Recommendation is the task of providing personalized suggestions to users based on their preferences and behavior.
Reinforcement learning (RL) effectively optimizes Large Language Model (LLM)-based recommenders by contrasting positive and negative items. Empirically, training with beam-search negatives consistently outperforms random negatives, yet the mechanism is not well understood. We address this gap by analyzing the induced optimization objective and show that: (i) Under binary reward feedback, optimizing LLM recommenders with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is theoretically equivalent to maximizing the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC), which is often misaligned with Top-$K$ recommendation; and (ii) Replacing random negatives with beam-search negatives reshapes the objective toward partial AUC, improving alignment with Top-$K$ metrics. Motivated by this perspective, we introduce Windowed Partial AUC (WPAUC), which constrains the false positive rate (FPR) to a window [$α,α+d$] to more directly align with Top-$K$ metrics. We further propose an efficient Threshold-Adjusted Windowed reweighting (TAWin) RL method for its optimization, enabling explicit control over the targeted Top-$K$ performance. Experiments on four real-world datasets validate the theory and deliver consistent state-of-the-art performance.
Human decision-makers often face choices about complex cases with many potentially relevant features, but limited bandwidth to inspect and integrate all available information. In such settings, we study algorithms that highlight a small subset of case-specific features for human consideration, rather than producing a single prediction or recommendation. We model highlighting as a constrained information policy that selects a small number of features to reveal. A central issue is how humans interpret the algorithm's choice of features: a sophisticated agent correctly conditions on the selection rule, while a naive agent updates only on revealed feature values and treats the selection event as exogenous. We show that optimizing highlighting for sophisticated agents can be computationally intractable, even in simple discrete and binary settings, whereas optimizing for naive agents is tractable as long as the maximal bandwidth is fixed. We also show that a highlighting policy that is optimal for sophisticated agents can perform arbitrarily poorly when deployed to naive agents, motivating robust, implementable alternatives. We illustrate our framework in a calibrated empirical exercise based on the American Housing Survey. Overall, our results establish the value of highlighting a context-specific set of features rather than a fixed one as a practically appealing and computationally feasible tool for achieving human-algorithm complementarity.
Generic group-based RL assumes that sampled rollout groups are already usable learning signals. We show that this assumption breaks down in sparse-hit generative recommendation, where many sampled groups never become learnable at all. We propose ReCast, a repair-then-contrast learning-signal framework that first restores minimal learnability for all-zero groups and then replaces full-group reward normalization with a boundary-focused contrastive update on the strongest positive and the hardest negative. ReCast leaves the outer RL framework unchanged, modifies only within-group signal construction, and partially decouples rollout search width from actor-side update width. Across multiple generative recommendation tasks, ReCast consistently outperforms OpenOneRec-RL, achieving up to 36.6% relative improvement in Pass@1. Its matched-budget advantage is substantially larger: ReCast reaches the baseline's target performance with only 4.1% of the rollout budget, and this advantage widens with model scale. The same design also yields direct system-level gains, reducing actor-side update time by 16.60x, lowering peak allocated memory by 16.5%, and improving actor MFU by 14.2%. Mechanism analysis shows that ReCast mitigates the persistent all-zero / single-hit regime, restores learnability when natural positives are scarce, and converts otherwise wasted rollout budget into more stable policy updates. These results suggest that, for generative recommendation, the decisive RL problem is not only how to assign rewards, but how to construct learnable optimization events from sparse, structured supervision.
Large language models are increasingly used to mediate everyday interpersonal dilemmas, yet how their advisory defaults interact with the concentrated moral orders of specific communities remains poorly understood. This article compares four assistant-style LLMs with community-endorsed advice on 11,565 posts from r/relationship_advice, using the subreddit as a concentrated, vote-ratified moral formation whose prescriptive clarity makes divergence measurable. Across models, LLMs identify many of the same dynamics as human commenters, but are markedly less likely to convert that recognition into directive authorization for action. The gap is sharpest where community consensus is strongest: on high-consensus posts involving abuse or safety threats, models recommend exit at roughly half the human rate while maintaining elevated levels of hedging, validation, and therapeutic framing. The article describes this pattern as recognition without authorization: the capacity to register harm while withholding socially ratified permission for consequential action. This divergence is not incidental but structural: a portable advisory style that remains validating, risk-averse, and weakly directive across contexts. Safety alignment is one plausible contributor to this pattern, alongside training-data averaging and broader assistant design. The article argues that model divergence can be reframed from a technical error to a way of seeing what standardized assistant norms flatten when they encounter situated moral worlds.
We investigate whether explicit belief graphs improve LLM performance in cooperative multi-agent reasoning. Through 3,000+ controlled trials across four LLM families in the cooperative card game Hanabi, we establish four findings. First, integration architecture determines whether belief graphs provide value: as prompt context, graphs are decorative for strong models and beneficial only for weak models on 2nd-order Theory of Mind (80% vs 10%, p<0.0001, OR=36.0); when graphs gate action selection through ranked shortlists, they become structurally essential even for strong models (100% vs 20% on 2nd-order ToM, p<0.001). Second, we identify "Planner Defiance," a model-family-specific failure where LLMs override correct planner recommendations at partial competence (90% override, replicated N=20); Gemini models show near-zero defiance while Llama 70B shows 90%, and models distinguish factual context (deferred to) from advisory recommendations (overridden). Third, full-game evidence confirms inter-agent conventions (+128% over baseline, p=0.003) outperform all single-agent interventions, and individual belief-graph components must be combined to produce gains. Fourth, preliminary scaling analysis (N=10/cell, exploratory) suggests graph depth has diminishing returns: shallow graphs provide the best cost-benefit ratio, while deeper ToM graphs appear harmful at larger player counts (-1.5 pts at 5-player, p=0.029).
