Offline Reasoning for Efficient Recommendation: LLM-Empowered Persona-Profiled Item Indexing
Organizations: Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea · NAVER, Seongnam, South Korea
Abstract
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities for recommender systems by capturing the nuanced semantics of user interests and item characteristics through rich semantic understanding and contextual reasoning. In particular, LLMs have been employed as rerankers that reorder candidate items based on inferred user-item relevance. However, these approaches often require expensive online inference-time reasoning, leading to high latency that hampers real-world deployment. In this work, we introduce Persona4Rec, a recommendation framework that performs offline reasoning to construct interpretable persona representations of items, enabling lightweight and scalable real-time inference. In the offline stage, Persona4Rec leverages LLMs to reason over item reviews, inferring diverse user motivations that explain why different types of users may engage with an item; these inferred motivations are materialized as persona representations, providing multiple, human-interpretable views of each item. Unlike conventional approaches that rely on a single item representation, Persona4Rec learns to align user profiles with the most plausible item-side persona through a dedicated encoder, effectively transforming user-item relevance into user-persona relevance. At the online stage, this persona-profiled item index allows fast relevance computation without invoking expensive LLM reasoning. Extensive experiments show that Persona4Rec achieves performance comparable to recent LLM-based rerankers while substantially reducing inference time. Moreover, qualitative analysis confirms that persona representations not only drive efficient scoring but also provide intuitive, review-grounded explanations. These results demonstrate that Persona4Rec offers a practical and interpretable solution for next-generation recommender systems.
Figures & tables
| Method | Latency | Scalability | Reasoning | Explain. |
| ZS-LLM ( Hou et al., 2024b ) | High | Low | Online | ✗ |
| RankVicuna ( Pradeep et al., 2023a ) | High | Low | Online | ✗ |
| TALLRec ( Bao et al., 2023 ) | Middle | Low | Online | ✗ |
| EXP3RT ( Kim et al., 2025 ) | High | Low | Online | ✓ |
| Persona4Rec (ours) | Low | High | Offline | ✓ |
| Review Aspects (user AEPTNCI3X5 ) |
| Category Preference: Dark fantasy, gothic retellings |
| Purchase Purpose: Interest in morally complex reinterpretations of classic fairy tales |
| Quality Criteria: Tension, surprising twists, and morally ambiguous characters |
| Usage Context: Immersive reading during leisure hours |
| Constructed Persona |
| Name: The Dark Storyline Seeker |
| Dataset | #Interactions | #Users | #Items | Sparsity |
| Amazon-Books | 309,287 | 26,173 | 25,130 | 99.9530% |
| Yelp | 103,774 | 7,968 | 2,942 | 99.5573% |
| Dataset | Generator | Reranker | @5 | @10 | @20 | ||||||
| HR | MRR | NDCG | HR | MRR | NDCG | HR | MRR | NDCG | |||
| Amazon-Books | BPR-MF | - | 0.0639 | 0.0340 | 0.0414 | 0.1000 | 0.0388 | 0.0531 | 0.0419 | 0.0643 | |
| ZS-LLM | 0.0664 | 0.0357 | 0.0433 | 0.1025 | 0.0405 | 0.0550 | 0.0434 | 0.0655 | |||
| TALLRec | 0.0346 | 0.0166 | 0.0210 | 0.0667 | 0.0207 | 0.0313 | 0.1446 | 0.0258 | 0.0505 | ||
| EXP3RT | 0.0498 | 0.0238 | 0.0302 | 0.0865 | 0.0286 | 0.0420 | 0.0326 | 0.0565 | |||
