Visible but Not Avoided: State-Dependent Re-Proposal of Rejected Candidates in Catalog-Based LLM Optimization Loops

A recommendation request on Reddit draws several replies, each naming different titles. When an LLM recommender is trained on such threads with reinforcement learning (RL), which replies should a generated list be rewarded against? The state-of-the-art recipe, Rank-GRPO, picks one reply per training example, so the advantage mostly records which reply was drawn (85% of its variance) rather than how good the list is. We argue that RL should train on the request, not on each answer, and propose ReMaRk: it scores every list once against the union of all replies' titles and samples each request equally. This makes RL cheaper. On seven backbones and three datasets, ReMaRk reaches the validation recall of 2,000 per-reply RL steps in 25 to 53% of the steps and leads at that budget; trained until neither improves, it is never significantly behind Rank-GRPO and in four of seven pairs reaches Rank-GRPO's best with fewer GPU-hours. The same reward helps on ProtoQA, where about 100 people answer each question, which points to a simple rule for RL with several valid human answers: reward them jointly.

Large language models (LLMs) can infer user preferences from interaction histories and reviews, yet the rationales they generate may not reflect the information actually used for recommendation. A preference claim may be weakly supported by its selected evidence, or may have little effect on the final ranking. We refer to these two failures as the grounding-influence gap. We introduce PROVE-REC, a general framework for verifiable preference reasoning in LLM-based recommendation. Pass A converts the complete pre-target history into a compact preference proof consisting of positive and avoidance claims linked to selected evidence entries. Pass B predicts the next item using only the proof and its selected evidence, preventing the recommender from bypassing the reasoning path. To verify evidence-to-proof grounding, we compare the effect of masking selected evidence with masking a comparable control entry. To verify proof-to-recommendation influence, we remove a preference claim and measure the resulting decrease in the target item's ranking margin. A ranking-preservation objective further retains useful information from the complete history. Comprehensive experiments on wide-ranging real-world datasets demonstrate that PROVE-REC consistently outperforms strong sequential, generative, and LLM-enhanced baselines, with improvements of up to 7.45%. Controlled ablations confirm the effectiveness of the two-pass architecture and verification objectives. Moreover, PROVE-REC produces claims that are more strongly grounded in historical evidence and more influential to recommendation while preserving ranking quality.

Large language model (LLM) agents are often improved by iterating until a fixed verifier is done. Once that verifier saturates, the loop has nothing left to climb. We instead score agents against the current population, and a frozen panel records whether anyone got better. The panel mean can rise inside the seeds by elimination alone. We therefore count a run as training only when its final mean beats the best generation-zero member. A merge is admitted only when the child moves toward the donor, past the child the same operator produces at zero dose, and the lower confidence bound on that movement reaches half the requested dose. That is the admission test. A detectable shortfall rejects the operator, and the test is otherwise undetermined. We keep realised fitness φas the selector and reference performance θas the unused ruler. Every measurement uses gemini-3.1-flash-lite on one negotiation task, and no fixed-oracle arm was run. In the open loop, tactic append grafts short donor rules and is admitted. Free rewrite moves only a third of the requested dose and is rejected. Template append pastes raw donor replies into the child. Its movement clears the bound on the first probe but not on the re-probe, and it is left undetermined. A held-out re-probe on the five situations the merge never saw confirms that both appends move, and it does not rescue free rewrite. Neither append rises with the dose. Constrained rewrite is admitted in the open loop and was not run in the closed loop, which changes only the operator. The population, the scores and the task stay fixed. No free-rewrite run beats the best generation-zero member. Every tactic-append run and every template-append run does. Sampled loop children keep that split. Free rewrite moves no further toward the donor, and both appends still clear the bound, by less than in the open loop.