Delegation Asymmetry in Agentic Recommender Systems: Measuring Two-Sided Receptivity in Online Dating
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
Autonomous LLM agents that converse on a user's behalf are an emerging design pattern in matching platforms, yet their viability depends on a condition rarely examined: users must accept not only delegating conversation to an agent, but also receiving agent-mediated communication from others. We study this condition using two large-scale surveys of active users of a major dating platform (N=2,894 on generative profile features; N=2,617 on autonomous conversational agents, fielded in two languages). We develop a latent-variable measurement model of agent receptivity based on graded response models with latent regression, and show via model comparison that willingness to send and willingness to receive agent communication are distinct constructs: highly correlated (rho=0.92) but separable (Delta BIC=52), with partial measurement invariance across languages. The model quantifies a systematic delegation asymmetry: deploying one's own agent requires far lower receptivity (threshold -0.38) than engaging a counterpart's agent (+0.32; full engagement +1.39), and mean deployment propensity exceeds engagement propensity roughly threefold. Under a random-pairing counterfactual derived from stated receptivity, only 4-13% of directed dyads combine agent deployment with receiver engagement, with a pronounced gender-directional imbalance. Design counterfactuals quantify the levers: a reciprocity requirement cuts interaction volume by half or more by excluding nearly two-thirds of would-be deployment, while routing agent contacts on receive receptivity triples per-contact engagement, a lift that survives out-of-sample validation with the target item held out (AUC 0.88, 3.1x quartile lift under respondent-level cross-validation). We discuss implications for agentic recommender design, including disclosure, opt-in mechanics, and receptivity-aware matchmaking.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 10 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2026.
Builds on
10 of 43 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 9
- 2023RecMind: Large Language Model Powered Agent For Recommendationcited by 129
- 2023AgentCF: Collaborative Learning with Autonomous Language Agents for Recommender Systemscited by 116
- 2025A Survey on LLM-powered Agents for Recommender Systemscited by 50
- 2025iAgent: LLM Agent as a Shield between User and Recommender Systemscited by 23
- 2024Generative AI and Perceptual Harms: Who's Suspected of using LLMs?cited by 11
- 2015Reciprocal Recommendation System for Online Datingcited by 7
- 2018Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating marketscited by 5
- 2024Fair Reciprocal Recommendation in Matching Marketscited by 4
- 2025Off-Policy Evaluation and Learning for Matching Marketscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026From Parasocial Scripts to Dyadic Persistence in Autonomous AI-Agent Communities
- 2026Talk, Judge, Cooperate: Gossip-Driven Indirect Reciprocity in Self-Interested LLM Agents
- 2025From Single to Societal: Analyzing Persona-Induced Bias in Multi-Agent Interactions
- 2025The Social Laboratory: A Psychometric Framework for Multi-Agent LLM Evaluation
- 2026Who Are We Recommending To? Recommender Systems in the Agentic Web
- 2026τ-Rec: A Verifiable Benchmark for Agentic Recommender Systems
- 2026Behavioral Determinants of Deployed AI Agents in Social Networks: A Multi-Factor Study of Personality, Model, and Guardrail Specification
- 2026ExpressionCueLens: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Human-AI Companion Conversations on Social Media ↗