Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 78 references

Augment or Not? A Comparative Study of Pure and Augmented Large Language Model Recommenders

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that, under a unified benchmark, large language model recommenders augmented with non-LLM techniques such as semantic item identifiers and collaborative signals generally outperform both pure-LLM recommenders and…

desk verdict Useful taxonomy and a serious benchmark effort, but the headline comparison is undercut by a misclassified 'Pure' model and a narrow augmented set. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23053 v1 pith:PVME5Q5F submitted 2025-05-29 cs.IR cs.AI

Wei-Hsiang Huang , Chen-Wei Ke , Wei-Ning Chiu , Yu-Xuan Su , Chun-Chun Yang , Chieh-Yuan Cheng , Yun-Nung Chen , Pu-Jen Cheng This is my paper
classification cs.IRcs.AI
keywords LLM-basedrecommendersystemsgenerativerecommendationsequentialpureLLMrecommendersaugmentedsemanticidentifierscollaborativefilteringsignalsbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a survey and a controlled comparison at once. It sorts LLM-based recommenders into two branches: Pure LLM Recommenders, which use the language model alone to make the final recommendation, and Augmented LLM Recommenders, which wrap the LLM with non-LLM machinery such as semantic item identifiers, collaborative embeddings, or retrieved candidate lists. To test which branch deserves the added complexity, the authors rerun representative models on a single standardized pipeline over two Amazon '23 categories, using 5-core leave-one-out sequential recommendation. Their central result is that, in these scenarios, the augmented recommenders generally outperform both the pure-LLM family and the traditional SASRec and GRU4Rec baselines. They further attribute the gains to concrete design choices: item identifier assignment, grounding strategies, and the injection of collaborative signals.

What carries the argument

The central object is the augmentation map $f$ in the paper's formal definition $L: U \times I \times M \times f(U,I,M) \to R$; the taxonomy turns on whether that map is zero (Pure) or non-trivial (Augmented). The empirical machinery is a unified evaluation platform built on Amazon '23's Musical Instruments and Industrial and Scientific subsets, with 5-core filtering and leave-one-out evaluation, so that every model sees the same data preprocessing, train-validation split, and identifier assignment rules. The top performers are carried by RQ-VAE-based Semantic IDs, discrete codes learned from item metadata that the LLM can generate as tokens, and by collaborative signals folded into those codes as in LETTER-TIGER. Grounding, exemplified by BIGRec's similarity search over item embeddings rather than exact title generation, repairs the pure-LLM failure mode of producing invalid item names. Together these mechanisms carry the argument that what the LLM is given, not the LLM itself, decides recommendation quality.

