Sequential Recommendation (SR) in multimodal settings typically relies on small frozen pretrained encoders, which limits semantic capacity and prevents Collaborative Filtering (CF) signals from being fully integrated into item representations. Inspired by the recent success of Large Language Models (LLMs) as high-capacity embedders, we investigate the use of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) as CF-aware multimodal embedders for SR. However, we find that standard contrastive Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), used to adapt VLMs for embedding generation and inject CF signals, can amplify inherent modality imbalance: optimization becomes dominated by one modality while the other degrades, ultimately undermining recommendation accuracy. To address this, we propose VLM2Rec, a VLM embedder-based framework for multimodal sequential recommendation designed to promote balanced modality utilization. Specifically, we introduce Weak-modality Penalized Contrastive Learning to mitigate gradient imbalance during optimization and cross-modal Relational Topology Regularization to preserve geometric consistency between modalities. Experiments show that VLM2Rec consistently improves over strong baselines in both accuracy and robustness across diverse scenarios.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Analysis of modality collapse via dropout test (Left, a) and gradient dynamics (Right, b) . SFT amplifies the performance gap between text-only and vision-only inputs and steers the fused update toward the text gradient, while VLM2Rec reduces this gap by rebalancing modality gradients.
Metric
Modality
Beauty
MovieLens
VLMVanilla
VLMSFT
VLM2Rec (Ours)
VLMVanilla
VLMSFT
VLM2Rec (Ours)
U ( ↓ )
Fused
-0.3984
-1.7969
-1.9921
-0.2275
-0.8203
-4.6562
Vision
-0.0237
-0.0398
-0.2031
-0.0236
-0.0078
-1.7187
Text
-0.3691
-1.7422
-1.6718
-0.2177
-0.7891
-1.1788
S ( ↑ )
Fused
1.0340
1.1910
1.1870
1.0117
1.2471
1.2263
Vision
1.0071
1.0000
1.2134
1.0035
0.9998
1.1134
Table 1: VLM representation geometry (Uniformity U , Separability S ) across three states.
Figure 2: Overview of VLM2Rec. Left : VLM2Rec pretraining and the initialization of SR backbone item embeddings. Right : Proposed training objectives. LWPCL adaptively penalizes the weak modality to improve positive-negative discrimination, while LCRTR aligns cross-modal relational topology to promote modality-consistent neighborhoods.
Baselines
FM
Seq.CF
MM
Emb.tune
Bal.
ID-based [ 13 , 18 , 68 , 27 ]
✓
✓
BERT [ 8 ]
✓
CLIP [ 41 ]
✓
✓
SLIM [ 56 ]
✓
SLIM + [ 56 ]
✓
✓
LLMEmb [ 31 ]
✓
△
✓
Table 2: Positioning against baselines. ✓: yes, △ : partial/limited.
Data
Metric
ID
Text-based Models
Multimodal-based Models
Ours
Base
BERT
SLIM
SLIM+
LLMEmb
LLM2Rec
LLMVan
LLMSFT
CLIP
VLMPrm
Note-2
VLMVan
VLMSFT
VLM2Rec
Imp.(%)
Backbone: SASRec
Toys
H@10
0.0904
0.0702
0.0733
0.0957
0.0982
0.1005
0.0808
0.1012
0.0728
0.0796
0.1049
0.0848
0.1063
0.1183*
11.29
H@20
0.1226
0.1039
0.1082
0.1340
0.1374
0.1403
0.1144
0.1412
0.1054
0.1130
0.1436
0.1182
0.1459
0.1589*
8.91
N@10
0.0524
0.0391
0.0411
0.0559
0.0574
0.0594
0.0460
0.0619
0.0408
0.0450
0.0598
0.0493
0.0603
0.0683*
10.34
N@20
0.0604
0.0473
0.0495
0.0657
0.0671
0.0687
0.0537
0.0710
0.0483
0.0529
0.0687
0.0574
0.0692
0.0785*
10.56
Table 3: Performance on downstream SR backbone. The best and second-best results are highlighted by boldface and underline . * indicates statistical significance ( p<0.05 , paired t-test over 5 seeds).
Figure 3: Ablation study of VLM2Rec.
Figure 4: Intrinsic CF signal analysis.
Figure 8Figure 9
Model
Input
Beauty
Toys
N@20
Train
Emb
N@20
Train
Emb
LLMEmb
Item
0.0563
22
58
0.0671
15
38
LLM2Rec
Seq./Item
0.0588
33
58
0.0687
26
39
LLMSFT
Seq.
0.0604
35
56
0.0710
26
39
NoteLLM-2
Item
0.0621
26
132
0.0687
20
91
VLMSFT
Seq.
