Large language models (LLMs) have shown great promise in recommender systems, where supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is commonly used for adaptation. Subsequent studies further introduce preference learning to incorporate negative samples into the training process. However, existing methods rely on sequence-level, offline-generated negatives, making them less discriminative and informative when adapting LLMs to recommendation tasks with large negative item spaces. To address these challenges, we propose ILRec, a novel preference fine-tuning framework for LLM-based recommendation, leveraging self-hard negative signals extracted from intermediate layers to improve preference learning. Specifically, we identify self-hard negative tokens from intermediate layers as fine-grained negative supervision that dynamically reflects the model's preference learning process. To effectively integrate these signals into training, we design a two-stage framework comprising cross-layer preference optimization and cross-layer preference distillation, enabling the model to jointly discriminate informative negatives and enhance the quality of negative signals from intermediate layers. In addition, we introduce a lightweight collaborative filtering model to assign token-level rewards for negative signals, mitigating the risk of over-penalizing false negatives. Extensive experiments on three datasets demonstrate ILRec's effectiveness in enhancing the performance of LLM-based recommender systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Limitations of traditional negative sampling methods and solutions provided by ILRec, aiming at extracting more fine-grained and informative negative signals.
Figure 2. Training loss curves of different layers in LLaMA3.1-8B on Instrument dataset using LC-Rec. L denotes the final layer, while L−k denotes the k -th layer before the final layer.
Figure 3. The overall framework of ILRec.
Methods
Instrument
Art
Game
Hit@5
Hit@10
NDCG@5
NDCG@10
Hit@5
Hit@10
NDCG@5
NDCG@10
Hit@5
Hit@10
NDCG@5
NDCG@10
Caser
0.0502
0.0583
0.0287
0.0334
0.0324
0.0524
0.0208
0.0271
0.0217
0.0423
0.0152
0.0179
GRU4Rec
0.0675
0.0773
0.0516
0.0554
0.0652
0.0786
0.0436
0.0577
0.0406
0.0517
0.0289
0.0365
SASRec
0.0619
0.0698
0.0474
0.0502
0.0682
0.0845
0.0541
0.0593
0.0422
0.0598
0.0312
0.0396
BIGRec
0.0786
0.1004
0.0742
0.0799
0.0801
0.0979
0.0704
0.0768
0.0502
0.0677
0.0433
0.0481
+RosePO
0.0772
0.0983
0.0733
0.0786
0.0771
0.0927
0.0668
0.0732
0.0478
0.0655
0.0408
0.0471
Table 1. The overall performance comparisons between different baseline methods and ILRec. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined font, respectively.
Datasets
#Users
#Items
#Interactions
Sparsity
Instrument
24,773
9,923
206,153
99.92%
Art
45,142
20,957
390,832
99.96%
Game
50,547
16,860
452,989
99.95%
Table 2. Statistics of the processed datasets.
Methods
BIGRec
LC-Rec
Instrument
Art
Instrument
Art
Hit@10
NDCG@10
Hit@10
NDCG@10
Hit@10
NDCG@10
Hit@10
NDCG@10
ILRec
0.1091
0.0856
0.1045
0.0852
0.1143
0.0889
0.1118
0.0821
w/o LCPO
0.1068
0.0813
0.0987
0.0801
0.1111
0.0852
0.1078
0.0794
w/o LCPD
0.1051
0.0805
0.1020
0.0805
0.1124
0.0869
0.1092
0.0805
w/o LCRR
0.1078
0.0848
0.1029
0.0838
0.1136
0.0875
0.1112
0.0813
Table 3. Ablation study of our method.
Figure 4. Performance Comparison w.r.t. Different Model Backbones on the Instrument dataset with BIGRec and LC-Rec training paradigms.
Figure 5. Performance Comparison w.r.t. Numbers of Intermediate Layers on the Instrument dataset with both BIGRec and LC-Rec paradigms.
Figure 6. Performance Comparison on Candidate-Ranking tasks on the LastFM and Instrument Datasets with different preference optimization methods.
Methods
BIGRec
LC-Rec
Hit@10
NDCG@10
Hit@10
NDCG@10
SASRec
0.1091
0.0856
0.1143
0.0889
GRU4Rec
0.1085
0.0850
0.1136
0.0878
BERT4Rec
0.1089
0.0851
0.1142
0.0885
Caser
0.1073
0.0842
0.1125
0.0871
BPR
0.1068
0.0837
0.1125
0.0867
Table 4. Performance Comparison w.r.t. Different Collaborative Filtering Models on the Instrument dataset.
Methods
Instrument
Art
Time
Epoch
Sample
Time
Epoch
Sample
S-DPO
7.25 h
8(5 + 3)
1
10.25 h
8(5 + 3)
1
RosePO
6.6 h
8(5 + 3)
1
9.53 h
8(5 + 3)
1
SPRec
7.8 h
11(5 + 3 * 2)
3
11.5 h
11(5 + 3 * 2)
3
ILRec
4.2 h
5
0
7.46 h
5
0
Table 5. Efficiency analysis of different Methods.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
Instrument
Art
Hit@10
NDCG@10
Hit@10
NDCG@10
baseline
0.1062
0.0832
0.1045
0.0778
α=0.1
0.1128
0.0882
0.1102
0.0799
α=0.5
0.1138
0.0867
0.1084
0.0801
α=0.8
0.1143
0.0889
0.1110
0.0807
α=1.0
0.1115
0.0872
0.1118
0.0821
Appendix
Table 6. Hyperparameter Sensitivity Analysis with α and β on Instrument and Art datasets.
