Beyond Factual Correctness: Mitigating Preference-Inconsistent Explanations in Explainable Recommendation

Large language models (LLMs) can infer user preferences from interaction histories and reviews, yet the rationales they generate may not reflect the information actually used for recommendation. A preference claim may be weakly supported by its selected evidence, or may have little effect on the final ranking. We refer to these two failures as the grounding-influence gap. We introduce PROVE-REC, a general framework for verifiable preference reasoning in LLM-based recommendation. Pass A converts the complete pre-target history into a compact preference proof consisting of positive and avoidance claims linked to selected evidence entries. Pass B predicts the next item using only the proof and its selected evidence, preventing the recommender from bypassing the reasoning path. To verify evidence-to-proof grounding, we compare the effect of masking selected evidence with masking a comparable control entry. To verify proof-to-recommendation influence, we remove a preference claim and measure the resulting decrease in the target item's ranking margin. A ranking-preservation objective further retains useful information from the complete history. Comprehensive experiments on wide-ranging real-world datasets demonstrate that PROVE-REC consistently outperforms strong sequential, generative, and LLM-enhanced baselines, with improvements of up to 7.45%. Controlled ablations confirm the effectiveness of the two-pass architecture and verification objectives. Moreover, PROVE-REC produces claims that are more strongly grounded in historical evidence and more influential to recommendation while preserving ranking quality.

Traditional recommender systems are typically trained to predict what item users will interact with next, but not why. However, offering personalized evidence for why a user might like the predicted item is an important way to enhance the service and to raise the likelihood that the user will be genuinely interested in the recommendation. This service can be delivered by integrating a frontier-model call into the member-facing pipeline, but it will add extra cost and latency. In this paper, we train a recommender LLM to generate personalized explanations for its reccomendation, based on the user's watching history at a large video streaming service. We impose two requirements on the generated explanation: it must be faithful to the elements of the shows it links, and it must be strictly non-harmful to the user. To this end, we first train two LLM-judge reward models covering three specific criteria, and propose constrained GRPO to incorporate these different criteria. On a held-out real-world testing set, our fine-tuned model improves the all-three-criteria PASS rate rises from 0.649 to 0.956 under our own judges and from 0.677 to 0.931 under an independent judge, where as the frontier generator performs similar to the untuned recommender baseline. We conduct further experiments to show that the model's language and recommendation abilities remain unchanged. Based on these results, we conclude that an LLM-based recommender can be fine-tuned on other complex tasks without compromising its original recommendation performance, thus provide insights for further agentic user interface powered by a single model.

This reproducibility paper explores the counterfactual explanation technique known as Learning to eXplain Recommendations (LXR). Prior work has shown that LXR can reliably identify perturbations that, if applied to a user's profile, cause the user's top ranked item to no longer be recommended, thereby explaining the item's recommendation as a function of the user's rating choices. In this paper, we extend this work in multiple ways. We expand the scope of the original LXR study to look at explanations for items other than the most highly recommended item, finding that LXR is also effective at this version of the task. We consider alternate baselines for LXR, including item popularity and latent factor similarity, and we see that for some tasks these alternatives work surprisingly well. We also examine the impact of item popularity, finding that LXR offers better explanation quality (shorter perturbations) when less popular items are being explained. Finally, we conduct a brute-force exploration of a subset of the perturbation space in order to estimate a lower bound for optimal perturbation size against which LXR and other such methods can be compared.