0.0627
117
113
0.0692
92
79
Table 6: Few-shot performance and efficiency analysis.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
#Users
#Items
#Interactions
Avg. Length
Sparsity (%)
Toys
15,921
8,383
108,336
6.8
99.92
Beauty
19,757
9,311
137,300
6.9
99.93
Clothing
30,757
17,087
196,614
6.4
99.96
Sports
32,127
14,820
222,591
6.9
99.95
MovieLens
6,033
2,177
58,234
9.65
99.56
Appendix
Table 7: Statistics of datasets used in the experiments.
Figure 7: Additional analysis of modality collapse on Toys and Clothing via dropout test (a) and gradient dynamics (b) . Clothing is included as a domain where visual information is known to be highly informative in multimodal recommendation.
Metric
Modality
Toys
Clothing
VLMVanilla
VLMSFT
VLM2Rec (Ours)
VLMVanilla
VLMSFT
VLM2Rec (Ours)
U ( ↓ )
Fused
-0.4707
-2.2500
-1.7969
-0.4336
-1.8359
-1.9951
Vision
-0.0237
-0.0039
-0.5703
-0.2368
-0.0237
-1.2136
Text
-0.4453
-2.2188
-0.9335
-0.4102
-1.7187
-1.3759
S ( ↑ )
Fused
1.0609
1.2418
1.1609
1.0444
1.0474
1.1274
Vision
1.0039
0.9911
1.1551
1.0110
0.9997
1.0706
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison of VLM representation geometry across three states. Metrics include uniformity ( U ), and separability ( S=Aneg/Apos ).
VLM Backbone
VLMSFT
VLM2Rec
t2f
v2f
f2f
Gap (%)
t2f
v2f
f2f
Gap (%)
InternVL3-2B
0.0614
0.0558
0.0608
10.04
0.0703
0.0686
0.0702
2.48
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
0.0636
0.0588
0.0632
8.16
0.0746
0.0733
0.0754
1.77
LLaVA-1.5-7B
0.0625
0.0572
0.0620
9.27
0.0733
0.0725
0.0742
1.10
InternVL3-8B
0.0645
0.0597
0.0636
8.04
0.0744
0.0727
0.0750
2.34
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
0.0653
0.0612
0.0647
6.70
0.0761
0.0744
0.0776
2.28
Appendix
Table 9: Modality dropout test across VLM backbones (Beauty, SASRec, N@20).
Data
Metric
ID
Text-based Models
Multimodal-based Models
Ours
Base
BERT
SLIM
SLIM+
LLMEmb
LLM2Rec
LLMVan
LLMSFT
CLIP
VLMPrm
Note-2
VLMVan
VLMSFT
VLM2Rec
Imp(%)
Backbone: FMLP
Toys
H@10
0.0840
0.0653
0.0680
0.0889
0.0912
0.0933
0.0738
0.0945
0.0676
0.0752
0.0974
0.0788
0.0988
0.1097*
11.03
H@20
0.1138
0.0965
0.1005
0.1245
0.1276
0.1303
0.1049
0.1310
0.0979
0.1063
0.1335
0.1098
0.1356
0.1513*
11.58
N@10
0.0487
0.0363
0.0381
0.0520
0.0533
0.0551
0.0418
0.0575
0.0378
0.0427
0.0558
0.0458
0.0564
0.0626*
8.87
N@20
0.0561
0.0440
0.0460
0.0610
0.0623
0.0638
0.0491
0.0660
0.0448
0.0499
0.0638
0.0533
0.0643
0.0731*
10.76
Appendix
Table 10: Performance on additional SR backbones. The best and second-best results are highlighted by boldface and underline . * indicates statistical significance ( p<0.05 , paired t-test over 5 seeds).
Dataset
In-batch
Random
SASRec Top- k
Text Sim.
Image Sim.
Clothing
0.0347
0.0342
0.0352
0.0357
0.0360
MovieLens
0.1205
0.1193
0.1218
0.1222
0.1229
Appendix
Table 11: Effect of negative sampling strategies for modality gap estimation (SASRec, N@20).
Embedding
UniSRec
TedRec
Clothing
MovieLens
Clothing
MovieLens
BERT
0.0308
0.1086
0.0332
0.1167
LLMSFT
0.0325
0.1119
0.0348
0.1180
VLMSFT (Text)
0.0328
0.1124
0.0355
0.1189
Ours (Text)
0.0336
0.1137
0.0362
0.1208
Embedding
M3SRec
HM4SR
Appendix
Table 12: Modality embedding replacement experiments on state-of-the-art models.
