Toward User Preference Alignment in LLM Recommendation via Explicit Context Feedback

Traditional recommender systems (RecSys) primarily infer user preferences from implicit signals (such as clicks, watches, and purchases), often neglecting the rich explicit contextual feedback users provide through verbal text, like comments and reviews. This explicit context feedback captures the nuanced reasons behind user decisions regarding their preferences. In addition, it offers critical heterogeneous information for user preference alignment and more explainable recommendations. Overlooking such signals can lead to misaligned user preferences and further reinforce filter bubbles, as algorithms fail to understand the "semantic context" behind user choices. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) present new opportunities to harness user-generated content for more accurate and diverse recommendations, yet current LLM-based recommendations still focus on using item meta-data and underutilize this resource. In this paper, we advocate for prioritizing explicit context feedback in the next generation of LLM-based RecSys. We review the evolution of recommendation paradigms, highlight the value of context-rich feedback, call for new benchmarks and metrics, and introduce frameworks for integrating explicit user signals into scalable LLM-driven RecSys. Centering on user-preference modeling, we aim to foster more personalized, transparent, and explainable RecSys online platforms.

GEO-Bench: Benchmarking Ranking Manipulation in Generative Engine Optimization

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rank products, documents, and recommendations for user queries, which makes manipulating these rankings a growing concern for fairness and information integrity. Research on generative engine optimization (GEO) has produced many manipulation methods, but each is evaluated on its own dataset with its own metrics, so their relative strength and detectability stay unclear. We present GEO-Bench, a benchmark that evaluates GEO ranking-manipulation attacks under one protocol. It unifies black-box prompt-based attacks (TAP, Zero-Shot), white-box gradient-based attacks (STS, RAF, StealthRank), and ten white-hat C-SEO strategies. We score every method on five datasets against a fixed open-weight ranker (Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct), using metrics for both effectiveness (NRG, Success@α, Promote@α) and stealth (keyword violation rate, perplexity ratio). Our evaluation shows that effectiveness and stealth trade off across adversarial attacks, that black-box content rewriting matches or exceeds gradient-based attacks on rank promotion while producing more fluent text and can evade both keyword- and perplexity-based detection on some domains, and that the access model does not predict attack strength. By standardizing datasets, attack implementations, and metrics, GEO-Bench enables the first direct comparison across these attack paradigms and supports the development of detection methods.

Designing Active Tether-Net Systems for Space Debris Capture with Graph-Learning-Aided Mixed-Combinatorial Optimization

Active tether-net systems are a promising solution for capturing large non-cooperative targets, such as space debris, by deploying a flexible net manipulated by maneuverable units (MUs). However, concurrent systematic explorations of design and control choices of the tether-net system to understand its full potential remain limited, partly due to the complex, constrained, nonlinear optimization problem that it presents -- one that involves a mixture of continuous, integer and categorical variables, with the latter two arising from net connectivity and component choices, respectively. Classical binary encoding methods are often ineffective for solving highly nonlinear and multimodal Mixed Combinatorial Nonlinear Programmings (MCNLPs) in engineering design, while integer coding approaches can introduce spurious relations among combinations. Given the graph-structured characteristics of the combinatorial space, this paper adopts and extends a new graph-learning-aided optimization approach to solve this MCNLP problem. Here, a Graph Neural Network (GNN) is trained to score (as output) and thereof recommend candidate combinations represented as nodes in a graph, with the continuous variable vector portion of a candidate design given as input. As a result, the MCNLP optimization reduces to an NLP, which can be solved using standard solvers. While this reduction approach is agnostic to the choice of the NLP solver, here a state-of-the-art Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm with gradient-based fine-tuning is used as the solver. Demonstrated on the problem of concurrently designing the morphology of the net, choice of mass and thrusters in the MUs and aiming points used by the controller of the tether-net system, the GNN-based recommender is shown to provide significantly faster convergence to similar optimal solutions, compared to direct solution of the MCNLP problem.