What would settle it

Recompute Table 2 with P5, POD, and RDRec using their original sequential identifier assignment instead of random IDs, and with TIGER running from its own original release rather than a reimplementation built on a related method's code; if the pure-LLM methods close the gap or the augmented advantage disappears, the paper's central ordering fails. Report per-seed Hit@10 and NDCG@10 so that a stable 0.01 margin is distinguishable from noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that adding non-LLM techniques to an LLM that makes the final recommendation is generally worth the extra complexity. Their benchmark puts TIGER and LETTER-TIGER, which generate item codes from metadata, and P5-CID, which injects collaborative indexing, at the top of the table on both Amazon '23 categories. They state the result directly: "Augmented LLM Recommenders generally outperform traditional recommender baselines and even Pure LLM Recommenders in our experiment scenarios." They also identify which design choices drive the outcome: naive numerical item IDs hurt pure methods such as P5, POD, and RDRec, while semantic identifiers, grounding via embedding similarity, and collaborative signals each lift performance. Under their unified setup, the pure-versus-augmented distinction is presented as the right way to organize the field.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison holds only if each reimplemented model was configured fairly, so that the score gaps reflect the pure-versus-augmented distinction rather than implementation details; the risky spots are random numerical IDs for P5, POD, and RDRec, a 50,000-review training sample for GenRec, and a TIGER reimplementation built from a related method's released code instead of the original.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pipelines that put an LLM in the final decision role should treat augmentation as the default: semantic identifiers or collaborative embeddings, rather than prompt design alone, produced the top scores.
  • Item identifier assignment is a first-class modelling decision, because random numerical IDs placed P5, POD, and RDRec below methods whose identifiers encode metadata or cooperation.
  • Grounding generated text back to real items through embedding similarity is a cheap and effective correction for the invalid-title failure of pure-LLM generation.
  • Cross-method comparisons of LLM recommenders are only interpretable when preprocessing, splitting, and identifier assignment are standardized, which is exactly what the paper's unified platform does.
  • The augmented family as a group also clears the SASRec and GRU4Rec baselines on these data, indicating that classical collaborative signals still earn their keep when an LLM is the decision-maker.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not tested in the paper: the same comparison on sparser interaction slices or with held-out new items, where collaborative signals weaken but metadata-based semantic IDs should hold up; the paper notes that systematic cold-start evaluation is still missing from the literature.
  • The paper's 5-core dense-interaction protocol is the regime where collaborative signals are strongest, so an editorially supplied check at lower interaction density could shrink the augmented-versus-pure gap.
  • If the ordering replicates across domains, the practical bottleneck shifts to item tokenization: RQ-VAE codebook quality and training cost become the components that decide whether augmentation pays off.
  • The taxonomy classifies retrieve-and-rerank as augmentation, yet the benchmark includes no retrieve-and-rerank model, so a direct comparison of that style against TIGER-style end-to-end semantic-ID generation is an open test of which augmentation style scales better.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-branch taxonomy of LLM-based recommender systems: Pure LLM Recommenders, which rely solely on the LLM as the final decision-maker, and Augmented LLM Recommenders, which incorporate non-LLM techniques through an augmentation map f in Eq. (1). It surveys representative methods in both branches, introduces a unified benchmark on the Amazon'23 Musical Instruments and Industrial & Scientific datasets under a leave-one-out sequential recommendation protocol, and compares nine models in Table 2. On the basis of these experiments, Section 4.2 claims that Augmented LLM Recommenders generally outperform traditional baselines and even Pure LLM Recommenders. The paper also discusses challenges such as distribution gap, echo chamber effects, and position bias, and outlines future directions including cold-start and cross-domain generalization. A limitations paragraph narrows the scope to LLMs as the final decision-maker and explicitly excludes auxiliary LLM roles such as feature extraction and candidate reranking.

