Cited by 15Recommender Systems and TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorAI in Service Interactions

A Hybrid Multi-Agent Conversational Recommender System with LLM and Search Engine in E-commerce

Nie, Guangtao, Zhi, Rong, Yan, Xiaofan, Du, Yufan, Zhang, Xiangyang, Chen, Jianwei, Zhou, Mi, Chen, Hongshen +4 more·2024·18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems

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

Crossref · 10.1145/3640457.3688061

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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]”
  • 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]).”
  • 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].”
  • 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].”
  • 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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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)
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