Retrieval, Scoring, and Decoding Shape Performance and Stability in LLM-based Conversational Recommendation
cs.CL, cs.AI
Submitted: 2026-08-31
Updated: 2026-08-31
Comments: 10 pages, short paper, to appear in proceedings of the 35th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM '26), 2026
Code: https://github.com/infobip/crsperformance
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as rerankers in conversational recommender systems, yet measured gains depend strongly on the retrieval and inference protocol.
Terminology
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as rerankers in conversational recommender systems, yet measured gains depend strongly on the retrieval and inference protocol. On the ReDial conversational movie recommendation benchmark, we compare proprietary, open-weight, and fine-tuned LLM rerankers with collaborative-filtering and sequential baselines in a shared retrieve-then-rerank pipeline. We vary candidate-pool size, first-stage retriever, and decoding temperature. With a shared semantic top-250 candidate pool and strict candidate-aware scoring, the best proprietary reranker reaches NDCG@10 of 0.1497, compared with 0.0939 for the strongest non-LLM baseline. The same reranker reaches 0.2925 in zero-shot generation, showing that unconstrained scoring can yield a much larger apparent advantage than matched-pool evaluation. No evaluated open-weight LLM outperforms the tuned shallow autoencoder baseline under this protocol. For the strongest proprietary and open-weight rerankers, switching from semantic to collaborative-filtering candidates raises NDCG@10 by more than 50%, showing that measured reranker performance is highly sensitive to candidate generation. For the best proprietary reranker, raising temperature from 0 to 1.0 increases top-10 Jaccard distance from 0.0900 to 0.1240 while mean NDCG@10 changes negligibly, whereas weaker LLMs show larger degradation. These ReDial results support treating candidate generation, candidate-pool size, scoring policy, and decoding configuration as required reporting fields rather than implementation details.
Sources
- One Pass, Any Order: Position-Invariant Listwise Reranking for LLM-Based Recommendation
- Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Size
- The Llama 3 Herd of Models
- Session-based Recommendations with Recurrent Neural Networks
- Qwen2.5 Technical Report
Related papers
- Exploring Solution Divergence and Its Effect on Large Language Model Problem Solving
- Ishigaki-IDS-Bench: A Benchmark for Generating Information Delivery Specification from BIM Information Requirements
- Subliminal Steering: Stronger Encoding of Hidden Signals
- MedStruct-S: A Benchmark for Key Discovery, Key-Conditioned QA and Semi-Structured Extraction from OCR Clinical Reports
- The End of Transformers? On Challenging Attention and the Rise of Sub-Quadratic Architectures
- Untangling the Mechanisms of Misleading Context in Medical Question Answering