Evidence Before Sampling: Interpretable Implicit Negative Candidate Discovery for Recommendation

We presented SARA, an industrial framework that transforms sparse articulated user rationales into scalable recommendation signals. Its data engine curates questionnaire responses into SARA-HQ, providing explicit preference supervision for aligning SARA-7B through SFT and Quality-Refining DPO. This alignment extends rationale generation from $86{,}564$ questionnaire-covered authors to the full $10$M-author space. SARA-Ranker translates the generated positive and negative rationales into features for user--author interaction modeling and negative-feedback history modeling, connecting articulated reasons to production ranking. Evaluation on unseen authors demonstrates that SARA-7B generates more specific, relevant, and grounded rationales than the evaluated general-purpose MLLMs. On top of a strong industrial ranking baseline with multimodal features, separate online A/B tests show that positive-rationale integration increases watch time by $0.99\%$, while negative-rationale integration reduces Hate feedback by $8.16\%$. Daily refresh and more than $30$ days of production deployment further demonstrate the operational feasibility of the approach. These findings establish articulated rationales as a useful complement to behavioral and content signals, and demonstrate a practical role for MLLMs in scaling sparse human explanations into preference information that improves industrial recommendation.

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.

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.