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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Harp at a glance. A user with a niche query in a half-dialogue session, compared with the full dialogue restored by Harp . HARP integrates three training-free innovations: Dual Profile (§ 3.2 ), Homophily Gate (§ 3.3 ), and Reflection (§ 3.4 ).
Figure 2: Harp pipeline overview. Upper : story strip illustrating the flow of a user’s query across the entire pipeline. Lower : block-exploded technical view with input/output annotations and equation references.
Channel c
User field ϕu(c)
Item field ϕi(c)
preference
interests
serves
quality
quality_bar
quality_signal
context
context
context
audience
behavior
audience
Table 1: Four-channel correspondence between user and item profiles.
Books
Goodreads
Paradigm
Model
H@1
H@3
N@3
H@5
N@5
H@1
H@3
N@3
H@5
N@5
Trad.
LightGCN †
.175
.326
.260
.570
.359
.250
.588
.443
.790
.526
SASRec †
.091
.283
.200
.485
.282
.132
.352
.258
.541
.335
P5 †
.219
.361
.299
.527
.367
.157
.323
.251
.506
.326
Agent (match)
Vanilla LLM †
.314
.562
.453
.727
.523
.286
.466
.395
.739
.504
iAgent †
.393
.556
.486
.691
.541
.262
.495
.395
.659
.463
Table 2: Main results on four benchmarks. Bold = best, underline = second best; † = from original paper. “Rel. Improv.” = relative improvement over the strongest published baseline. All H@1 improvements p<10−9 (Holm–Bonferroni corrected).
Config
ϕu
ϕi
CH
RI
Sync
H@1
H@3
H@5
N@3
N@5
Memory
.580
.761
.855
.683
.722
Monologue
✓
✓
.578
.738
.824
.671
.707
Consult
✓
✓
✓
.580
.750
.842
.678
.716
Dialogue
✓
✓
✓
.635
.804
.888
.728
.763
Harp
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
.643
.808
.889
.734
.767
Table 3: Harp ablation (Yelp subsplit). CH = retrieval-side homophily gate; RI = reranker prompt injection; Sync = reflection.
Figure 3: Five-rung ablation ladder (four benchmarks, matched 1,000 -user subsplits). (a) Hit@1; (b) Hit@3; (c) NDCG@3. Red numbers = total gain (pp) over Memory .
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
n
hits
Harp H@1
Wilson 95% CI
MemRec
p -value
Books
7,377
4,034
0.5468
[0.5355,0.5582]
0.5117
7.8×10−10
Goodreads
11,734
5,498
0.4686
[0.4595,0.4776]
0.3997
<10−16
MovieTV
5,649
3,641
0.6445
[0.6320,0.6569]
0.5882
<10−16
Yelp
2,950
1,782
0.6041
[0.5863,0.6216]
0.487
<10−16
Appendix
Table 4: Harp vs. MemRec, per-dataset binomial test on the full test split. n and hits are computed from our evaluation on the full InstructRec test splits; MemRec numbers are from the MemRec paper’s Tables 2–3.
Figure 4: Per-metric radar visualisation of the main results. Each subplot is one metric (H@1, H@3, N@3, H@5, N@5); the four vertices correspond to the four benchmarks; each polygon is one method. Harp (red, bold) is the outermost polygon at every vertex of every metric; MemRec (dark blue, up-triangle) is the closest competitor per benchmark but lies strictly inside Harp .
Figure 5: Cross-dataset five-rung ladder on four metrics (H@1, H@3, N@3, N@5). Each subplot is one metric; each line within a subplot is one dataset (Yelp in red diamonds). The Monologue → Dialogue transition is the largest single-rung jump on Yelp, MovieTV and Books; the Consult rung falls back near Memory ; Harp adds a small residual from prompt injection and Sync (positive on Yelp/MovieTV/Goodreads, slightly negative on Books). The ordering is stable across all four metrics.
Figure 6: Repair source decomposition: each Harp -over- Memory repair is attributed to Pillar 2 (Dial-rep) or Pillar 3 (Sync-rep). Dark green = Pillar 2, light green = Pillar 3; the right-hand annotation gives the total number of repairs and Pillar 2’s share.