Significance. If the taxonomy and the benchmark are reliable, the paper provides a useful organizing framework and a reproducible comparison infrastructure for a fast-moving field. The authors have made a commendable effort to standardize preprocessing, report implementation details, and link to code repositories, and the external Amazon'23 data make the benchmark a genuinely new point of comparison rather than a recycling of prior numbers. The comparative claim is falsifiable in principle and the taxonomy is a reasonable lens for organizing the literature. However, the empirical conclusion is not currently load-bearing because of a classification inconsistency involving BIGRec and because the experimental evidence lacks statistical controls; these issues are fixable and do not invalidate the survey contribution, but they do require revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2 / Appendix B / Table 2] The paper's definition of Pure LLM Recommenders in Section 2 requires the augmentation map f in Eq. (1) to be zero and the LLM to be the final decision-maker, and Sections 1 and 3.2 explicitly identify conventional sequence models such as SASRec as non-LLM techniques that define Augmented LLM Recommenders. Appendix B states that for BIGRec 'the SASRec model, which is used for combining output scores, is trained by us.' Since SASRec scores are combined into BIGRec's final ranking, BIGRec cannot be Pure under the paper's own definition; it is Augmented or outside the stated scope. Table 2 nevertheless places BIGRec in the Pure column, where it contributes two of the highest Pure results (Hit@10 0.0420 on Musical Instruments and 0.0280 on Industrial & Scientific). The aggregate statement in Section 4.2 that Augmented LLM Recommenders 'generally outperform ... Pure LLM Recommenders' is therefore partially an artifact of column assignment. The authors should reclassify BIGRec, ablate the SASRec score-combination component, or restrict the claim accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.2 / Table 2] The empirical basis for the headline claim is fragile because no error bars, significance tests, or repeated-run statistics are reported, and the only same-backbone control is mixed. On Industrial & Scientific, P5-CID is not better than P5 on Hit@5 (0.0137 vs 0.0139) or NDCG@5 (0.0089 vs 0.0093), and on Hit@10/NDCG@10 the two are nearly tied (0.0205/0.0110 vs 0.0211/0.0116), while BIGRec exceeds P5-CID on every metric. The positive direction in Table 2 is thus carried by TIGER/LETTER-TIGER, which have no same-backbone pure comparator. The authors should provide variance estimates or significance tests and broaden the augmented set so that the conclusion is not driven by a single family of semantic-ID models.
  3. [Section B and Section 4.1.1] Several model implementations are adapted in ways that could conflate implementation quality with the Pure/Augmented distinction. GenRec is trained on only 50,000 sampled reviews; TIGER is reimplemented from the LETTER codebase rather than the original implementation; and P5, POD, and RDRec are assigned randomly generated numerical IDs, a choice that Section 4.1.1 itself notes can interact with the pretrained knowledge in LLMs. These are reasonable engineering compromises, but they mean Table 2 does not isolate the taxonomy factor. The paper should either add controlled ablations (for example, a pure model with the same semantic IDs, or an augmented variant of P5 beyond CID) or soften the comparative claim to a case-study observation.
  4. [Limitations / Section 3.2] The Limitations paragraph states that methods employing LLMs in auxiliary roles, 'such as ... candidate reranking,' are excluded from the taxonomy and discussion, yet Section 3.2 includes a Retrieve-and-Rerank category with NIR, LlamaRec, and PALR, and Section C discusses reranking as a recommendation task. This is an internal contradiction in the taxonomy's scope. The authors should clarify whether retrieve-and-rerank methods are in or out of the taxonomy and align the Limitations text with Section 3.2.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos that should be corrected: Table 3 has 'Scientifc', Appendix A opens with 'In this session' instead of 'section', Section 3.1 has 'genral', and Section D has 'Recommeders'.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 is dense and the three panels are not labeled in the caption; at journal page size the text is difficult to read. Please split the figure or enlarge and label each panel.
  3. [Appendix B] The description of GRU4Rec says the evaluation logic was modified to 'focus only on predicting the final item of each session'; the authors should state explicitly whether this matches the leave-one-out protocol used for all other models, since the original GRU4Rec evaluation differs in how sessions and negatives are handled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the taxonomy and benchmark are external-data driven; the BIGRec/SASRec column conflict is a classification-validity issue, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim in Section 4.2, that Augmented LLM Recommenders generally outperform traditional baselines and even Pure LLM Recommenders, is an external benchmark comparison on Amazon'23 data, not a quantity constructed from the taxonomy. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then relabeled as a prediction, no equation instantiates its own input by construction, and the paper does not rely on a load-bearing self-citation or an imported uniqueness theorem. The most plausible circularity concern is the placement of BIGRec in the Pure column: Section 2 defines Pure LLM Recommenders by requiring the augmentation map f to be a zero map and defines Augmented LLM Recommenders as using non-LLM techniques such as conventional sequence models, while Section B states 'the SASRec model, which is used for combining output scores, is trained by us.' If SASRec scores are combined into the final ranking, BIGRec has a non-trivial f under the paper's own definition and should be Augmented or out of scope. This would undermine the Table 2 comparison, since BIGRec is among the strongest Pure entries. However, this is a classification-validity or fairness defect, not circular reasoning: the reported scores are still independently measured against external ground truth and do not reduce by construction to the taxonomy's definitions. Similarly, the claim in Section 4.2 that 'P5, for example, shows improved performance when using CID' is mixed in Table 2 on Industrial & Scientific, where P5-CID is not better than P5 on Hit@5 or NDCG@5; that is an accuracy concern, not circularity. Under the stated rules, an honest non-finding is appropriate when the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not fit any parameters to data; the benchmark uses existing models with standard hyperparameters. The central claims rest on evaluation choices and the representativeness of the selected models and datasets.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 5-core leave-one-out evaluation protocol on Amazon'23 Musical Instruments and Industrial & Scientific is a fair and representative test for comparing LLM recommenders.
    Section 4.1.1 justifies the choice by dataset scale and recency, but the two categories may not represent all recommendation scenarios.
  • domain assumption The selected ten models are representative of the Pure and Augmented categories and are implemented faithfully from official codebases.
    Section B describes adaptations and reimplementations; fidelity is assumed but not proven with a commit hash or exact hyperparameters.
  • domain assumption The taxonomy scope, where the LLM is the final decision maker, is the appropriate lens for organizing the field.
    The Limitations section explicitly excludes LLMs used in auxiliary roles, so the taxonomy is not a complete map of LLM-based recommendation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Augment or Not? A Comparative Study of Pure and Augmented Large Language Model Recommenders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVME5Q5F