Two-stage recommender systems first choose a candidate generator and then rank items within the generated set. Because the generator decides which items are available to the ranker, changing the generator changes both the policy value and the data support used to estimate that value. This creates an offline selection problem that standard single-stage objectives do not capture: a policy may look good under a retrieval score or a raw off-policy value estimate, but still be unreliable if it depends on weakly supported generator-item pairs. We propose CASP (Coupled Action-Set Pessimism), a support-aware offline selector for finite libraries of two-stage recommender policies. CASP combines doubly robust value estimation with a support-burden penalty. We show that stagewise rules that ignore downstream continuation value can be arbitrarily suboptimal, and we derive population, finite-class, and reconstructed-propensity guarantees for conservative selection. In simulations and a reconstructed MovieLens 1M application, CASP selects lower-burden policies when estimated value and support credibility are in tension.
Large Language Models (LLMs) can reason well, yet often miss decisive evidence when it is buried in long, noisy contexts. We introduce HiLight, an Evidence Emphasis framework that decouples evidence selection from reasoning for frozen LLM solvers. HiLight avoids compressing or rewriting the input, which can discard or distort evidence, by training a lightweight Emphasis Actor to insert minimal highlight tags around pivotal spans in the unaltered context. A frozen Solver then performs downstream reasoning on the emphasized input. We cast highlighting as a weakly supervised decision-making problem and optimize the Actor with reinforcement learning using only the Solver's task reward, requiring no evidence labels and no access to or modification of the Solver. Across sequential recommendation and long-context question answering, HiLight consistently improves performance over strong prompt-based and automated prompt-optimization baselines. The learned emphasis policy transfers zero-shot to both smaller and larger unseen Solver families, including an API-based Solver, suggesting that the Actor captures genuine, reusable evidence structure rather than overfitting to a single backbone.
Graph filter design is central to spectral collaborative filtering, yet most existing methods rely on manually tuned hyperparameters rather than fully learnable filters. We show that this challenge stems from a bias in traditional recommendation objectives, which induces a spectral phenomenon termed low-frequency explosion, thereby fundamentally hindering the effective learning of graph filters. To overcome this limitation, we propose a novel adaptive spectral graph collaborative filtering framework (ASPIRE) based on a bi-level optimization objective. Guided by our theoretical analysis, we disentangle the filter learning objective, which in turn leads to excellent recommendation performance, spectral adaptivity, and training stability in practice. Extensive experiments show our learned filters match the performance of carefully engineered task-specific designs. Furthermore, ASPIRE is equally effective in LLM-powered collaborative filtering. Our findings demonstrate that graph filter learning is viable and generalizable, paving the way for more expressive graph neural networks in collaborative filtering.
Diagnosing student problem behaviors requires teachers to synthesize multifaceted information, identify behavioral categories, and plan intervention strategies. Although fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) can support this process through multi-turn dialogue, they rarely explain why a strategy is recommended, limiting transparency and teachers' trust. To address this issue, we present an explainable dialogue system built on a fine-tuned LLM. The system uses a hierarchical attribution method based on explainable AI (xAI) to identify dialogue evidence for each recommendation and generate a natural-language explanation based on that evidence. In technical evaluation, the method outperformed baseline approaches in identifying supporting evidence. In a preliminary user study with 22 pre-service teachers, participants who received explanations reported higher trust in the system. These findings suggest a promising direction for improving LLM explainability in educational dialogue systems.
Large language models (LLMs) have become an important semantic infrastructure for modern recommender systems. A prevailing paradigm integrates LLM-derived semantic embeddings with collaborative representations via representation alignment, implicitly assuming that the two views encode a shared latent entity and that stronger alignment yields better results. We formalize this assumption as the global low-complexity alignment hypothesis and argue that it is stronger than necessary and often structurally mismatched with real-world recommendation settings. We propose a complementary perspective in which semantic and collaborative representations are treated as partially shared yet fundamentally heterogeneous views, each containing both shared and view-specific factors. Under this shared-plus-private latent structure, enforcing global geometric alignment may distort local structure, suppress view-specific signals, and reduce informational diversity. To support this perspective, we develop complementarity-aware diagnostics that quantify overlap, unique-hit contribution, and theoretical fusion upper bounds. Empirical analyses on sparse recommendation benchmarks reveal low item-level agreement between semantic and collaborative views and substantial oracle fusion gains, indicating strong complementarity. Furthermore, controlled alignment probes show that low-capacity mappings capture only shared components and fail to recover full collaborative geometry, especially under distribution shift. These findings suggest that alignment should not be treated as the default integration principle. We advocate a shift from alignment-centric modeling to complementarity fusion-centric, complementarity-aware design, where shared factors are selectively integrated while private signals are preserved. This reframing provides a principled foundation for the next generation of LLM-enhanced recommender systems.