Iterative Semantic Reasoning from Individual to Group Interests for Generative Recommendation with LLMs
Authors: Xiaofei Zhu, Jinfei Chen, Feiyang Yuan, Zhou Yang
Organizations: Chongqing University of Technology, College of Computer Science and Engineering, Chongqing, China · Chongqing Normal University, College of Computer and Information Science, Chongqing, China
Recommendation systems aim to learn user interests from historical behaviors and deliver relevant items. Recent methods leverage large language models (LLMs) to construct and integrate semantic representations of users and items for capturing user interests. However, user behavior theories suggest that truly understanding user interests requires not only semantic integration but also semantic reasoning from explicit individual interests to implicit group interests. To this end, we propose an Iterative Semantic Reasoning Framework (ISRF) for generative recommendation. ISRF leverages LLMs to bridge explicit individual interests and implicit group interests in three steps. First, we perform multi-step bidirectional reasoning over item attributes to infer semantic item features and build a semantic interaction graph capturing users' explicit interests. Second, we generate semantic user features based on the semantic item features and construct a similarity-based user graph to infer the implicit interests of similar user groups. Third, we adopt an iterative batch optimization strategy, where individual explicit interests directly guide the refinement of group implicit interests, while group implicit interests indirectly enhance individual modeling. This iterative process ensures consistent and progressive interest reasoning, enabling more accurate and comprehensive user interest learning. Extensive experiments on the Sports, Beauty, and Toys datasets demonstrate that ISRF outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/htired/ISRF.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. An illustrative comparison between semantic integration approach and our proposed ISRF (Semantic Reasoning). An illustrative comparison between semantic integration approach and our proposed ISRF (Semantic Reasoning).
Figure 2. The overall architecture of our proposed Iterative Semantic Reasoning Framework (ISRF), which includes: (a) Individual Interest Reasoning; (b) Group Interest Reasoning; (c) Iterative Refinement. The overall architecture of our proposed Iterative Semantic Reasoning Framework (ISRF)
Models
Sports
Beauty
Toys
Metrics
H@5
N@5
H@10
N@10
H@5
N@5
H@10
N@10
H@5
N@5
H@10
N@10
Caser
0.0116
0.0072
0.0194
0.0097
0.0131
0.0087
0.0176
0.0101
0.0166
0.0107
0.0270
0.0141
GRU4Rec
0.0129
0.0086
0.0204
0.0099
0.0200
0.0283
0.0137
0.0200
0.0099
0.0059
0.0176
0.0084
HGN
0.0189
0.0120
0.0313
0.0163
0.0512
0.0266
0.0263
0.0455
0.0201
0.0141
0.0170
0.0300
SASRec
0.0233
0.0154
0.0350
0.0192
0.0500
0.0347
0.0170
0.0650
0.0463
0.0306
0.0675
0.0374
BERT4Rec
0.0115
0.0075
0.0191
0.0099
0.0203
0.0124
0.0347
0.0170
0.0116
0.0071
0.0203
0.0099
Table 1. Performance comparison on the sequential recommendation task, where “*” indicates that the improvement is statistically significant ( p -value <0.05 ) under a 5-trial t -test.
Models
Sports
Beauty
Toys
Metrics
H@5
N@5
H@10
N@10
H@5
N@5
H@10
N@10
H@5
N@5
H@10
N@10
SampleX
0.2362
0.1505
0.3290
0.1800
0.2247
0.1441
0.3090
0.1711
0.1958
0.1244
0.2662
0.1469
LightGCN
0.4150
0.3002
0.5436
0.3418
0.4205
0.3067
0.5383
0.3451
0.3879
0.2874
0.5106
0.3272
NCL
0.4292
0.3131
0.5592
0.3551
0.4378
0.3228
0.5542
0.3607
0.3975
0.2925
0.5120
0.3325
XSimGCL
0.3547
0.2689
0.4486
0.2992
0.3530
0.2734
0.4392
0.3012
0.3351
0.2614
0.4186
0.2885
P5
0.1955
0.1355
0.2802
0.1627
0.1564
0.1096
0.2300
0.1332
0.1322
0.0889
0.2023
0.1114
Table 2. Performance comparison on direct recommendation task.
Ablation
Toys
Beauty
Sports
H@10
N@10
H@10
N@10
H@10
N@10
Sequential Recommendation
ISRF
0.0792
0.0652
0.0800
0.0571
0.0639
0.0488
w/o LD→S
0.0779
0.0636
0.0779
0.0553
0.0601
0.0464
w/o LS
0.0775
0.0636
0.0771
0.0548
0.0614
0.0469
Direct Recommendation
Table 3. Ablation studies on Direct Recommendation and Sequential Recommendation tasks across different components of ISRF, evaluated using Hit Rate@10 (H@10) and NDCG@10 (N@10).
Figure 3. The performance of ISRF and its semantic variants. The performance of ISRF and its semantic variants.
Figure 4. The hyper-parameter study focuses on the L′ . The hyper-parameter study focuses on the L′.
Datsets
Models
Train Time
GPU Memory
Infer DR
Infer SR
Sports
ELMRec
10m10s/epoch
23.58 GB
24m07s
13m30s
ISRF
15m01s/epoch
24.19 GB
20m23s
13m42s
Beauty
ELMRec
6m13s/epoch
21.93 GB
12m44s
8m19s
ISRF
8m04s/epoch
22.12 GB
12m34s
8m22s
Toys
ELMRec
5m07s/epoch
21.15 GB
9m59s
7m29s
ISRF
5m42s/epoch
21.78 GB
9m52s
7m23s
Table 4. Computational Cost Comparison. Infer DR and Infer SR denote the inference time of Direct Recommendation and Sequential Recommendation, respectively.
Figure 5. Case study on identifying users’ implicit interests. Case study on identifying users’ implicit interests.