@misc{pith2026250523053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Augment or Not? A Comparative Study of Pure and Augmented Large Language Model Recommenders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVME5Q5F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23053}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have introduced new paradigms for recommender systems by enabling richer semantic understanding and incorporating implicit world knowledge. In this study, we propose a systematic taxonomy that classifies existing approaches into two categories: (1) Pure LLM Recommenders, which rely solely on LLMs, and (2) Augmented LLM Recommenders, which integrate additional non-LLM techniques to enhance performance. This taxonomy provides a novel lens through which to examine the evolving landscape of LLM-based recommendation. To support fair comparison, we introduce a unified evaluation platform that benchmarks representative models under consistent experimental settings, highlighting key design choices that impact effectiveness. We conclude by discussing open challenges and outlining promising directions for future research. This work offers both a comprehensive overview and practical guidance for advancing next-generation LLM-powered recommender.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23053 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of the taxonomy. LLM Rec￾ommenders can be categorized into Pure (up) and Aug￾mented (down) LLM Recommenders, depending on whether they utilize non-LLM techniques to help the final decision making of LLMs. cross-domain generalizability problem, discussed in Section 6. Besides leveraging LLMs solely as recom￾menders, recently, a new wave of research (Liao et al., 2024; Rajput et al., 2023; Mao et al., … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the challenges in LLM Recommenders— Distribution Gap between Recommendation and Language Semantics, Echo Chamber Effects, and Position Bias. create Semantic IDs. These IDs encode richer in￾formation than plain numeric indices, leading to significant performance improvements. Further gains can be achieved by incorporating collabo￾rative signals. P5, for example, shows improved performance when using C… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Keqin Bao, Jizhi Zhang, Wenjie Wang, Yang Zhang, Zhengyi Yang, Yanchen Luo, Chong Chen, Fuli Feng, and Qi Tian. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1145/3716393 A bi-step grounding paradigm for large language models in recommendation systems . ACM Trans. Recomm. Syst., 3(4)

    doi:10.1145/3716393 2025

  4. [4]

    Keqin Bao, Jizhi Zhang, Yang Zhang, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, and Xiangnan He. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3604915.3608857 Tallrec: An effective and efficient tuning framework to align large language model with recommendation . In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys '23, page 1007–1014, New York, NY, USA. Association for ...

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin...

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Chi, and Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy

    Yuwei Cao, Nikhil Mehta, Xinyang Yi, Raghunandan Keshavan, Lukasz Heldt, Lichan Hong, Ed H. Chi, and Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.00245 Aligning large language models with recommendation knowledge

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Kyunghyun Cho, Bart Van Merri \"e nboer, Dzmitry Bahdanau, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. On the properties of neural machine translation: Encoder-decoder approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1259

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Yashar Deldjoo and Tommaso Di Noia. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1145/3725853 Cfairllm: Consumer fairness evaluation in large-language model recommender system . ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. Just Accepted

    doi:10.1145/3725853 2025

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805 Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ferragina and G