Data
Group
Weak
Ratio
Δu,gapSFT
Δu,gapOurs
User Red.
MovieLens
All
All
1.0000
0.3658
0.0522
0.9362
Text
0.2728
0.2798
0.0228
0.9064
Vision
0.7272
0.3981
0.0632
0.9473
Collapse
All
1.0000
0.6255
0.0684
1.0000
Text
0.2090
0.5497
0.0243
1.0000
Vision
0.7910
0.6456
0.0801
1.0000
Appendix
Table 13: Anchor weak-modality split across the All and Collapse groups for each dataset. Ratio reports the fraction of users assigned to each anchor weak modality.
Figure 8: Top-5 prediction lists of each model for the case study.
Figure 9: Model scalability across VLM families and parameter sizes.
Objective
Time Complexity
Space Complexity
In-batch Time
In-batch Space
LSFT
O(2B(N+1)d)
O(B(N+1))
O(2B2d)
O(B2)
LWPCL
O(6B(N+1)d)
O(B(N+1))
O(6B2d)
O(B2)
LCRTR
O(4BCd)
O(BC)
O(4B2d)
O(B2)
Appendix
Table 14: Time and space complexity comparison of the loss objectives. Here, space complexity denotes additional scratch memory required by the loss computation, excluding backbone activations.
Figure 10: Impact of hyperparameters τWPCL,τCRTR , and λ .
Multimodal recommendation is commonly framed as a feature fusion problem, where textual and visual signals are combined to better model user preference. However, the effectiveness of multimodal recommendation may depend not only on how modalities are fused, but also on whether item content is represented in a semantic space aligned with preference matching. This issue is particularly important because raw visual features often preserve appearance similarity, while user decisions are typically driven by higher-level semantic factors such as style, material, and usage context. Motivated by this observation, we propose LVLM-grounded Multimodal Semantic Representation for Recommendation (VLM4Rec), a lightweight framework that organizes multimodal item content through semantic alignment rather than direct feature fusion. VLM4Rec first uses a large vision-language model to ground each item image into an explicit natural-language description, and then encodes the grounded semantics into dense item representations for preference-oriented retrieval. Recommendation is subsequently performed through a simple profile-based semantic matching mechanism over historical item embeddings, yielding a practical offline-online decomposition. Extensive experiments on multiple multimodal recommendation datasets show that VLM4Rec consistently improves performance over raw visual features and several fusion-based alternatives, suggesting that representation quality may matter more than fusion complexity in this setting. The code is released at https://github.com/tyvalencia/enhancing-mm-rec-sys.
Ty Valencia, Burak Barlas, Varun Singhal +2
University of Southern California Los Angeles, USA
Multimodal Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in cross-modal understanding, yet a fundamental challenge persists when applying them to recommendation: as representations propagate through multi-step reasoning, both visual and textual signals progressively attenuate - a phenomenon we term cross-modal dilution. To address this, we propose LARK (Latent-Aligned Reasoning frameworK), a two-stage latent reasoning framework with complementary alignment mechanisms within a single VLM. In the first stage, learnable latent tokens are interleaved with multi-step chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning and explicitly aligned with a frozen vision encoder, serving as visual checkpoints that preserve perceptual details throughout the reasoning chain. In the second stage, the latent representations are projected via a bridge MLP and trained with item-to-item contrastive learning; to prevent the reasoning semantics from fading, intermediate features are aligned with the CoT hidden states from the first stage, anchoring the final embeddings to the model's own reasoning output. Experiments on three public benchmarks and one industrial dataset show that LARK achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple recommendation architectures, with controlled ablations confirming the distinct contribution of each component.
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated strong potential for sequential recommendation through their ability to reason over complex multimodal data. However, existing approaches either rely solely on the target user's own interaction history, neglecting collaborative signals from neighboring users, or incur substantial computational overhead through repeated MLLM inference over long interaction histories. To address these challenges, we propose MGRASRec, a multimodal graph retrieval-augmented framework for sequential recommendation. MGRASRec injects collaborative filtering signals conditioned on the candidate item directly into the MLLM prompt by retrieving structured paths from a user-item interaction graph, extended via multimodal similarity to increase coverage beyond exact co-interaction overlap. This retrieval also surfaces the history items most relevant to the candidate at no additional cost, removing the need for recurrent summarization and keeping inference to a single forward pass per candidate. All components are unified into an augmented prompt for parameter-efficient fine-tuning of an MLLM. Extensive evaluations across three publicly available datasets validate the effectiveness of MGRASRec, achieving the best performance on all metrics with particularly strong gains in ranking quality.