Transition
H@1 A
H@1 B
only A✓
only B✓
Gap (pp)
p -value
Memory → Monologue
0.580
0.578
79
77
−0.20
0.94
Monologue → Dialogue
0.578
0.635
51
108
+5.70
7.2×10−6
Dialogue → Consult
0.635
0.580
104
49
−5.50
1.0×10−5
Consult → Harp
0.580
0.643
43
106
+6.30
2.5×10−7
Memory → Harp (overall)
0.580
0.643
62
125
+6.30
4.8×10−6
Appendix
Table 5: Pairwise McNemar tests across adjacent configurations on the deep-analysis split ( 1,000 -user Yelp). “only A✓ ” = users for whom A hits and B misses; “only B✓ ” = reverse; Gap =H@1B−H@1A in pp; p -value is the exact two-sided binomial under b=c . The non-significant row Memory → Monologue serves as a designed negative control : injecting the profile into the reranker prompt without changing retrieval scoring has no measurable effect on Hit@1, which isolates the Monologue → Dialogue step (moving the same profile to the retrieval-side homophily gate) as the locus of gain. Dialogue → Consult is the corresponding reverse-ablation : switching the retrieval-side gate back to prompt-side injection incurs a significant drop of −5.5 pp ( p=1.0×10−5 ), providing directional confirmation that Dialogue is the component responsible for the gain.
Symbol
Meaning
VU,VI
User and item sets; NU,NI their sizes
Hu , Iu
User u ’s interaction history and evaluation instruction
NU(u),NI(u)
k -nearest user/item neighbours of u from a fixed collaborative embedding
C
Channel set {preference,quality,context,audience} , ∣C∣=4
ϕv,ϕv(c)
Agent v ’s JSON profile (four channel fields) and its channel- c field
H(ϕu,ϕi)
Profile-level homophily (Eq. 6 ); Hc its channel- c component
Appendix
Table 6: Notation used throughout § 3 . All symbols are introduced at first use; this table is an index.
Parameter
Value
LLM backbone (all operators)
gpt-4o-mini-2024-07-18
LLM temperature (all inference / retrieval calls)
0.0
LLM max tokens (reranker etc. main calls)
4000
Neighbors k
16
Facets Nf
7
Candidate list ∣C∣
10
Appendix
Table 7: Complete hyperparameter settings. LLM calls use top_p =1 (OpenAI default, not explicitly overridden).
Category
# misses
% of 357
Signature
Sync-reg (near-miss)
167
46.8%
GT ∈ Dialogue top-3 but dropped out of Harp top-1
B1 (vocabulary mismatch)
18
5.0%
instruction token ∩ user preference phrases =∅
B2 (reranker bandwidth)
21
5.9%
scoretop-1−scoreGT≤0.2
LLM-prior
151
42.3%
score gap >0.3 with no preference-overlap evidence
Other
0
0.0%
residual
Total misses
357
100%
(Hit@1 =643/1000=0.643 )
Appendix
Table 8: Per-case attribution of the 357 Harp misses on the 1,000 -user Yelp split. Near-misses (“Sync-reg”) dominate: nearly half of all Harp misses are users whose ground truth was in the Dialogue top-3 but is not ranked first by Harp ; this bucket includes the Sync-hurts pattern of Case 1 (User 157) in Appendix E.5 but is not by itself a regression count. The LLM-prior residual ( 42.3% ) sets a natural ceiling for what any three-operator addition to a memory-augmented backbone can achieve without touching the reranker-level prior. “Sync-reg” is an audit category specific to this per-miss attribution and should not be conflated with the B3 Communicative Drift bottleneck of § 3.5 , which Sync is designed to address rather than to cause.
Dataset
deepseek-v3.2
gemini-3-flash
qwen3-30b
Yelp
.510 / .586
.424 / .471
.479 / .647
MovieTV
.545 / .651
.474 / .527
.481 / .590
Books
.393 / .584
.578 / .596
.507 / .596
Goodreads
.347 / .418
.283 / .392
.318 / .389
Appendix
Table 9: Hit@1 of MemRec / Harp with other backbones.
