arXivPaperNeeds Review
Delegation Asymmetry in Agentic Recommender Systems: Measuring Two-Sided Receptivity in Online Dating
Users were far more willing to deploy their own conversational agent than engage someone else’s, making receiver consent and receptivity-aware routing core product constraints.
arXiv
Source Summary
Two dating-platform surveys covered **2,894** users for generative profiles and **2,617** for conversational agents. Deployment and reception were distinct despite **rho=0.92** correlation; only **4–13% of directed pairs** combined agent use with receiver engagement.
Practical Implication
Builders of agent-mediated marketplaces should model both sides independently. Add disclosure and opt-in controls, then route agent contacts using the recipient’s stated receptivity instead of treating sender adoption as sufficient demand.
Agent-Ready Context
Two dating-platform surveys covered **2,894** users for generative profiles and **2,617** for conversational agents. Deployment and reception were distinct despite **rho=0.92** correlation; only **4–13% of directed pairs** combined agent use with receiver engagement. Builders of agent-mediated marketplaces should model both sides independently. Add disclosure and opt-in controls, then route agent contacts using the recipient’s stated receptivity instead of treating sender adoption as sufficient demand. The evidence is based on stated preferences in online dating, not observed behavior across agent products. Reciprocity reduced projected volume by at least half, while receptivity-aware routing gains came from a counterfactual model.
Context Map
industry#adoptionUncertainty
The evidence is based on stated preferences in online dating, not observed behavior across agent products. Reciprocity reduced projected volume by at least half, while receptivity-aware routing gains came from a counterfactual model.