arXiv:2608. 06632v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Industrial recommendation systems predominantly adopt a passive ranking paradigm that infers user preferences from implicit behavioral signals (e.
By Ziyun Xu, Bosen Ding, Yue Zhang, Ji Qi, Qingyuan Song, Jizhou Huang, Liwei Wang, Jefferey Santelli, Yue Weng, Qichao Que, Zhenheng Yang, Junfeng Pan, Linhong Zhu
arXiv:2608. 11493v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Traditional offline recommendation evaluation relies heavily on complex, manually maintained feature pipelines that are difficult to scale.
By Alireza S. Ziabari, Kat Ellis, Colleen Chan, Ding Tong
The paper introduces a lifecycle framework for LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to evaluate recommendation explanations at Netflix. It outlines four phases—Birth, Training, Deployment, and Monitoring—detailing how each stage addresses specific technical and operational challenges. The authors report that after five weeks of A/B testing, judge-aligned explanations increased novel content viewing and successful browse-to-play sessions without quality takedowns.
By Emma Yanyang Kong, JJ Tan, Ishan Gupta, Lars Olds, Claire Campbell, David Fagnan, Veli Balin, Rohan Gosain, Louis Garcia, Minsu Jang
arXiv:2607. 04270v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as powerful backbones for recommender systems by reformulating recommendation as a token-level generation task.
By Hongchen Li, Bohao Wang, Jingbang Chen, Weiqin Yang, Hang Pan, Bingde Hu, Can Wang, Jiawei Chen
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: $\textit{Length Bias}$.
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