Reasoning with Evidence, Not Merely Rationales: Verifiable Preference Proofs for LLM-Based Recommendation

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong potential for recommendation by leveraging their semantic understanding and contextual modeling capabilities. Recent studies further introduce reasoning mechanisms to improve user preference modeling. However, explicit natural-language reasoning incurs substantial inference overhead, whereas existing latent reasoning methods mainly focus on generating or verifying intermediate states, leaving their layer-wise preference roles and contributions insufficiently characterized. We propose HiLaR, a Hierarchical Latent Reasoning framework with layer-aware reinforcement optimization for LLM-based recommendation. HiLaR constructs temporal-guided hierarchical user preference representations, aligns them with multiple LLM latent reasoning states, and organizes the reasoning process from broad preferences to fine-grained current intents. To further optimize the reasoning trajectory, HiLaR combines final recommendation feedback with layer-aware process rewards derived from the marginal target-likelihood gain of each state. Experiments on four Amazon benchmark datasets show that HiLaR generally outperforms strong sequential, generative, and LLM-based recommendation baselines. Ablation and sensitivity analyses further verify the contribution of hierarchical representation learning, latent alignment, and process-level optimization. Our code is available in https://github.com/hupeiyu21/HiLaR.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a promising paradigm for next-generation recommender systems, offering strong semantic understanding and natural-language reasoning abilities. Despite recent progress, current LLM-based recommenders still face key challenges in constructing decision-relevant contexts from heterogeneous evidence. First, existing methods often rely on fixed context construction strategies: collaborative behavioral evidence and item-side metadata are typically incorporated through predefined prompts, static retrieval pipelines, or handcrafted injection mechanisms, making it difficult to determine what information is truly beneficial for each instance. Second, heterogeneous evidence introduces a severe context-efficiency bottleneck. Rich metadata and collaborative interaction records can quickly overwhelm the context window, while aggressive compression or heuristic filtering may discard fine-grained evidence critical for accurate recommendation. To address these challenges, we propose RRCM, a ranking-driven retrieval-and-reasoning framework over collaborative and metadata memories for LLM-based agentic recommendation. RRCM starts from a lightweight user-history context and learns whether to recommend directly, retrieve collaborative evidence, retrieve item metadata, or interleave both through reasoning. Both memories are represented in natural language and accessed through a unified retrieval interface, enabling flexible evidence acquisition without handcrafted CF injection or fixed retrieval rules. We optimize this memory-reading policy with an outcome-only ranking reward, instantiated using group relative policy optimization, so that retrieval decisions are directly driven by final top-k recommendation quality. Extensive experiments show that RRCM significantly outperforms traditional baselines and diverse LLM-based recommendation approaches.

Large language models are increasingly used as interactive recommender assistants. Their evaluation should therefore go beyond plausible item recommendation and test whether they can recognize flawed recommendation requests. Existing recommender benchmarks mainly assess ranking, generation, or preference satisfaction, while existing error-detection benchmarks are usually not grounded in recommendation-specific user and candidate evidence. To address this gap, we introduce RPCBench, a benchmark for evaluating Recommender-Premise Critique: the ability to detect, diagnose, and properly handle faulty premises in natural-language recommendation requests. RPCBench contains evidence-grounded test instances from five recommendation domains and covers ten types of premise failures. Each instance provides a visible recommendation context and a corrupted user query. We further design a fine-grained evaluation framework that measures proactive detection, error localization, post-detection handling strategy, and evidence faithfulness. Through a systematic evaluation of 11 LLMs, we find that proactive detection is the main bottleneck in Recommender-Premise Critique, and models perform worst on underspecified-premise errors. We also observe that target-critical information density matters more than redundant evidence, and that longer reasoning does not monotonically improve critique quality: performance peaks at intermediate reasoning length, while overly long reasoning is accompanied by an overthinking penalty. The code is available at https://github.com/ZhongruChen/RPCBench.