The Trust Paradox: How CS Researchers Engage LLM Leaderboards

Large language model (LLM) leaderboards rank AI models using standardized benchmarks and have become highly visible across computer science, despite known limitations in their reliability and robustness. Yet how they shape researchers' actual practice remains empirically uncharted. We address this gap through semi-structured interviews with eight researchers across four computer science subfields, analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. We find a near-universal paradox of pragmatic skepticism: while participants expressed deep distrust of leaderboard rankings, they continued to use them as rough decision-making aids. Peer networks, not leaderboards, emerged as the primary model selection mechanism, and arena-based (human-voting) leaderboards were consistently preferred over static benchmark leaderboards. Leaderboard influence varied sharply across subfields, revealing that disciplinary culture, not individual attitudes, mediates engagement; for instance, NLP researchers faced state-of-the-art comparison pressure while HCI and Systems/Privacy researchers reported none. Across these differences, however, participants converged on cost transparency as the most demanded missing feature (seven of eight). We translate these findings into concrete design recommendations that align evaluation infrastructure with how researchers actually use it, such as task-specific score breakdowns, cost integration, and voter-demographic disclosure.

Looking Farther with Confidence: Uncertainty-Guided Future Learning for Sequential Recommendation

Sequential recommendation effectively models dynamic user interests but continues to face challenges related to data sparsity. While self-supervised learning has alleviated this issue to some extent, most existing methods focus exclusively on immediate next-item prediction during training, thereby neglecting the rich information embedded in longer-term future interactions. Although a few studies have explored the utilization of future data, existing attempts typically apply future supervision signals with uniform intensity across all samples, which may lead to suboptimal solutions. In this paper, we propose an adaptive future learning framework, UFRec, which encourages the model to look further ahead when it is confident in the current state, while focusing on the immediate task when it is uncertain. Specifically, UFRec incorporates an Uncertainty-Guided Future Supervision module that dynamically modulates the weight of multi-step future supervision based on the model's confidence in the primary next-item prediction task. Furthermore, we complement step-wise future supervision with a Future-Aware Contrastive Learning module that treats the future trajectory as a holistic entity. Notably, both auxiliary modules are utilized exclusively during training and incur no inference overhead. Extensive experiments on four benchmark datasets demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art approaches by effectively leveraging future data.

BiasEdit: A Training-Free Bias-Detect-and-Edit Framework for Learning Fair Visual Classifiers

Visual data from the Web power image classifiers, which often underpin many web services, such as recommendation and content moderation. However, the raw Web data often contain spurious correlations and social biases, and neural networks are known for their tendency to learn biases present in data. This can reinforce unfairness in web services and the web data, leading to a vicious cycle. In the context of image classification, networks learn bias attributes for a specific class when a majority of images contain the same attribute only for a given class. Hence, training a fair and debiased classifier from a biased dataset demands handling an imbalanced problem between a majority of images with bias attributes (bias-aligned samples) and a minority without (bias-conflict samples). In this work, we introduce BiasEdit, a modular framework that automatically detects bias attributes from the original dataset and edits them to construct a debiased dataset. Specifically, BiasEdit first detects unknown bias attributes via statistical dependence and mutual information analysis of visual-linguistic representations, and then explicitly edits those attributes using text-guided image editing to generate realistic bias-conflict samples. Unlike prior works that assume known bias attributes or relies on synthetic mixing, our method operates without manual annotations and can leverage off-the-shelf vision-language and editing models. BiasEdit addresses a fundamental challenge in Web-sourced visual AI, mitigating dataset-induced bias and achieving state-of-the-art debiasing performance even when training data are fully biased.

AI, Take the Wheel: What Drives Delegation and Trust in Human-Computer Cooperative Question Answering?

