aiqbench analysis
This paper addresses the fundamental shift in music recommender systems caused by Large Language Models, arguing that traditional accuracy metrics are insufficient for evaluating generative approaches. It outlines specific challenges like hallucinations and non-determinism while proposing a new framework to assess success dimensions beyond simple retrieval ranking. The work provides essential guidance for researchers transitioning from information retrieval paradigms to LLM-driven natural language interaction in music discovery.
Music Recommendation with Large Language Models: Challenges, Opportunities, and Evaluation
arXiv:2511.16478v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Music Recommender Systems (MRSs) have long relied on an information retrieval framing, where progress is measured mainly through accuracy on retrieval-oriented subtasks. While effective, this reductionist paradigm struggles to address the deeper question of what makes a good recommendation. Attempts to broaden evaluation, through user studies or fairness analyses, have had limited impact. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) disrupts this framework: LLMs are generative rather than ranking-based, making standard accuracy metrics questionable. They also introduce challenges such as hallucinations, knowledge cutoffs, non-determinism, and opaque training data, rendering traditional train or test protocols difficult to interpret. At the same time, LLMs create new opportunities, enabling natural language (NL) interaction and even allowing models to act as evaluators. This work argues that the shift toward LLM-driven MRSs requires rethinking evaluation. We first review how LLMs reshape user modeling, item modeling, and NL-based recommendation in music. We then examine evaluation practices from NLP, highlighting methodologies and open challenges relevant to MRSs. Finally, we synthesize insights, focusing on how LLM prompting applies to MRSs, to outline a structured set of success and risk dimensions. Our goal is to provide the MRSs community with an updated, pedagogical, and cross-disciplinary perspective on evaluation.
Abstract:Music Recommender Systems (MRSs) have long relied on an information retrieval framing, where progress is measured mainly through accuracy on retrieval-oriented subtasks. While effective, this reductionist paradigm struggles to address the deeper question of what makes a good recommendation. Attempts to broaden evaluation, through user studies or fairness analyses, have had limited impact. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) disrupts this framework: LLMs are generative rather than ranking-based, making standard accuracy metrics questionable. They also introduce challenges such as hallucinations, knowledge cutoffs, non-determinism, and opaque training data, rendering traditional train or test protocols difficult to interpret. At the same time, LLMs create new opportunities, enabling natural language (NL) interaction and even allowing models to act as evaluators. This work argues that the shift toward LLM-driven MRSs requires rethinking evaluation. We first review how LLMs reshape user modeling, item modeling, and NL-based recommendation in music. We then examine evaluation practices from NLP, highlighting methodologies and open challenges relevant to MRSs. Finally, we synthesize insights, focusing on how LLM prompting applies to MRSs, to outline a structured set of success and risk dimensions. Our goal is to provide the MRSs community with an updated, pedagogical, and cross-disciplinary perspective on evaluation.
Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2511.16478 [cs.IR]
(or arXiv:2511.16478v2 [cs.IR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.16478 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 295 words
Related coverage

Berkeley Law report finds AI use affects rights in law, media, schools
Quantum Zeitgeist · Sep 29, 2026

AI Futures: Racing to Lose, A sermon
LessWrong · Sep 28, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026
Salesforce after Dreamforce: How the CRM giant can grow beyond its own interface
SiliconANGLE · Sep 19, 2026