RPCBench: A Benchmark for Proactive Premise Critique in LLM-based Recommendation

Next-basket repurchase recommendation is commonly formulated as a ranking task: given a customer's purchase history, the system ranks previously purchased items that may be needed again. In production settings, however, ranking accuracy is only one component of recommendation quality. Customers may also benefit from concise evidence about why an item is recommended now. Large language models (LLMs) offer a potential way to surface such evidence through feature-based, human-readable rationales grounded in interpretable behavioral signals. We construct repurchase features spanning cadence, frequency, recency, user behavior, and item popularity, and evaluate LLMs on two public grocery datasets and one proprietary retail dataset. We investigate (1) whether off-the-shelf LLMs can use these features as next-basket scorers relative to heuristic and supervised rankers, and (2) whether LLM-cited features carry outcome-grounded ranking signal. For the latter, we compare LLM-cited features with model-specific attribution methods under a cross-model feature-masking protocol that measures ranking degradation after masking selected features. Our results show that LLM scores are not competitive with supervised rankers, suggesting that off-the-shelf LLMs should not be used as standalone repurchase recommenders. However, changes in prompt and evidence representation can improve outcome-grounded feature-masking results in some settings even when ranking performance does not improve; the effect is dataset-dependent and does not consistently match attribution baselines. These findings suggest a practical role for LLMs as validated explanation components rather than primary rankers, with rationale quality evaluated separately from ranking accuracy.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as powerful backbones for recommender systems by reformulating recommendation as a token-level generation task. Despite their promise, we identify a pervasive yet underexplored issue: $\textit{Length Bias}$. Because items are represented by textual descriptions of varying lengths, LLM-based recommenders can be systematically biased in two ways. On the input side, longer item descriptions occupy more tokens in the context and thus receive disproportionately large aggregate attention mass during user preference modeling. On the output side, decoding based on summed autoregressive log-likelihood score inherently disfavors long items. Worse still, conventional length normalization can introduce an additional bias and even degrade recommendation performance. To address this problem, we propose $\textbf{LBR}$ ($\textbf{L}$ength $\textbf{B}$ias $\textbf{R}$eduction), a lightweight and model-agnostic framework for mitigating length bias in LLM-based recommendation. LBR mitigates input-side bias via Length-Aware Attention Calibration, which incorporates a length-dependent offset into attention logits to neutralize attention skew. For the output side, LBR introduces Effective Information Length Normalization, replacing naive token count with an information-theoretic length surrogate derived from the branching structure of the prefix tree. Extensive experiments on three real-world Amazon datasets and two representative LLM-based recommenders demonstrate that LBR substantially alleviates length bias while consistently improving recommendation accuracy and fairness, with negligible additional training and inference overhead (with an average NDCG@5 gain of 16.82%). The code is available at https://github.com/Void-JackLee/LBR.

Search and recommendation serve a shared discovery objective but encode intent differently. We study this boundary through Dear Algo on Threads, a deployed product where open-ended requests such as \emph{more NBA news} or \emph{less politics} steer subsequent feed recommendations rather than return a one-shot result list. Its agentic intent layer compiles explicit, inferred, negative, and compound intent into a grounded executable plan, then invokes conventional retrieval and optional semantic or multimodal reranking. The layer shares an intent-to-retrieval contract without requiring one model or serving path across search-like and recommendation-like modes. We evaluate Dear Algo under a precision-first objective. In a blinded audit of 300 public request-item pairs (296 evaluable), a strict categorical LLM-as-a-judge gate achieved 94.4% exact-Relevant precision [88.8%, 98.9%]. Across 72 normalized request clusters, the full configuration produced 7.73 judge-qualified candidates per 20 slots versus 6.61 for an LLM-derived-query baseline, a gain of 1.11 [0.12, 2.12]. In a candidate-randomized serving-path study restricted to the reranker path's first 72 eligible hours, the user-weighted judge-Irrelevant share among judged admissions was 2.80% versus 4.78% off (-1.97 points [-3.02, -0.94]), while Exact-Relevant share was 2.24 points higher [0.08, 4.41]. Together, these studies show how explicit natural-language intent can be carried into feed recommendation under a precision-first evaluation framework