Give Users the Wheel: Towards Promptable Recommendation Paradigm
Authors: Fuyuan Lyu, Chenglin Luo, Qiyuan Zhang, Yupeng Hou, Haolun Wu, Xing Tang, Xue Liu, Jin L. C. Guo, Xiuqiang He
Organizations: McGill & Mila - Quebec AI Institute Montreal, Canada · Shenzhen Technological University Shenzhen, China · City Univerisity of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China · University of California San Diego San Diego, US · McGill & MBZUAI Abu Dhabi, UAE · McGill University Montreal, Canada
Conventional sequential recommendation models have achieved remarkable success in mining implicit behavioral patterns. However, these architectures remain structurally blind to explicit user intent: they struggle to adapt when a user's immediate goal (e.g., expressed via a natural language prompt) deviates from their historical habits. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer the semantic reasoning to interpret such intent, existing integration paradigms force a dilemma: LLM-as-a-recommender paradigm sacrifices the efficiency and collaborative precision of ID-based retrieval, while Reranking methods are inherently bottlenecked by the recall capabilities of the underlying model. In this paper, we propose Decoupled Promptable Sequential Recommendation (DPR), a model-agnostic framework that empowers conventional sequential backbones to natively support Promptable Recommendation, the ability to dynamically steer the retrieval process using natural language without abandoning collaborative signals. DPR modulates the latent user representation directly within the retrieval space. To achieve this, we introduce a Fusion module to align the collaborative and semantic signals, a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture that disentangles the conflicting gradients from positive and negative steering, and a three-stage training strategy that progressively aligns the semantic space of prompts with the collaborative space. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that DPR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in prompt-guided tasks while maintaining competitive performance in standard sequential recommendation scenarios.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Illustration Figure on How to follow the user’s instruction while considering historical interests Illustration Figure on How to follow the user's instruction while considering historical interests
Figure 2. Overall Framework Overall Framework
Dataset
Task Type
Model
SASRec
GRU4Rec
NDCG@10
NDCG@20
Recall@10
Recall@20
NDCG@10
NDCG@20
Recall@10
Recall@20
ML1M
Sequential
Base
0.1728
0.2044
0.3134
0.4386
0.1569
0.1866
0.2914
0.4089
+ f
0.1800
0.2112
0.3235
0.4474
0.1816
0.2140
0.3214
0.4502
+ f + a
0.1410
0.1687
0.2589
0.3687
0.1261
0.1531
0.2397
0.3472
DPR
0.1838
0.2161
0.3341
0.4621
0.1817
0.2145
0.3220
0.4520
Positive
Base
0.0781
0.1049
0.1574
0.2638
0.0673
0.0906
0.1391
0.2320
Table 1. Main Performance comparison.
Task
Metric
Qwen2.5-7B
Llama-2-7b
DeepSeek-V3
GPT-5.2
RecGPT-7B
RecLM-gen
DPR (SAS)
DPR (GRU)
[SEQ]
Recall@10
0.0296
0.0126
0.0500
0.0640
0.1864
0.1937
0.3341
0.3220
NDCG@10
0.0170
0.0071
0.0227
0.0277
0.0986
0.1073
0.1838
0.1817
[POS]
Recall@10
0.0137
0.0134
0.0263
0.0313
0.1465
0.3626
0.7300
0.6991
NDCG@10
0.0078
0.0072
0.0129
0.0149
0.0745
0.1774
0.5748
0.5501
[NEG]
Recall@10
0.0166
0.0103
0.0350
0.0379
0.1277
0.1163
0.2076
0.2030
NDCG@10
0.0130
0.0081
0.0201
0.0228
0.0870
0.0773
0.1772
0.1741
Table 2. Comparison of DPR with LLM-based recommendation models on the ML1M dataset.
Rec Model
SASRec
GRU4Rec
Method
Llama2-7b
DeepSeek-V3
DPR
Llama2-7b
DeepSeek-V3
DPR
Context
20
30
20
50
100
-
20
30
20
50
100
-
[POS]
NDCG@10
0.0824
0.0766
0.2453
0.3950
0.5062
0.5748
0.0700
0.0662
0.2166
0.3695
0.4814
0.5501
NDCG@20
0.1046
0.1013
0.2455
0.3956
0.5076
0.5921
0.0896
0.0882
0.2167
0.3699
0.4827
0.5683
Recall@10
0.1650
0.1532
0.2530
0.4134
0.5378
0.7300
0.1447
0.1343
0.2226
0.3861
0.5107
0.6991
Recall@20
0.2537
0.2516
0.2537
0.4158
0.5429
0.7981
0.2233
0.2223
0.2233
0.3879
0.5157
0.7710
Table 3. Comparison of DPR with LLM-based reranking models on the ML1M dataset.
Model
Intent
History
Overall
Fulfillment
Alignment
Score
SASRec
4.076
6.090
4.708
GPT-5.2
6.231
5.007
5.619
DPR-Rand (Ablation)
3.288
4.816
3.684
DPR (Ours)
5.888
5.918
5.932
Table 4. LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation results for nuanced semantic requests on ML1M. Scores range from 1 to 10. DPR-Rand serves as an ablation to test prompt sensitivity by providing mismatched prompts.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
#Users
#Items
#Int.
