior naturally diverge, necessitating continuous reflection and feed realignment. But existing strategies require the user to take initiative and are often effortful; as a result, in practice they are rarely invoked. We present Compass, a system that aligns a user's feed with their reflective preferences by helping users reflect on and articulate their preferences given their behavior. To enable continuous reflection during everyday browsing, Compass surfaces in-situ reflections via lightweight notifications, while feed alignment is achieved by periodically simulating behavioral signals and directly manipulating feed content. We embedded Compass within YouTube Shorts and compared it against a baseline without continuous support through a 10-day field study (N=15). We found that Compass promoted more reflective and purposeful feed consumption, iterative preference adjustment, and stronger feed alignment, without sacrificing the casual nature of feed browsing.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04274
Recent years have witnessed an explosive trend of scaling ego-centric human videos for robot manipulation, yet it remains unclear which data actually benefits dexterous manipulation. We present SiMDex, a similarity-based data mining framework that casts human data selection for VLA post-training in dexterous manipulation as a recommendation problem. For each robot demonstration, SiMDex employs a three-layer recall-ranking-re-ranking pipeline to extract task-relevant subsets from a pool of ~32M egocentric human samples, operating in a morphology-agnostic action space that requires no changes to VLA architecture or training. Against a strong baseline trained with an equal amount of randomly sampled human data, SiMDex uses only ~1.49M mined samples (<5% of the pool) yet improves the overall success rate from 47.7% to 61.1%, showing that selective curation outperforms indiscriminate data mixing.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04196
We identify a previously overlooked failure mode of ALiBi positional encoding: its linear bias scaling underflows floating-point precision, which zeroes out a large fraction of attention weights and renders the affected attention heads partially blind. We analyze this failure mode, characterize its impact, and examine four mitigation strategies. We further demonstrate its occurrence in state-of-the-art pretrained models based on ALiBi. Comprehensive pretraining experiments with 148M-parameter decoder models help us to disentangle its effects from out-of-context degradation. We find that ALiBi's failure mode can substantially impair token retrieval while having only a minor effect on standard decoder benchmarks. We propose four training-time mitigation strategies and evaluate them individually and in combinations, finding that log-scaled distances yield the most consistent improvements in passkey retrieval. Despite this problem, default ALiBi slopes remain a surprisingly strong baseline, particularly for needle-in-a-haystack retrieval. Based on these findings we provide concrete recommendations on how to train models with ALiBi.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03994
We study linear representations of temporal horizon in the large language model Qwen3-32B and use them to change the model's time-related preferences, recommendations, and capabilities. We train contrastive linear probes on teacher-forced temporal-choice answers to find a short-term versus long-term direction in the model's residual stream, and evaluate contrastive activation-addition steering on a held-out binary temporal-choice task, an out-of-distribution monetary intertemporal-choice task, and a TravelPlanner capability benchmark. The central result is that temporal-horizon directions can be identified with simple contrastive linear probes and then used for steering to induce large, bidirectional preference changes. On an out-of-distribution monetary choice task that varies reward size and delay, steering strongly shifts the model's indifference threshold between smaller-sooner and larger-later rewards in both directions. We further show improvements on a planning-related capability metric under moderate temporal steering. These results suggest that model intertemporal preferences are measurable and steerable, which is relevant for AI systems that give advice involving delayed costs and benefits, and for safety questions about long-horizon planning.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03892
This white paper presents ADMITBench, a reference framework for evaluating industrial LLM advisories at the level of the proposed action. The framework implements a versioned, safety-governed evaluation contract that checks whether a recommendation is supported by the available evidence, permitted under the stated authority and procedure, and acceptable under the plant-specific consequence checks encoded in the selected evaluation profile. In this report, \emph{safety-governed} means that eligibility is determined through explicit, non-compensatory checks derived from a versioned plant profile; it does not mean that the evaluator, model, or plant has been safety-certified. Release 0.1.0 is a public reference implementation for technical and research evaluation, not an authorisation for physical execution.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03866
Assessing children's wellbeing and mental health can be particularly challenging for children experiencing communication barriers, such as children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) and children with forced migration backgrounds. During the assessment process, traditional self-report questionnaires place substantial demands on language comprehension and verbal expression. In this context, social robots have emerged as a promising tool for supporting wellbeing assessment without solely relying on self-report questionnaires, yet limited research has examined how such interactions can be designed to be inclusive, appropriate, and ethically acceptable for children with diverse communication needs. To address this gap, we created candidate child--robot interaction activities as design probes and conducted focus groups with parents and professionals supporting children with DLD and children with forced migration backgrounds. Through thematic analysis, we identified considerations relating to robot role and capabilities, interactional dynamics, individual differences, and child agency, alongside population-specific considerations shaped by children's communication needs and lived experiences. Based on these findings, we derive a set of ethical and inclusive design recommendations for robot-mediated wellbeing assessment. By foregrounding these considerations and recommendations, this work contributes design guidance for inclusive robot-mediated wellbeing assessments for children with diverse communication needs.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03820