From Prompting to Behavioral Alignment: Personalized LLM Judges for Recommendation Evaluation

Traditional offline recommendation evaluation relies heavily on complex, manually maintained feature pipelines that are difficult to scale. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising alternative by predicting user engagement directly from raw text logs, empirical analysis in this study identifies a critical failure mode termed bidirectional rationalization. In a zero-shot setting, LLMs are found to convincingly argue for both positive and negative user engagement outcomes on the exact same item with identical evidence, highlighting the unreliability of off-the-shelf LLMs in predicting user engagement. To resolve this, we develop and apply a sequential behavioral alignment framework pairing fine-tuning with preference optimization over paired correct and counterfactual rationales. Evaluated on real-world homepage interaction logs, this aligned reasoning approach achieves a 32.19\% lift in Macro-F1 score over the zero-shot baseline and matches the production feature-engineered baseline. The results demonstrate that behavioral alignment mitigates bidirectional rationalization while delivering human-interpretable reasoning traces without manual pipeline overhead.

LLM Reasoning for Subjective Tasks: Failure Modes, Mitigation, and Dynamic Reasoning Routing

Recommendation systems thrive on personalization, where ''correctness'' is rarely a binary truth but a matter of subjective human preference. As Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed as autonomous verifiers of safety and quality guidelines, they face a distinctive challenge: context-aware preference alignment. Recent gains in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are indexed mostly on objective, mathematical tasks. Through a large-scale study spanning both proprietary and open-source models on four real-world verification tasks from a production recommender platform, we ask whether explicit reasoning generalizes to subjective, human-centric industry rubrics. We expose a fundamental vulnerability: rigid, math-centric reasoning traces actively degrade verification, and applying standard RLVR triggers a phenomenon we term reasoning collapse, in which the policy abandons deliberation in favor of rapid heuristic guessing. We introduce a conditional length-penalized post-training algorithm that intertwines verification accuracy with bounded reasoning length, halting collapse and recovering performance. Finally, we show that a reasoning trace's efficacy is tightly coupled with its socio-linguistic framing: across 1500 synthesized personas, verification accuracy swings by nearly 0.38 macro-F1 depending solely on the adopted reasoning persona---evidence that much subjective-verification error is really reasoning-style mismatch. This observation motivates a mid-training architecture that routes reasoning through contextually aligned personas. This work offers both a scalable algorithmic patch and a long-term architectural blueprint for aligning reasoning models with real-world subjective constraints.