Toward Holistic Evaluation of Recommender Systems Powered by Generative Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06667v2
• Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 09:54:19 GMT
• Title: Toward Holistic Evaluation of Recommender Systems Powered by Generative Models
• Abstract summary: generative models (Gen-RecSys) produce open-ended content, which simultaneously unlocks richer user experiences and introduces new risks.<n>Traditional accuracy metrics fail to measure factual correctness, content safety, or alignment with user intent.<n>We propose a holistic evaluation approach that includes scenario-based assessments and multi-metric checks-incorporating relevance.
• Score: 29.797042093096277
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recommender systems powered by generative models (Gen-RecSys) extend beyond classical item ranking by producing open-ended content, which simultaneously unlocks richer user experiences and introduces new risks. On one hand, these systems can enhance personalization and appeal through dynamic explanations and multi-turn dialogues. On the other hand, they might venture into unknown territory-hallucinating nonexistent items, amplifying bias, or leaking private information. Traditional accuracy metrics cannot fully capture these challenges, as they fail to measure factual correctness, content safety, or alignment with user intent. This paper makes two main contributions. First, we categorize the evaluation challenges of Gen-RecSys into two groups: (i) existing concerns that are exacerbated by generative outputs (e.g., bias, privacy) and (ii) entirely new risks (e.g., item hallucinations, contradictory explanations). Second, we propose a holistic evaluation approach that includes scenario-based assessments and multi-metric checks-incorporating relevance, factual grounding, bias detection, and policy compliance. Our goal is to provide a guiding framework so researchers and practitioners can thoroughly assess Gen-RecSys, ensuring effective personalization and responsible deployment.

Related papers

• Identifying Harm in Personalized, Generative AI Systems Requires User-Centered Auditing at the Interaction Level [0.5076419064097734]
  We argue that such approaches can fail to capture emergent harms in personalized generative AI systems.<n>Our work highlights the need for auditing and design practices that better reflect the pluralistic and evolving nature of harm understanding in personalized generative AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-07T15:58:37Z)
• Trustworthy Recommendation in the Era of Large Language Models: Opportunities and Challenges [60.18620798072947]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been extensively integrated into recommender systems.<n>LLMs offer unprecedented opportunities to enhance trustworthiness.<n>But they simultaneously introduce new risks, such as novel forms of bias and hallucination-induced issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-30T05:14:53Z)
• Benchmarking Knowledge-Extraction Attack and Defense on Retrieval-Augmented Generation [50.87199039334856]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become a cornerstone of knowledge-intensive applications.<n>Recent studies show that knowledge-extraction attacks can recover sensitive knowledge-base content through maliciously crafted queries.<n>We introduce the first systematic benchmark for knowledge-extraction attacks on RAG systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T01:27:46Z)
• Open-World Deepfake Attribution via Confidence-Aware Asymmetric Learning [78.92934995292113]
  We propose a Confidence-Aware Asymmetric Learning (CAL) framework, which balances confidence across known and novel forgery types.<n>CAL consistently outperforms previous methods, achieving new state-of-the-art performance on both known and novel forgery attribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T12:31:28Z)
• LLM-as-a-Judge: Rapid Evaluation of Legal Document Recommendation for Retrieval-Augmented Generation [40.06592175227558]
  This paper investigates a principled approach to evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems in legal contexts.<n>We find that traditional agreement metrics like Krippendorff's alpha can be misleading in the skewed distributions typical of AI system evaluations.<n>Our findings suggest a path toward scalable, cost-effective evaluation that maintains the precision demanded by legal applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T19:20:21Z)
• Exploring the Secondary Risks of Large Language Models [17.845215420030467]
  We introduce secondary risks marked by harmful or misleading behaviors during benign prompts.<n>Unlike adversarial attacks, these risks stem from imperfect generalization and often evade standard safety mechanisms.<n>We propose SecLens, a black-box, multi-objective search framework that efficiently elicits secondary risk behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T07:31:52Z)
• A Novel Generative Model with Causality Constraint for Mitigating Biases in Recommender Systems [20.672668625179526]
  Latent confounding bias can obscure the true causal relationship between user feedback and item exposure.<n>We propose a novel generative framework called Latent Causality Constraints for Debiasing representation learning in Recommender Systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T14:09:39Z)
• Epistemic Uncertainty-aware Recommendation Systems via Bayesian Deep Ensemble Learning [2.3310092106321365]
  We propose an ensemble-based supermodel to generate more robust and reliable predictions. We also introduce a new interpretable non-linear matching approach for the user and item embeddings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T23:04:35Z)
• Towards Robust Offline Evaluation: A Causal and Information Theoretic Framework for Debiasing Ranking Systems [6.540293515339111]
  offline evaluation of retrieval-ranking systems is crucial for developing high-performing models.<n>We propose a novel framework for robust offline evaluation of retrieval-ranking systems.<n>Our contributions include (1) a causal formulation for addressing offline evaluation biases, (2) a system-agnostic debiasing framework, and (3) empirical validation of its effectiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T23:52:57Z)
• Re-evaluating Open-ended Evaluation of Large Language Models [50.23008729038318]
  We show that the current Elo-based rating systems can be susceptible to and even reinforce biases in data, intentional or accidental.<n>We propose evaluation as a 3-player game, and introduce novel game-theoretic solution concepts to ensure robustness to redundancy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T15:07:47Z)
• AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons [62.50078821423793]
  This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability.<n>The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T05:58:52Z)
• On the Fairness, Diversity and Reliability of Text-to-Image Generative Models [68.62012304574012]
  multimodal generative models have sparked critical discussions on their reliability, fairness and potential for misuse.<n>We propose an evaluation framework to assess model reliability by analyzing responses to global and local perturbations in the embedding space.<n>Our method lays the groundwork for detecting unreliable, bias-injected models and tracing the provenance of embedded biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T09:46:55Z)
• Trustworthiness in Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems: A Survey [59.26328612791924]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has quickly grown into a pivotal paradigm in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose a unified framework that assesses the trustworthiness of RAG systems across six key dimensions: factuality, robustness, fairness, transparency, accountability, and privacy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-16T09:06:44Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Debiasing Recommendation by Learning Identifiable Latent Confounders [49.16119112336605]
  Confounding bias arises due to the presence of unmeasured variables that can affect both a user's exposure and feedback. Existing methods either (1) make untenable assumptions about these unmeasured variables or (2) directly infer latent confounders from users' exposure. We propose a novel method, i.e., identifiable deconfounder (iDCF), which leverages a set of proxy variables to resolve the aforementioned non-identification issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-10T05:10:26Z)
• Joint Multisided Exposure Fairness for Recommendation [76.75990595228666]
  This paper formalizes a family of exposure fairness metrics that model the problem jointly from the perspective of both the consumers and producers. Specifically, we consider group attributes for both types of stakeholders to identify and mitigate fairness concerns that go beyond individual users and items towards more systemic biases in recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-29T19:13:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.