Avg. Len.
Sparsity
ML-1M
6,040
3,667
1,000,155
165.59
95.48%
MIND
265,016
21,901
12,376,034
46.70
99.79%
Appendix
Table 5. Statistics of datasets.
Task Type
Model
SASRec
GRU4Rec
NDCG@10
NDCG@20
Recall@10
Recall@20
NDCG@10
NDCG@20
Recall@10
Recall@20
Positive ( N = 3 )
Base
0.0992
0.1293
0.1978
0.3171
0.0873
0.1155
0.1780
0.2898
+ f
0.1084
0.1373
0.2169
0.3320
0.0915
0.1204
0.1885
0.3034
+ f + a
0.0990
0.1237
0.1930
0.2912
0.0915
0.1155
0.1784
0.2737
Filter
0.3705
0.3989
0.5781
0.6896
0.3496
0.3794
0.5495
0.6674
+ f
0.3840
0.4117
0.5913
0.7001
0.3568
0.3852
0.5625
0.6746
Appendix
Table 6. Performance comparison on the ML-1M dataset with varied N settings.
Task Type
Model
SASRec
GRU4Rec
NDCG@10
NDCG@20
Recall@10
Recall@20
NDCG@10
NDCG@20
Recall@10
Recall@20
Positive ( N = 3 )
Base
0.0431
0.0545
0.0835
0.1291
0.0395
0.0504
0.0767
0.1200
+ f
0.0441
0.0564
0.0852
0.1341
0.0390
0.0499
0.0759
0.1192
+ f + a
0.0622
0.0777
0.1200
0.1819
0.0525
0.0665
0.1017
0.1574
Filter
0.3259
0.3413
0.4893
0.5496
0.3170
0.3320
0.4786
0.5370
+ f
0.3386
0.3542
0.5075
0.5686
0.3117
0.3266
0.4696
0.5270
Appendix
Table 7. Performance comparison on the MIND dataset with different N settings.
Dataset
ML-1M
MIND
Model
SASRec
GRU4Rec
SASRec
GRU4Rec
Stage
3-S
2-S
Diff
3-S
2-S
Diff
3-S
2-S
Diff
3-S
2-S
Diff
[SEQ]
N@10
0.1838
0.1822
-0.87%
0.1817
0.1718
-5.45%
0.1117
0.1093
-2.15%
0.0959
0.0959
0.00%
N@20
0.2161
0.2135
-1.20%
0.2145
0.2024
-5.64%
0.1333
0.1310
-1.73%
0.1149
0.1150
+0.09%
R@10
0.3341
0.3306
-1.05%
0.3220
0.3079
-4.38%
0.2022
0.1986
-1.78%
0.1745
0.1750
+0.29%
R@20
0.4621
0.4541
-1.73%
0.4520
0.4290
-5.09%
0.2878
0.2849
-1.01%
0.2498
0.2511
+0.52%
Appendix
Table 8. Ablation study of the multi-stage framework (3-Stage vs. 2-Stage) on ML-1M and MIND datasets.
Dataset
ML-1M
MIND
Model
SASRec
GRU4Rec
SASRec
GRU4Rec
Loss Type
Full
Pos
Neg
Full
Pos
Neg
Full
Pos
Neg
Full
Pos
Neg
[POS]
N@10
0.5748
0.5672
0.1670
0.5501
0.5496
0.1630
0.4591
0.4629
0.0946
0.4688
0.5068
0.1211
N@20
0.5921
0.5853
0.1973
0.5683
0.5672
0.1913
0.4751
0.4789
0.1110
0.4855
0.5206
0.1373
R@10
0.7300
0.7219
0.3079
0.6991
0.6986
0.2957
0.5912
0.5955
0.1633
0.6058
0.6292
0.1997
R@20
0.7981
0.7930
0.4281
0.7710
0.7680
0.4079
0.6543
0.6588
0.2286
0.6719
0.6837
0.2643
Appendix
Table 9. Ablation study of Loss Functions on ML-1M and MIND datasets.
Dataset
ML-1M
MIND
Model
SASRec
GRU4Rec
SASRec
GRU4Rec
Arch.
2-T
1-T
Diff
2-T
1-T
Diff
2-T
1-T
Diff
2-T
1-T
Diff
[POS]
N@10
0.5748
0.4173
-27.40%
0.5501
0.3941
-28.36%
0.4591
0.3158
-31.21%
0.4688
0.3666
-21.80%
N@20
0.5921
0.4396
-25.76%
0.5683
0.4164
-26.73%
0.4751
0.3329
-29.93%
0.4855
0.3816
-21.40%
R@10
0.7300
0.5650
-22.60%
0.6991
0.5390
-22.90%
0.5912
0.4288
-27.47%
0.6058
0.4755
-21.51%
R@20
0.7981
0.6528
-18.21%
0.7710
0.6270
-18.68%
0.6543
0.4963
-24.15%
0.6719
0.5348
-20.40%
Appendix
Table 10. Ablation study of Model Architecture (Two-Tower vs. Single-Tower) on ML-1M and MIND datasets.