Paper detail

Exploring Diversity, Novelty, and Popularity Bias in ChatGPT's Recommendations

ChatGPT has emerged as a versatile tool, demonstrating capabilities across diverse domains. Given these successes, the Recommender Systems (RSs) community has begun investigating its applications within recommendation scenarios primarily focusing on accuracy. While the integration of ChatGPT into RSs has garnered significant attention, a comprehensive analysis of its performance across various dimensions remains largely unexplored. Specifically, the capabilities of providing diverse and novel recommendations or exploring potential biases such as popularity bias have not been thoroughly examined. As the use of these models continues to expand, understanding these aspects is crucial for enhancing user satisfaction and achieving long-term personalization. This study investigates the recommendations provided by ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 by assessing ChatGPT's capabilities in terms of diversity, novelty, and popularity bias. We evaluate these models on three distinct datasets and assess their performance in Top-N recommendation and cold-start scenarios. The findings reveal that ChatGPT-4 matches or surpasses traditional recommenders, demonstrating the ability to balance novelty and diversity in recommendations. Furthermore, in the cold-start scenario, ChatGPT models exhibit superior performance in both accuracy and novelty, suggesting they can be particularly beneficial for new users. This research highlights the strengths and limitations of ChatGPT's recommendations, offering new perspectives on the capacity of these models to provide recommendations beyond accuracy-focused metrics.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.