    P. Ferragina and G. Manzini. 2000. https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.2000.892127 Opportunistic data structures with applications . In Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 390--398

    2000

  3. [11]

    Jingtong Gao, Bo Chen, Xiangyu Zhao, Weiwen Liu, Xiangyang Li, Yichao Wang, Zijian Zhang, Wanyu Wang, Yuyang Ye, Shanru Lin, et al. 2024. Llm-enhanced reranking in recommender systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12433

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Shijie Geng, Shuchang Liu, Zuohui Fu, Yingqiang Ge, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3523227.3546767 Recommendation as language processing (rlp): A unified pretrain, personalized prompt & predict paradigm (p5) . In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Rec...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Maxwell Harper and Joseph A

    F. Maxwell Harper and Joseph A. Konstan. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1145/2827872 The movielens datasets: History and context . ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst., 5(4)

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    Jesse Harte, Wouter Zorgdrager, Panos Louridas, Asterios Katsifodimos, Dietmar Jannach, and Marios Fragkoulis. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3604915.3610639 Leveraging large language models for sequential recommendation . In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommende...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Xiangnan He, Lizi Liao, Hanwang Zhang, Liqiang Nie, Xia Hu, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.05031 Neural collaborative filtering

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Zhankui He, Zhouhang Xie, Rahul Jha, Harald Steck, Dawen Liang, Yesu Feng, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Nathan Kallus, and Julian Mcauley. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3583780.3614949 Large language models as zero-shot conversational recommenders . In Proceedings of the 32nd ...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Balázs Hidasi, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Linas Baltrunas, and Domonkos Tikk. 2016. https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.06939 Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks . Preprint, arXiv:1511.06939

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Sebastian Hofstätter, Aldo Lipani, Sophia Althammer, Markus Zlabinger, and Allan Hanbury. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.06980 Mitigating the position bias of transformer models in passage re-ranking

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Min Hou, Chenxi Bai, Le Wu, Hao Liu, Kun Zhang, Kai Zhang, Richang Hong, and Meng Wang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08271 Molorec: A generalizable and efficient framework for llm-based recommendation

    2025

  12. [20]

    Yupeng Hou, Jiacheng Li, Zhankui He, An Yan, Xiusi Chen, and Julian McAuley. 2024 a . Bridging language and items for retrieval and recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03952

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Yupeng Hou, Junjie Zhang, Zihan Lin, Hongyu Lu, Ruobing Xie, Julian McAuley, and Wayne Xin Zhao. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56060-6_24 Large language models are zero-shot rankers for recommender systems . In Advances in Information Retrieval: 46th European Conf...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685 Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Wenyue Hua, Shuyuan Xu, Yingqiang Ge, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3624918.3625339 How to index item ids for recommendation foundation models . In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retri...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Jianchao Ji, Zelong Li, Shuyuan Xu, Wenyue Hua, Yingqiang Ge, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56063-7_42 Genrec: Large language model for generative recommendation . In Advances in Information Retrieval: 46th European Conference on Infor...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM.2018.00035 Self-attentive sequential recommendation . In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 197--206

    2018

  18. [26]

    Wang-Cheng Kang, Jianmo Ni, Nikhil Mehta, Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Lichan Hong, Ed Chi, and Derek Zhiyuan Cheng. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2305.06474 Do llms understand user preferences? evaluating llms on user rating prediction . Preprint, arXiv:arXiv:2305.06474

    2023 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Sein Kim, Hongseok Kang, Seungyoon Choi, Donghyun Kim, Minchul Yang, and Chanyoung Park. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637528.3671931 Large language models meet collaborative filtering: An efficient all-round llm-based recommender system . In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKD...

