Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2609.13993

P$^3$Rec: Distilling Prior--Posterior Preference Reasoning for LLM-based Recommendation

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong semantic understanding and preference reasoning capabilities, offering new opportunities for user modeling in recommender systems. Existing LLM-as-Enhancer methods typically distill LLM-derived preference knowledge into lightweight recommenders to avoid costly online LLM inference. However, they often construct distillation knowledge from only one perspective. Prior preference captures users' stable and consistent interests but provides limited guidance for the current decision, whereas posterior preference reveals target-relevant fine-grained interests but may rely excessively on target clues. To address these limitations, we propose P$^3$Rec, a framework that jointly extracts and internalizes complementary prior and posterior preference reasoning knowledge. Specifically, P$^3$Rec first derives target-agnostic prior preferences and target-conditioned posterior preferences from the user side, while further extracting item-centric preference representations from item semantics and predecessor interactions. It then progressively internalizes prior and posterior knowledge into behavioral representations through prior preference absorption and posterior-guided preference distillation. Since the resulting comprehensive preference representation may not always provide an equally decisive retrieval direction, P$^3$Rec further characterizes historical interest dispersion with interest entropy and adaptively calibrates the user representation before contrastive retrieval optimization. In this way, P$^3$Rec achieves more complete preference reasoning while preserving efficient recommendation. Extensive experiments on multiple public datasets demonstrate its effectiveness.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jinfei Chen, Weihai Lu, Jiawei Cheng. 2026-09-16. P$^3$Rec: Distilling Prior--Posterior Preference Reasoning for LLM-based Recommendation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.13993

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

WebArxiv: A Reproducible Benchmark for Evaluating Multimodal Web Agents on arXiv Tasks

Foundation models now enable autonomous agents to interact with real-world websites, but existing benchmarks emphasize general-purpose browsing, underrepresent research-oriented environments and scholarly discovery workflows, and often depend on live sites whose changing content and structure undermine reproducibility. arXiv provides a realistic, reproducible, hierarchically structured, information-centric testbed without privacy-sensitive interactions. We introduce WebArxiv, a static-snapshot benchmark comprising 510 time-invariant tasks, each with a unique deterministic ground truth. Its diverse, realistic scholarly tasks go beyond simple information lookup and rule following to emphasize multi-constraint paper retrieval, fine-grained content extraction, and cross-paper comparison. Evaluations of a range of foundation-model-based web agents show that WebArxiv remains challenging. Behavioral analysis reveals that agents over-rely on fixed interaction histories, causing incomplete or repetitive reasoning. We therefore equip agents with a lightweight dynamic-memory mechanism for adaptive retrieval and reasoning over relevant context. The benchmark and code are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/74E4423BVNW/README.md.

cs.IR

GreekBarRetrieval: A Benchmark for Greek Statutory Retrieval

Statutory retrieval is necessary for citation-grounded legal question answering, but remains underexplored for Greek. We introduce GreekBarRetrieval, a public retrieval benchmark derived from, and complementing GreekBarBench, which did not include retrieval. The new benchmark comprises 283 bar-exam questions, each accompanied by the facts of the case it refers to, and 6,308 candidate statutory articles to retrieve from. Questions and facts are stated in everyday language, but need to be mapped to the formal terminology of statutes and their abstract legal concepts. A further complication is that not all of the case facts are relevant to each question of a case. Experimenting with three BM25 variants and nine dense retrievers, we find that vanilla dense retrieval far outperforms vanilla sparse retrieval in Recall@100. However, LLM-based query reformulation helps BM25 close that gap, while also improving dense retrieval. With a ten-round ReAct-like LLM reformulation loop that we introduce, BM25 improves further in Recall@100 and obtains the best nDCG and MAP scores of all tested retrievers. Query reformulation also outperforms pseudo-relevance feedback, sparse-dense fusion, and English translation.

cs.IR

Parameterized Dense-Sparse Fusion for Hybrid Retrieval: Tuning a Rank-Score Mix on BEIR SciFact with Qdrant

We study a parameterized hybrid ranker that fuses a dense embedding list and a sparse lexical list. The method has a small, explicit parameter vector: a dense prior $α\in [0,1]$, a score-versus-rank mix $λ\in [0,1]$, an RRF smoothing parameter $κ> 0$, optional list-geometry coefficients that move $α$ per query, and a router margin $τ$ that can turn sparse search off. We grid-search those ranges on SciFact train (809 queries) and freeze the chosen values on SciFact test (300). The tuned rank-score mix ($α= 0.8$, $λ= 0.75$, $κ= 20$) reaches 0.753 nDCG@10 and 0.889 recall@10, outperforming dense BGE (0.742 / 0.871) and equal-weight RRF (0.707 nDCG@10) on that test split. A list-conditioned $α$ adds +0.0006 nDCG; a sparse-off router is rejected by the same train split (any $τ$ that skipped approximately 50% of queries lost nDCG). These coefficients are dataset-specific. Equal RRF with the same models does not beat dense on a nine-zip BEIR macro-average (0.479 vs. 0.519 nDCG@10). Repeating the same train-then-freeze sweep independently on all 20 indexed units beats equal RRF on 20/20 and dense on 16/20 (unit-mean nDCG@10 0.467 vs. 0.462 dense vs. 0.420 RRF). Other corpora should reuse the ranges, not a copy of the SciFact point.

cs.IR