A Survey of Foundation Model-Powered Recommender Systems: From Feature-Based, Generative to Agentic Paradigms
Open accessAbstract
Recommender systems (RS) have become essential in filtering information and personalizing content for users. RS techniques have traditionally relied on modeling interactions between users and items as well as the features of content using models specific to each task. The emergence of foundation models (FMs), large scale models trained on vast amounts of data such as GPT, LLaMA and CLIP, is reshaping the recommendation paradigm. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of the Foundation Models for Recommender Systems (FM4RecSys), covering their integration in three paradigms: (1) Feature-Based augmentation of representations, (2) Generative recommendation approaches, and (3) Agentic interactive systems. We first review the data foundations of RS, from traditional explicit or implicit feedback to multimodal content sources. We then introduce FMs and their capabilities for representation learning, natural language understanding, and multi-modal reasoning in RS contexts. The core of the survey discusses how FMs enhance RS under different paradigms. Afterward, we examine FM applications in various recommendation tasks. Through an analysis of recent research, we highlight key opportunities that have been realized as well as challenges encountered. Finally, we outline open research directions and technical challenges for next-generation FM4RecSys. This survey not only reviews the state-of-the-art methods but also provides a critical analysis of the trade-offs among the feature-based, the generative, and the agentic paradigms, outlining key open issues and future research directions.
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?
Multi-domain agents model user behavior, provide recommendations and context, coordinate processes across domains, automate business processes, break down goals, utilize external knowledge, and coordinate safely and ethically.
“Agents model user behavior, provide recommendations and context, coordinate processes across domains, automate business processes, break down goals, utilize external knowledge, and coordinate safely and ethically [53,132,133].”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [132]
Structured representations of user goals, and multimodal input like speech signals, visual cues, and brief actions are the main methods of prompting agents to behave in particular ways.
“Structured representations of user goals, and multimodal input like speech signals, visual cues, and brief actions are the main methods of prompting agents to behave in particular ways [132].”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [132]
User satisfaction for models like Bi-level are Learnable LLM Planner (BiLLP) is evaluated by measuring how well the agent balances short-term and long-term user preferences in recommended tasks.
“Models like Bi-level are Learnable LLM Planner (BiLLP) [132], and user satisfaction is evaluated by measuring how well the agent balances short-term and long-term user preferences in recommended tasks.”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [132]
Traditional AI inputs typically comprise historical data, clearly defined user commands or queries, and are mapped to singular outputs such as classifications or recommendations.
“Inputs typically comprise historical data [78], clearly defined user commands or queries, and are mapped to singular outputs such as classifications or recommendations [132].”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [132]
A/B testing is a process of running live experiments with users to see which version works better in real life.
“A/B testing [132] is a process of running live experiments with users to see which version works better in real life.”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [132]
Retrieval-augmented generation, tree-of-thought backtracking, and iterative debugging can help rectify hallucinations and task-related mistakes.
“while tools like retrieval-augmented generation, tree-of-thought backtracking, and iterative debugging can help rectify hallucinations and task-related mistakes [58,75,82,132]”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [132]
The ColdLLM simulations used user interaction to gain improvements in making recommendations for new items, which positively impacted the returned GMV in actual A/B testing.
“The ColdLLM [132] simulations used user interaction to gain improvements in making recommendations for new items, which positively impacted the returned GMV in actual A/B testing.”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [132]
Some ways accurate agentic AI improved were by issue structuring in modular team collaborations, simulations like Agent4Rec that repeat user activity and modeling to run those activities in simulation, and self-improvement via reasoning through feedback loops and by using knowledge graphs.
“Some ways accurate agentic AI improved were by issue structuring in modular team collaborations, simulations like Agent4Rec, that repeat user activity and modeling to run those activities in simulation [132], and self-improvement via reasoning through feedback loops and by using knowledge graphs [37,134].”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [132]
Task efficiency improves through modular multi-agent systems, lightweight models, and adaptive architectures.
“Task efficiency improves through modular multi-agent systems, lightweight models, and adaptive architectures [31,111,132].”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [132]
- Authors
- Huang, C., Huang, H., Yu, T., Xie, K., Wu, J., Zhang, S., Mcauley, J., Jannach, D., & Yao, L.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2504.16420
- OpenAlex
- W4415065819
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
- Keywords
- recommender systems, foundation models, generative recommendation, multimodal recommendation, implicit feedback, explicit feedback, representation learning, large language models, CLIP, user-item interaction modeling
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