    2024

  20. [29]

    Xiaoyu Kong, Jiancan Wu, An Zhang, Leheng Sheng, Hui Lin, Xiang Wang, and Xiangnan He. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=isZ8XRe3De Customizing language models with instance-wise lora for sequential recommendation

    2024

  21. [30]

    Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.06180 Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention

    2023 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Doyup Lee, Chiheon Kim, Saehoon Kim, Minsu Cho, and Wook-Shin Han. 2022. Autoregressive image generation using residual quantization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11523--11532

    2022

  23. [32]

    Jiacheng Li, Ming Wang, Jin Li, Jinmiao Fu, Xin Shen, Jingbo Shang, and Julian McAuley. 2023 a . https://doi.org/10.1145/3580305.3599519 Text is all you need: Learning language representations for sequential recommendation . In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on ...

    2023

  24. [33]

    Lei Li, Yongfeng Zhang, and Li Chen. 2023 b . https://doi.org/10.1145/3583780.3615017 Prompt distillation for efficient llm-based recommendation . In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM '23, page 1348–1357, New Yor...

    2023

  25. [34]

    Yaoyiran Li, Xiang Zhai, Moustafa Alzantot, Keyi Yu, Ivan Vuli\' c , Anna Korhonen, and Mohamed Hammad. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3640457.3688121 Calrec: Contrastive alignment of generative llms for sequential recommendation . In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on R...

    2024

  26. [36]

    Xinyu Lin, Wenjie Wang, Yongqi Li, Fuli Feng, See-Kiong Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.1145/3637528.3671884 Bridging items and language: A transition paradigm for large language model-based recommendation . In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference o...

    2024

  27. [37]

    Xinyu Lin, Wenjie Wang, Yongqi Li, Shuo Yang, Fuli Feng, Yinwei Wei, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.1145/3626772.3657807 Data-efficient fine-tuning for llm-based recommendation . In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Deve...

    2024

  28. [38]

    Dairui Liu, Boming Yang, Honghui Du, Derek Greene, Neil Hurley, Aonghus Lawlor, Ruihai Dong, and Irene Li. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3627673.3679987 Recprompt: A self-tuning prompting framework for news recommendation using large language models . In Proceedings of the 33r...

    2024

  29. [39]

    Sichun Luo, Yuxuan Yao, Bowei He, Yinya Huang, Aojun Zhou, Xinyi Zhang, Yuanzhang Xiao, Mingjie Zhan, and Linqi Song. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13870 Integrating large language models into recommendation via mutual augmentation and adaptive aggregation

    2024

  30. [40]

    Tianhui Ma, Yuan Cheng, Hengshu Zhu, and Hui Xiong. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.15746 Large language models are not stable recommender systems

    2023 arXiv

  31. [41]

    Wenyu Mao, Jiancan Wu, Weijian Chen, Chongming Gao, Xiang Wang, and Xiangnan He. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1145/3716320 Reinforced prompt personalization for recommendation with large language models . ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 43(3)

    2025 doi

  32. [42]

    Andrew Ng, Michael Jordan, and Yair Weiss. 2001. On spectral clustering: Analysis and an algorithm. Advances in neural information processing systems, 14

    2001

  33. [43]

    Jianmo Ni, Gustavo Hernandez Abrego, Noah Constant, Ji Ma, Keith Hall, Daniel Cer, and Yinfei Yang. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.146 Sentence-t5: Scalable sentence encoders from pre-trained text-to-text models . pages 1864--1874

    2022 doi

  34. [44]

    Jianmo Ni, Jiacheng Li, and Julian McAuley. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1018 Justifying recommendations using distantly-labeled reviews and fine-grained aspects . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th In...

    2019 doi

  35. [45]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10683 Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer

    2023 arXiv

  36. [46]

    Tran, Jonah Samost, Maciej Kula, Ed H

    Shashank Rajput, Nikhil Mehta, Anima Singh, Raghunandan Hulikal Keshavan, Trung Vu, Lukasz Heldt, Lichan Hong, Yi Tay, Vinh Q. Tran, Jonah Samost, Maciej Kula, Ed H. Chi, and Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=BJ0fQUU32w Recommender systems with ge...

    2023

  37. [47]

    Ramin Raziperchikolaei, Guannan Liang, and Young-joo Chung. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3460231.3474228 Shared neural item representations for completely cold start problem . In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys '21, page 422–431, New York...