| Persona4Rec (vanilla) | 0.0668 | 0.0389 | 0.0457 | 0.1007 | 0.0433 | 0.0567 | 0.0464 | 0.0678 | |||
| Generator | Reranker | Warm Users@10 | Cold Users@10 | Head Items@10 | Tail Items@10 | ||||
| HR | NDCG | HR | NDCG | HR | NDCG | HR | NDCG | ||
| BPR-MF | - | 0.0469 | 0.0236 | 0.1380 | 0.0757 | 0.1662 | 0.0868 | 0.0310 | 0.0185 |
| ZS-LLM | 0.0490 | 0.0251 | 0.1409 | 0.0778 | 0.1696 | 0.0897 | 0.0323 | 0.0191 | |
| TALLRec | 0.0451 | 0.0216 | 0.0749 | 0.0333 | 0.1120 | 0.0530 | 0.0160 | 0.0076 | |
| EXP3RT | 0.0486 | 0.0236 | 0.1109 | 0.0528 | 0.1457 | 0.0683 | 0.0268 | 0.0160 | |
| Persona4Rec (ours) | 0.0599 ∗ | 0.0320 ∗ | 0.1432 | 0.0789 | 0.1707 | 0.0904 | 0.0360 ∗ | 0.0196 | |
| Generator | Reranker | HR | NDCG |
| BPR-MF | - | 0.1000 | 0.0531 |
| Summary Only | 0.1043 (+4.3%) | 0.0560 (+5.5%) | |
| Full (Ours) | 0.1081 (+8.1%) | 0.0585 (+10.2%) | |
| LightGCN | - | 0.1071 | 0.0561 |
| Summary Only | 0.1112 (+3.8%) | 0.0591 (+5.3%) | |
| Full (Ours) | 0.1151 (+7.5%) | 0.0622 (+10.9%) |
| Method | Inference Latency (ms) | Memory Footprint (GB) |
| ZS-LLM | 5,537 3,094.13 | - |
| TALLRec | 979.17 13.29 | 12.57 |
| EXP3RT | 77,974.08 1,229.99 | 14.96 |
| Persona4Rec | 0.52 0.01 (CPU) | - |
| 0.75 0.02 (GPU) | 0.1 |
| Evaluation Criteria for Recommendation Explanation |
| Intuitiveness: How immediately comprehensible is the explanation? Does it clearly convey why the recommendation makes sense without requiring extensive interpretation? |
| Relatability: How well does the explanation connect to the user’s actual experiences and lifestyle context? Does it resonate with real-world usage scenarios? |
| Consistency: How well does the explanation align with the user’s demonstrated preferences and interaction history? Does it accurately reflect their past behavior patterns? |
| Persuasiveness: How convincing is the explanation in demonstrating that the item would appeal to the user? Does it effectively communicate the item’s value for this specific user? |
| Specificity: How personalized and detailed is the explanation for this particular user-item pair? Does it provide concrete, individualized rationale rather than generic statements? |
| Evaluation Criteria for Persona Quality |
| Faithfulness: Are the personas genuinely grounded in actual user reviews of this item? Do they reflect real opinions rather than fabricated or generic descriptions? |
| Clarity: Are the personas tailored to this specific item’s characteristics? Do they capture unique aspects rather than broad, generic user types? |
| Coverage: Do the personas collectively cover diverse and meaningful reasons why different users might engage with this item? Are both major and minor preference dimensions represented? |
| Interpretability: Are the personas logically coherent and easy to understand? Does each persona present a clear, well-defined user archetype? |
| Representativeness: Are the personas sufficiently distinct from each other? Do they effectively represent different user segments rather than redundant variations? |
| # Personas | @5 | @10 | @20 | |||
| HR | NDCG | HR | NDCG | HR | NDCG | |
| 1 | 0.0488 | 0.0301 | 0.0824 | 0.0408 | 0.0507 | |
| 3 | 0.0519 | 0.0322 | 0.0835 | 0.0423 | 0.1212 | 0.0520 |
| 5 | 0.0532 | 0.0335 | 0.0843 | 0.0435 | 0.0529 | |
| 7 | 0.0541 | 0.0338 | 0.0848 | 0.0437 | 0.0530 | |
Recommender Systems
Recommender systems predict and rank items for people using interaction histories, content, context, and feedback.
See all 514 papers