A Hybrid Multi-Agent Conversational Recommender System with LLM and Search Engine in E-commerce
Abstract
Multi-agent collaboration is the latest trending method to build conversational recommender systems (CRS), especially with the widespread use of Large Language Models (LLMs) recently. Typically, these systems employ several LLM agents, each serving distinct roles to meet user needs. In an industrial setting, it’s essential for a CRS to exhibit low first token latency (i.e., the time taken from a user’s input until the system outputs its first response token.) and high scalability—for instance, minimizing the number of LLM inferences per user request—to enhance user experience and boost platform profit. For example, JD.com’s baseline CRS features two LLM agents and a search API but suffers from high first token latency and requires two LLM inferences per request (LIPR), hindering its performance. To address these issues, we introduce a Hybrid Multi-Agent Collaborative Recommender System (Hybrid-MACRS). It includes a central agent powered by a fine-tuned proprietary LLM and a search agent combining a related search module with a search engine. This hybrid system notably reduces first token latency by about 70% and cuts the LIPR from 2 to 1. We conducted thorough online A/B testing to confirm this approach’s efficiency.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Field and quasi-field designs demonstrate that performance enhancements can lead to increased option acceptance and GMV per user.
“Field and quasi-field designs demonstrate that enhancements in performance can lead to quantifiable business results, such as increased option acceptance and GMV per user [10]”
From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Behavioral outcomes such as conversion, click-through, repurchase, and GMV are less common but provide stronger external validity.
“Behavioral outcomes (like conversion, click-through, repurchase, and GMV) are less common but provide stronger external validity (e.g., [10,41,55]).”
From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Where behavioral or platform-embedded evidence is present, the same rationale can lead to quantifiable performance enhancement, such as increased acceptance and revenue/GMV through improved conversational recommendation, instead of being solely intention-driven.
“In instances where behavioral or platform-embedded evidence is present, the same rationale can lead to quantifiable performance enhancement (e.g., increased acceptance and revenue/GMV through improved conversational recommendation) instead of being solely intention-driven [10,55].”
From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Field data support that performance enhancements can result in increased option acceptance and revenue metrics.
“It is further supported by field data demonstrating that performance enhancements can result in increased option acceptance and revenue metrics [10].”
From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
The review includes a small number of field or quasi-field studies that show the strongest link to real outcomes, but these studies are often hard to replicate across platforms and agent architectures because they fail to report enough on assignment, exposure windows, and guardrails.
“The review includes a small number of field or quasi-field studies that show the strongest link to real outcomes (like acceptance/conversion, spend/GMV), but these studies are often hard to replicate across platforms and agent architectures because they fail to report enough on assignment, exposure windows, and guardrails [10,55].”
From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Field evidence is often reported with little methodological detail, such as short A/B reports with unclear sampling or randomization.
“Field evidence is not uncommon, and when it is, it is often reported with little methodological detail (for example, short A/B reports with unclear sampling/randomization) [10].”
From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Genuinely agentic execution (cart/checkout/payment) and negotiation are still uncommon, and the empirical base is still focused on low-autonomy, text-based assistants with outcomes dominated by intentions and satisfaction constructs.
“First, genuinely agentic execution (cart/checkout/payment) and negotiation are still uncommon, and the empirical base is still focused on low-autonomy, text-based assistants with outcomes dominated by intentions and satisfaction constructs [10,40].”
From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Field and quasi-field contributions enhance inferences regarding market outcomes, but methodological limitations constrain generalizability and the testing of mechanisms.
“Field and quasi-field contributions enhance inferences regarding market outcomes; however, methodological limitations-including ambiguous assignment, platform specificity, abbreviated observation periods, and analytical simplifications-constrain generalizability and the testing of mechanisms [10,55].”
From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Spend/GMV/WTP is positive in field and some survey settings.
“Positive in field and tings some survey set-”
From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Behavioral lift appears when systems reduce friction (latency/steps) or improve option fit (recommendation relevance).
“Behavioral lift appears when systems reduce fric-havioral intention rather than verified execution. tion (latency/steps) or improve option fit (recom-mendation relevance).”
From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Observed conversion/purchase behavior is positive when friction drops or recommendations fit, but not universal.
“Positive when fric-tion drops or rec-ommendations fit, but not universal”
From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
In many studies, conversion is proxied via self-reported ordering/behavioral intention rather than verified execution.
“In many studies,”
From From Recommendations to Delegation: A Systematic Review Mapping Agentic AI in E-Commerce and Its Consumer Effects (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
Cites
Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Tasks
Wang, Y., Mishra, S., Alipoormolabashi, P., Kordi, Y., Mirzaei, A., Naik, A., Ashok, A., Dhanasekaran, A. S., Arunkumar, A., Stap, D., et al. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.340 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on LLM-powered Agents for Recommender Systems
Peng, Q., Liu, H., Huang, H., Yang, J., Yang, Q., & Shao, M. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.620 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Balaskas, S. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17030222 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Nie, G., Zhi, R., Yan, X., Du, Y., Zhang, X., Chen, J., Zhou, M., Chen, H., Li, T., Cheng, Z., Xu, S., & Hu, J.
- Affiliations
- Jingdong (China) (CN)
- ORCID
- Venue
- 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-10-08
- Pages
- 745-747
- OpenAlex
- W4403219596
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 5.71
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- conversational recommender systems, multi-agent systems, large language models, search engine integration, e-commerce recommendation, search agents
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review