    2021

  38. [48]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084

    2019 arXiv

  39. [49]

    Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, Zeno Gantner, and Lars Schmidt-Thieme. 2012. Bpr: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.2618

    2012 arXiv

  40. [50]

    Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000019 The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond . Found. Trends Inf. Retr., 3(4):333–389

    2009 doi

  41. [51]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347

    2017 arXiv

  42. [52]

    Lin Shi, Chiyu Ma, Wenhua Liang, Weicheng Ma, and Soroush Vosoughi. 2024 a . Judging the judges: A systematic investigation of position bias in pairwise comparative assessments by llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07791

    2024

  43. [54]

    Zijian Song, Wenhan Zhang, Lifang Deng, Jiandong Zhang, Zhihua Wu, Kaigui Bian, and Bin Cui. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637528.3671799 Mitigating negative transfer in cross-domain recommendation via knowledge transferability enhancement . In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIG...

    2024

  44. [55]

    Fei Sun, Jun Liu, Jian Wu, Changhua Pei, Xiao Lin, Wenwu Ou, and Peng Jiang. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3357384.3357895 Bert4rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder representations from transformer . In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference ...

    2019

  45. [57]

    Min Tang, Shujie Cui, Zhe Jin, Shiuan-ni Liang, Chenliang Li, and Lixin Zou. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103938 Sequential recommendation by reprogramming pretrained transformer . Inf. Process. Manage., 62(1)

    2025

  46. [58]

    Zuoli Tang, Zhaoxin Huan, Zihao Li, Xiaolu Zhang, Jun Hu, Chilin Fu, Jun Zhou, Lixin Zou, and Chenliang Li. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3705727 One model for all: Large language models are domain-agnostic recommendation systems . ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Just Accepted

    2024 doi

  47. [59]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288

    2023 arXiv

  48. [60]

    Hanbing Wang, Xiaorui Liu, Wenqi Fan, Xiangyu Zhao, Venkataramana Kini, Devendra Yadav, Fei Wang, Zhen Wen, Jiliang Tang, and Hui Liu. 2024 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09543 Rethinking large language model architectures for sequential recommendations

    2024 arXiv

  49. [61]

    Lei Wang and Ee-Peng Lim. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:2304.03153 Zero-shot next-item recommendation using large pretrained language models

    2023 arXiv

  50. [62]

    Wenjie Wang, Honghui Bao, Xinyu Lin, Jizhi Zhang, Yongqi Li, Fuli Feng, See-Kiong Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07314 Learnable item tokenization for generative recommendation

    2024

  51. [63]

    Xinfeng Wang, Jin Cui, Yoshimi Suzuki, and Fumiyo Fukumoto. 2024 c . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-short.6 RDR ec: Rationale distillation for LLM -based recommendation . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2...

    2024 doi

  52. [64]

    Zhefan Wang, Yuanqing Yu, Wendi Zheng, Weizhi Ma, and Min Zhang. 2024 d . https://doi.org/10.1145/3626772.3657669 Macrec: A multi-agent collaboration framework for recommendation . In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Inf...

    2024

  53. [65]

    Ziyan Wang, Yingpeng Du, Zhu Sun, Haoyan Chua, Kaidong Feng, Wenya Wang, and Jie Zhang. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v39i12.33399 Re2llm: Reflective reinforcement large language model for session-based recommendation . In AAAI, pages 12827--12835

    2025 doi

  54. [66]

    Sheng-Lun Wei, Cheng-Kuang Wu, Hen-Hsen Huang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.333 Unveiling selection biases: Exploring order and token sensitivity in large language models . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ...

    2024 doi

  55. [67]

    Likang Wu, Zhi Zheng, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hao Wang, Hongchao Gu, Tingjia Shen, Chuan Qin, Chen Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Qi Liu, et al. 2024. A survey on large language models for recommendation. World Wide Web, 27(5):60

    2024

  56. [68]

    Lanling Xu, Junjie Zhang, Bingqian Li, Jinpeng Wang, Sheng Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2025 a . https://doi.org/10.1145/3726871 Tapping the potential of large language models as recommender systems: A comprehensive framework and empirical analysis . ACM Trans. Knowl...

