Multi-Agent Video Recommenders: Evolution, Patterns, and Open Challenges

Srivaths Ranganathan, Abhishek Dharmaratnakar, Anushree Sinha, Debanshu Das · Apr 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

Multi Agent

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Video recommender systems are among the most popular and impactful applications of AI, shaping content consumption and influencing culture for billions of users. Traditional single-model recommenders, which optimize static engagement metrics, are increasingly limited in addressing the dynamic requirements of modern platforms. In response, multi-agent architectures are redefining how video recommender systems serve, learn, and adapt to both users and datasets. These agent-based systems coordinate specialized agents responsible for video understanding, reasoning, memory, and feedback, to provide precise, explainable recommendations. In this survey, we trace the evolution of multi-agent video recommendation systems (MAVRS). We combine ideas from multi-agent recommender systems, foundation models, and conversational AI, culminating in the emerging field of large language model (LLM)-powered MAVRS. We present a taxonomy of collaborative patterns and analyze coordination mechanisms across diverse video domains, ranging from short-form clips to educational platforms. We discuss representative frameworks, including early multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) systems such as MMRF and recent LLM-driven architectures like MACRec and Agent4Rec, to illustrate these patterns. We also outline open challenges in scalability, multimodal understanding, incentive alignment, and identify research directions such as hybrid reinforcement learning-LLM systems, lifelong personalization and self-improving recommender systems.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.