Toward User-Centered Agentic Recommendation: When Does Platform Competition Benefit Users?

Abstract

Conventional recommender systems operate within platform-specific catalogs, limiting access to potentially valuable resources across platforms. We propose user-centered agentic recommendation, a paradigm in which user agents compare recommendations from competing platform agents, and formalize their interaction as a repeated game. Platforms strategically modify descriptions without changing intrinsic item value, while each user agent assesses platform credibility using feedback from consumed items only. Our analysis shows that expanded resource access need not improve user welfare: strategic misrepresentation and limited verification can offset the benefits of platform competition. We quantify when platform credibility assessment allows users to benefit from broader access despite strategic exaggeration. Our analysis identifies resource and reporting conditions that guarantee higher average welfare than the original platform with an interaction budget linear in platform count. Experiments on synthetic and Amazon-grounded markets show that credibility assessment can improve finite-horizon utility, while its benefits depend on market size and mechanism parameters.