AI systems are fallible, and humans can make mistakes in deciding whether to trust AI over their own judgment. Thus, improving human-AI collaboration requires understanding when, why, and how humans decide to rely on AI. We study two distinct reliance decisions: the delegation choice -- deciding when to let AI act autonomously without knowing its output, and the adoption choice -- evaluating AI suggestions and deciding how to use them. Both of these decoupled reliance patterns shape collaboration, but prior work rarely studies them together in realistic settings with the same users. We address this gap by studying collaborative human--AI teams competing in a question-answering game in which humans can choose when and how to work with AI agents to win. Our 24 matches pair 23 expert humans with 16 AI agents, capturing 387 delegation and 1440 adoption decisions. While human--AI collaboration performs better than either AI or humans alone, humans make suboptimal collaboration decisions, both under-relying on correct AI suggestions (3.9% of opportunities missed) and over-relying when AI misleads them (1.7%). Both parties contribute wrong answers: reported model confidence is near chance when humans and AI disagree, while confirmation bias drives higher under-reliance (64.5%) when an AI suggestion agrees with humans' initial incorrect answer. To close this gap, we recommend calibrated confidence, evidence-grounded explanations, and mechanisms that help users refine trust.

Whose Name Comes Up? III: Persona Prompting Effects in LLM-Based Scholar Recommendation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as scholar recommenders, shaping who is seen as an expert in academia. Existing audits remain English-centric, single discipline, and persona-agnostic, leaving the source of output variability poorly understood. To this end, we propose a benchmark that disentangles the effects of model choice and prompt design on recommendations. We audit 43 LLMs by varying persona prompts (language, location, role-and-task) and context (field, seniority, k). Recommended scholars are compared against Semantic Scholar over six scientific disciplines to measure technical quality (factuality, coverage) and social representativeness (diversity, parity). Basic technical quality is driven by model choice, factuality and parity by context, and diversity by location. South Africa prompts yield less factual lists, while Japan prompts yield highly factual but homogeneous lists skewed toward highly productive scholars. Prompt design is thus a non-trivial axis of LLM-based scholar discovery and should be systematically audited alongside model choice.

Mixture-of-Experts Knowledge Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Multi-Agent LLM-based Recommendation

Large language models (LLMs) have recently been adopted for recommendations due to their ability to understand user intent and item semantics. However, LLM-based recommender systems often rely on parametric knowledge and suffer from outdated knowledge, motivating knowledge graph retrieval-augmented generation (KG-RAG) to ground recommendations on structured, up-to-date KGs. Despite this promise, effective KG-RAG in recommendations faces great challenges. First, users' queries vary in complexity and require KG knowledge at different granularities, whereas existing methods adopt a one-size-fits-all retrieval strategy, leading to over-retrieval for simple queries and under-retrieval for complex ones. In addition, augmenting LLMs with KG knowledge requires translating graph-structured data into linear text, which may introduce noise and cause structural information loss. Moreover, the selection of retrieval granularity lacks direct supervision and must be inferred from the final recommendation after alignment and downstream utilization, making query-aware retrieval hard to learn end-to-end. To address these issues, we propose MixRAGRec, a cooperative multi-agent framework for KG-RAG recommendations. MixRAGRec integrates a Mixture-of-Experts Retrieval Agent that routes each query to a KG retrieval expert with different granularities, a Knowledge Preference Alignment Agent that converts structured knowledge into LLM-friendly natural language, and a Contrastive Learning-reinforced Recommendation Agent trained with contrastive preference feedback. Notably, we introduce Mixture-of-Experts Multi-Agent Policy Optimization (MMAPO) to train three agents under a unified objective. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework.

BuddyBench: A Privacy-Constrained Multi-Task Benchmark for Pediatric Social-Communication Personalization

BuddyBench introduces a privacy-constrained multi-task benchmark for pediatric social-communication personalization. Unlike existing neurodevelopmental repositories that primarily emphasize imaging, genetics, or cross-sectional clinical phenotyping, BuddyBench links drill-level learning trajectories, standardized clinical assessments, BuddyPlan self-report, and randomized-treatment endpoints within a unified benchmark schema. BuddyBench combines two cohorts: ND-03 is an observational cohort with dense drill coverage for Tasks1-2 (n = 189), and ND-02 is a randomized controlled trial cohort for Tasks3-4 (n = 86 ITT). Together, they support knowledge tracing, next-drill recommendation, clinical prediction, and causal inference, linking behavioral personalization to clinical evaluation. We additionally introduce BuddyBench-Sim, a synthetic companion dataset for reproducible evaluation. Baselines show signal across tasks while keeping pediatric clinical records protected.