Is Your LLM-as-a-Recommender Agent Trustable? LLMs' Recommendation is Easily Hacked by Biases (Preferences)

Recently, the fast development of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has significantly advanced NLP tasks by enhancing the capabilities of conversational models. However, the application of LLMs in the recommendation domain has not been thoroughly investigated. To bridge this gap, we propose LLMRec, a LLM-based recommender system designed for benchmarking LLMs on various recommendation tasks. Specifically, we benchmark several popular off-the-shelf LLMs, such as ChatGPT, LLaMA, ChatGLM, on five recommendation tasks, including rating prediction, sequential recommendation, direct recommendation, explanation generation, and review summarization. Furthermore, we investigate the effectiveness of supervised finetuning to improve LLMs' instruction compliance ability. The benchmark results indicate that LLMs displayed only moderate proficiency in accuracy-based tasks such as sequential and direct recommendation. However, they demonstrated comparable performance to state-of-the-art methods in explainability-based tasks. We also conduct qualitative evaluations to further evaluate the quality of contents generated by different models, and the results show that LLMs can truly understand the provided information and generate clearer and more reasonable results. We aspire that this benchmark will serve as an inspiration for researchers to delve deeper into the potential of LLMs in enhancing recommendation performance. Our codes, processed data and benchmark results are available at https://github.com/williamliujl/LLMRec.

Transformer-based agentic AI is rapidly being deployed on major platforms to help users shop, watch, and navigate content with less effort. While these systems can deliver impressive performance, a key concern is whether they may be less reliable than they appear. We ask a simple but fundamental question: whether the mechanisms that make transformer-based agents effective can also induce systematic biases or distortions? We study this question through a theoretical analysis of transformer-based generative recommenders, in which the next user interaction is generated sequentially from the user history. Focusing on how the model allocates attention across historical evidence, we identify four bias channels: (i) Positional bias: stronger positional encoding shifts influence toward recent history, improving responsiveness but potentially reducing stability and long-term diversity; (ii) Popularity amplification: small frequency differences in data can be magnified into disproportionate exposure, contributing to Matthew effects and echo chambers; (iii) Latent driver bias: when important drivers of user choices are not directly observed, the model can place overly concentrated weight on a small subset of past events, creating overconfident attributions. (iv) Synthetic data bias: when users increasingly follow AI suggestions and platforms retrain on model-shaped synthetic logs, outputs can concentrate over time, and long-tail alternatives can disappear first. Our analysis highlights mechanism-level reliability risks that may not be visible in offline performance metrics. The four bias channels indicate that large-scale deployment may systematically distort exposure and choice. For managers, the immediate implication is to treat these as operational risk factors and to monitor concentration and drift over time, rather than assuming that performance gains alone guarantee reliability.

Large language models are increasingly used as interactive recommender assistants. Their evaluation should therefore go beyond plausible item recommendation and test whether they can recognize flawed recommendation requests. Existing recommender benchmarks mainly assess ranking, generation, or preference satisfaction, while existing error-detection benchmarks are usually not grounded in recommendation-specific user and candidate evidence. To address this gap, we introduce RPCBench, a benchmark for evaluating Recommender-Premise Critique: the ability to detect, diagnose, and properly handle faulty premises in natural-language recommendation requests. RPCBench contains evidence-grounded test instances from five recommendation domains and covers ten types of premise failures. Each instance provides a visible recommendation context and a corrupted user query. We further design a fine-grained evaluation framework that measures proactive detection, error localization, post-detection handling strategy, and evidence faithfulness. Through a systematic evaluation of 11 LLMs, we find that proactive detection is the main bottleneck in Recommender-Premise Critique, and models perform worst on underspecified-premise errors. We also observe that target-critical information density matters more than redundant evidence, and that longer reasoning does not monotonically improve critique quality: performance peaks at intermediate reasoning length, while overly long reasoning is accompanied by an overthinking penalty. The code is available at https://github.com/ZhongruChen/RPCBench.