Methods
Hit@5
NDCG@5
Hit@10
NDCG@10
Training time
ILRec
0.0844
0.0788
0.1091
0.0856
4.1h
RLVR
0.0812
0.0753
0.1054
0.0817
6.5h
RLVR-reasoning
0.0827
0.0763
0.1062
0.0835
10.6h
Appendix
Table 7. Performance comparison between ILRec and RLVR-based methods.
Methods
Hit@10
NDCG@10
ILRec
0.1091
0.0856
Non-consecutive Layers
0.1084
0.0843
Medium Layers
0.1043
0.0820
Shallow Layers
0.1037
0.0813
L31
0.1067
0.0839
L30
0.1080
0.0844
Appendix
Table 8. Performance Comparison w.r.t. Different Layer Selection Strategies on the Instrument Dataset using BIGRec training paradigm.
Methods
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Llama3.2-1B
0.0972
0.0976
0.0968
0.0950
0.0953
0.0938
0.0947
Llama3.2-3B
0.0993
0.1019
0.1024
0.1022
0.1008
0.1013
0.1002
Llama3.1-8B
0.1067
0.1081
0.1091
0.1084
0.1088
0.1075
0.1057
Appendix
Table 9. Performance Comparison w.r.t. Different k among Different Model Backbones on Amazon Instrument.
Methods
BIGRec
LC-Rec
Hit@10
NDCG@10
Hit@10
NDCG@10
Mean Average (ILRec)
0.1091
0.0856
0.1143
0.0889
Variance
0.1074
0.0840
0.1130
0.0862
Entropy
0.1066
0.0833
0.1149
0.0893
Maximum-probability
0.1061
0.0836
0.1112
0.0841
SFT
0.1004
0.0799
0.1062
0.0832
Appendix
Table 10. Performance comparison w.r.t. different ensembling strategies on Amazon Instrument.
Large language model-based recommendation uses language models to personalize ranking, retrieval, and conversational suggestions from text and behavior.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong potential for recommendation by leveraging their semantic understanding and contextual modeling capabilities. Recent studies further introduce reasoning mechanisms to improve user preference modeling. However, explicit natural-language reasoning incurs substantial inference overhead, whereas existing latent reasoning methods mainly focus on generating or verifying intermediate states, leaving their layer-wise preference roles and contributions insufficiently characterized. We propose HiLaR, a Hierarchical Latent Reasoning framework with layer-aware reinforcement optimization for LLM-based recommendation. HiLaR constructs temporal-guided hierarchical user preference representations, aligns them with multiple LLM latent reasoning states, and organizes the reasoning process from broad preferences to fine-grained current intents. To further optimize the reasoning trajectory, HiLaR combines final recommendation feedback with layer-aware process rewards derived from the marginal target-likelihood gain of each state. Experiments on four Amazon benchmark datasets show that HiLaR generally outperforms strong sequential, generative, and LLM-based recommendation baselines. Ablation and sensitivity analyses further verify the contribution of hierarchical representation learning, latent alignment, and process-level optimization. Our code is available in https://github.com/hupeiyu21/HiLaR.
Peiyu Hu, Siying Gu, Weihai Lu +8
1Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University · 2Xiaohongshu · 3Peking University +1
Modern recommender systems must adapt to dynamic, need-specific objectives for diverse recommendation scenarios, yet most traditional recommenders are optimized for a single static target and struggle to reconfigure behavior on demand. Recent advances in reinforcement-learning-based post-training have unlocked strong instruction-following and reasoning capabilities in LLMs, suggesting a principled route for aligning them to complex recommendation goals. Motivated by this, we study closed-set autoregressive ranking, where an LLM generates a permutation over a fixed candidate set conditioned on user context and an explicit need instruction. However, applying RL to this setting faces two key obstacles: (i) sequence-level rewards yield coarse credit assignment that fails to provide fine-grained training signals, and (ii) interaction feedback is sparse and noisy, which together lead to inefficient and unstable updates. We propose FlexRec, a post-training RL framework that addresses both issues with (1) a causally grounded item-level reward based on counterfactual swaps within the remaining candidate pool, and (2) critic-guided, uncertainty-aware scaling that explicitly models reward uncertainty and down-weights low-confidence rewards to stabilize learning under sparse supervision. Across diverse recommendation scenarios and objectives, FlexRec achieves substantial gains: it improves NDCG@5 by up to 59% and Recall@5 by up to 109.4% in need-specific ranking, and further achieves up to 24.1% Recall@5 improvement under generalization settings, outperforming strong traditional recommenders and LLM-based baselines.
Yijun Pan, Weikang Qiu, Qiyao Ma +4
Yale University · University of California, Davis · Snap Inc.
With the rise of LLMs, there is an increasing need for intelligent recommendation assistants that can handle complex queries and provide personalized, reasoning-driven recommendations. LLM-based recommenders show potential but face challenges in multi-step reasoning, underscoring the need for reasoning-augmented systems. To address this gap, we propose ReRec, a novel reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT) framework designed to improve LLM reasoning in complex recommendation tasks. Our framework introduces three key components: (1) Dual-Graph Enhanced Reward Shaping, integrating recommendation metrics like NDCG@K with Query Alignment and Preference Alignment Scores to provide fine-grained reward signals for LLM optimization; (2) Reasoning-aware Advantage Estimation, which decomposes LLM outputs into reasoning segments and penalizes incorrect steps to enhance reasoning of recommendation; and (3) Online Curriculum Scheduler, dynamically assess query difficulty and organize training curriculum to ensure stable learning during RFT. Experiments demonstrate that ReRec outperforms state-of-the-art baselines and preserves core abilities like instruction-following and general knowledge. Our codes are available at https://github.com/jiani-huang/ReRec.