Generative recommendation (GR) has emerged as a promising direction for recommender systems. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have been increasingly adopted for GR, as their rich pretrained knowledge is expected to help them generalize beyond common user behavior patterns that traditional memorization-oriented baselines can capture. However, existing LLM-based GR works largely ignore LLMs' well-known tendency to memorize, which, if present in LLMs fine-tuned for GR, would restrict their utilization of pretrained knowledge. In this work, we investigate this concern by examining one-hop memorization, where a model recommends items that are direct successors of items in the training data. We show that LLMs do this more than non-LLM-based GR models-in fact, the vast majority of their gains over GR baselines are actually on users whose target items can be predicted through one-hop memorization. We intuit that improving performance on the remaining users requires LLMs to learn richer item-item relations beyond one-hop transitions. To achieve this, we propose IIRG, a novel training strategy that teaches LLMs to capture: (1) collaborative relations derived from item co-occurrences across multiple hops in user sequences, and (2) semantic relations among items with similar themes, both of which can serve as useful recommendation signals. We show that IIRG significantly improves over LLMs trained solely with standard next-item prediction, with especially large gains for users whose test items are not covered by train-time one-hop transitions.
Although large language models (LLMs) have recently gained traction in recommender systems due to their strong reasoning capabilities and extensive world knowledge, previous LLM-based agents suffer from hallucination and context-length limitations, and thus are not suitable for full-ranking recommendation tasks. To circumvent these limitations through architectural design rather than modifying the LLM itself, we propose an agent-based recommendation framework, memory-based Personalized Recommendation Tool learning via autonomous language Agents (PRTA), in which an LLM acts as a central planner interacting with multiple recommendation models as tools. The LLM-based agent is responsible for high-level reasoning and personalized tool selection, while traditional recommendation models perform full-ranking scoring, leveraging their scalability in modeling behavioral patterns. To support personalized tool selection, we design reflection mechanisms that enable the agent to evaluate and compare tools for each user based on user profiles and candidate ranked lists. Extensive experiments across three public datasets demonstrate the superiority of \modelname over traditional recommendation and LLM-based baselines in improving full-ranking recommendation performance.
Mingdai Yang, Zhiwei Liu, Weizhi Zhang +3
Univ. of Illinois Chicago Chicago, IL, USA · Microsoft Mountain View, USA · Beihang University, & Hangzhou Innovation Institute of BUAA Beijing & Hangzhou, China
Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a promising paradigm for next-generation recommender systems, offering strong semantic understanding and natural-language reasoning abilities. Despite recent progress, current LLM-based recommenders still face key challenges in constructing decision-relevant contexts from heterogeneous evidence. First, existing methods often rely on fixed context construction strategies: collaborative behavioral evidence and item-side metadata are typically incorporated through predefined prompts, static retrieval pipelines, or handcrafted injection mechanisms, making it difficult to determine what information is truly beneficial for each instance. Second, heterogeneous evidence introduces a severe context-efficiency bottleneck. Rich metadata and collaborative interaction records can quickly overwhelm the context window, while aggressive compression or heuristic filtering may discard fine-grained evidence critical for accurate recommendation. To address these challenges, we propose RRCM, a ranking-driven retrieval-and-reasoning framework over collaborative and metadata memories for LLM-based agentic recommendation. RRCM starts from a lightweight user-history context and learns whether to recommend directly, retrieve collaborative evidence, retrieve item metadata, or interleave both through reasoning. Both memories are represented in natural language and accessed through a unified retrieval interface, enabling flexible evidence acquisition without handcrafted CF injection or fixed retrieval rules. We optimize this memory-reading policy with an outcome-only ranking reward, instantiated using group relative policy optimization, so that retrieval decisions are directly driven by final top-k recommendation quality. Extensive experiments show that RRCM significantly outperforms traditional baselines and diverse LLM-based recommendation approaches.
Shijun Li, Pranav Belligundu, Tianxin Wei +3
The University of Texas at Austin · University of Illinois at Chicago · Capital One AI Foundations +1