arXiv AI By Shai Vardi, Jo\~ao Sedoc

Epistemic Warrant for LLM Recommendations: Characterizing the Basis for Reliance When Ground Truth Is Unavailable

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper introduces the concept of epistemic warrant to assess when users should rely on individual recommendations from large language models (LLMs). It defines a four-tier reliance certificate—unstable, context-dependent, locally supported, and broadly supported—based on the stability and scope of a model’s preference. Experiments show that these warrants align with expert judgments and crowd consensus, and they provide distinct information from confidence scores or decision difficulty.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 3

Epistemic Warrant for LLM Recommendations: Characterizing the Basis for Reliance When Ground Truth Is Unavailable

The paper introduces epistemic warrant, a decision-level construct that assesses the stability and scope of a large language model’s preference for individual recommendations. It operationalizes this concept with a four-tier reliance certificate—unstable, context-dependent, locally supported, and broadly supported—applied to pairwise recommendations. Validation shows that stronger warrants align with expert and crowd consensus, provide distinct information from verbalized confidence, and are not merely a reflection of decision difficulty.

arXiv AI
Sep 3

The Utility of LLMs in Recommender Systems Explanation Evaluation

The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) can evaluate explanations in recommender systems. It generates 18 explanation prototypes and has 14 LLMs rate them, comparing the results to human ratings from a user study. Findings show that while LLMs mimic human rating patterns and correlate moderately with human judgments, their absolute agreement is low and varies with model size and evaluation design, leading to four practical recommendations for using LLMs in this context.

By Kathrin Wardatzky, Oana Inel, Luca Rossetto, Abraham Bernstein
arXiv AI
Sep 2

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

RPCBench is a new benchmark designed to evaluate large language models’ ability to critique recommendation requests by detecting, diagnosing, and handling flawed premises. It includes evidence‑grounded test instances across five recommendation domains and ten types of premise failures, and introduces a fine‑grained evaluation framework covering detection, error localization, handling strategy, and evidence faithfulness. Experiments with 11 LLMs reveal that proactive detection is the main bottleneck, with models struggling most on underspecified‑premise errors and showing that optimal critique quality occurs at intermediate reasoning lengths.

By Zhongru Chen, Yuan Wu, Yi Chang
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

ReFIne: A Framework for Trustworthy Large Reasoning Models with Reliability, Faithfulness, and Interpretability

ReFIne is a training framework that augments large reasoning models with three trustworthiness properties: interpretability, faithfulness, and reliability. It combines supervised fine‑tuning with GRPO to produce structured, tag‑based reasoning traces, explicitly disclose decisive information, and provide self‑assessments of soundness and confidence. Applied to Qwen3 models, ReFIne improves interpretability by 44.0 %, faithfulness by 18.8 %, and reliability by 42.4 % on mathematical benchmarks.

By Chung-En Sun, Ge Yan, Akshay Kulkarni, Tsui-Wei Weng
arXiv AI
Oct 5

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

The paper introduces PROVE-REC, a two‑pass framework that generates verifiable preference proofs for large language model (LLM) recommendation systems. In Pass A, the model condenses user interaction histories into a compact proof of positive and avoidance claims linked to specific evidence entries. Pass B then uses only this proof and its evidence to predict the next item, ensuring the recommendation follows the reasoning path. Verification steps compare masked evidence and removed claims to confirm grounding and influence, while a ranking‑preservation objective retains useful historical information. Experiments on diverse real‑world datasets show PROVE‑REC outperforms strong baselines by up to 7.45%, producing claims that are both better grounded and more influential to recommendation quality.

By Yu Hou, Nathaniel Kang, Pengkai Wang, Hua Li