    2025 doi

  57. [69]

    Wujiang Xu, Yunxiao Shi, Zujie Liang, Xuying Ning, Kai Mei, Kun Wang, Xi Zhu, Min Xu, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2025 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14662 iagent: Llm agent as a shield between user and recommender systems

    2025 arXiv

  58. [70]

    Fan Yang, Zheng Chen, Ziyan Jiang, Eunah Cho, Xiaojiang Huang, and Yanbin Lu. 2023. Palr: Personalization aware llms for recommendation, 2023. URL: https://arxiv. org/abs/2305.07622

    2023 arXiv

  59. [71]

    Liu Yang, Fabian Paischer, Kaveh Hassani, Jiacheng Li, Shuai Shao, Zhang Gabriel Li, Yun He, Xue Feng, Nima Noorshams, Sem Park, Bo Long, Robert D Nowak, Xiaoli Gao, and Hamid Eghbalzadeh. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18814 Unifying generative and dense retrieval for seque...

    2024 arXiv

  60. [72]

    Zhenrui Yue, Sara Rabhi, Gabriel de Souza Pereira Moreira, Dong Wang, and Even Oldridge. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.02089 Llamarec: Two-stage recommendation using large language models for ranking

    2023 arXiv

  61. [73]

    Zhenrui Yue, Yueqi Wang, Zhankui He, Huimin Zeng, Julian Mcauley, and Dong Wang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3616855.3635760 Linear recurrent units for sequential recommendation . In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM '24...

    2024

  62. [74]

    Junjie Zhang, Ruobing Xie, Yupeng Hou, Xin Zhao, Leyu Lin, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.1145/3708882 Recommendation as instruction following: A large language model empowered recommendation approach . ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Just Accepted

    2024 doi

  63. [75]

    Yang Zhang, Fuli Feng, Jizhi Zhang, Keqin Bao, Qifan Wang, and Xiangnan He. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2025.3540912 Collm: Integrating collaborative embeddings into large language models for recommendation . IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 37(5):2329--2340

    2025

  64. [76]

    Yang Zhang, Juntao You, Yimeng Bai, Jizhi Zhang, Keqin Bao, Wenjie Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.22809 Causality-enhanced behavior sequence modeling in llms for personalized recommendation

    2024 arXiv

  65. [77]

    Zihuai Zhao, Wenqi Fan, Jiatong Li, Yunqing Liu, Xiaowei Mei, Yiqi Wang, Zhen Wen, Fei Wang, Xiangyu Zhao, Jiliang Tang, and Qing Li. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2024.3392335 Recommender systems in the era of large language models (llms) . IEEE Transactions on Knowledge...

    2024

  66. [78]

    Bowen Zheng, Yupeng Hou, Hongyu Lu, Yu Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Ming Chen, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE60146.2024.00118 Adapting large language models by integrating collaborative semantics for recommendation . In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference ...

    2024

  67. [79]

    Zhi Zheng, Wenshuo Chao, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hengshu Zhu, and Hui Xiong. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.13325 Harnessing large language models for text-rich sequential recommendation

    2024 arXiv

  68. [80]

    Kun Zhou, Hui Wang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Yutao Zhu, Sirui Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Zhongyuan Wang, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340531.3411954 S3-rec: Self-supervised learning for sequential recommendation with mutual information maximization . In Proceedings of the ...

    2020

  69. [81]

    Yaochen Zhu, Chao Wan, Harald Steck, Dawen Liang, Yesu Feng, Nathan Kallus, and Jundong Li. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1145/3696410.3714908 Collaborative retrieval for large language model-based conversational recommender systems . In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 202...

    2025

  70. [82]

    Yaochen Zhu, Liang Wu, Qi Guo, Liangjie Hong, and Jundong Li. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3589334.3645347 Collaborative large language model for recommender systems . In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, WWW '24, page 3162–3172, New York, NY, USA. Association for C...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.