AIarXiv
Ranked by formulaVerdict: NotableHARP: Training-Free Dual-Profile Agentic Communication for LLM-Based Recommendation
In LLM-based recommendation, memory acts as a user-level agent in a memory-augmented backbone.
VerdictWorth a reader's time today.
Abstract
In LLM-based recommendation, memory acts as a user-level agent in a memory-augmented backbone. Yet users and items remain asymmetric: only the user is given a structured profile; it enters a bandwidth-limited reranker prompt; and it is frozen after warmup. We recast LLM-based recommendation as an agentic-communication process in four stages: BUILD a self-description, TRANSMIT it along the collaborative graph, UNDERSTAND the other side, and SYNC it from the next interaction. This formulation reveals three unresolved communication challenges: the item side never produces a comparable self-description (one-sided BUILD); profile-level signals enter only the bandwidth-limited reranker prompt rather than retrieval, where they would not compete for context tokens (prompt-trapped UNDERSTAND); and the user's description is frozen after warmup with no principled update rule (absent SYNC). We instantiate the missing stages as HARP (Homophily-aware Agentic Recommendation via dual Profiles), a training-free, three-operator addition to a frozen LLM backbone: a rule-extracted symmetric item profile (zero extra LLM calls), a channel-decomposable profile-level homophily H(phi_u, phi_i) consumed at retrieval time rather than inside the reranker prompt, and a single-pass reflective update realising in-context profile evolution without any gradient step. On four public benchmarks (Yelp, Books, MovieTV, Goodreads), HARP lifts Hit@1 over the strongest published baseline by 6.9%-24.0%, with family-wise Holm-corrected p < 1e-9 on every dataset. Ablations and a per-case attribution study show that the operators contribute complementary gains, with the retrieval-side gate as the main source; we also report the trade-off introduced by the reflective pass. We formulate agentic communication and provide a training-free instantiation. Code is available at https://github.com/Jove-Zhen/HARP.
The editor's rubric
- Leverage4 / 5
- A general-purpose tool used across several fields (Adam, ResNet, LoRA, next-generation sequencing).
- Magnitude3 / 5
- Large gain: roughly 2x, or a clear new state of the art on a hard, unsaturated problem.
- Evidence4 / 5
- Strong: large scale, preregistered, independently replicated, or a well-powered randomized trial.
- Novelty3 / 5
- A genuinely new approach to an open problem.
- Trajectory3 / 5
- A clear path to scale.
- Stakes2 / 5
- Benefits a professional community (practitioners, clinicians, engineers).
Editor’s rationale
Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: breadth (many tasks, zero/few-shot); gains (relative gain); novelty (alternative to status quo); verification (multiple benchmarks, ablations, code released); stakes (general AI).
How the score was computed
Desks place stronger verdicts first, then use this score to order work within the same verdict.
- Merit
- 6.6 / 10
- Adjusted merit
- 5.1 / 10
- Attention
- 0%
- Freshness
- 80%