mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Recall Ceiling of LLM Recommendation Reranking

arXiv 2609.27953 ↗First posted 27 Aug 2026cs.IR cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Some LLM-based recommendation rerankers are evaluated under an oracle protocol that guarantees the ground-truth item is present in the scored set, either by injecting it into the candidate list or by scoring it against sampled negatives. Across three primary Amazon datasets, we show that this protocol overestimates realistic NDCG@10 by 92--95%. The cause is a recall ceiling: realistic retrieval covers only 2--19% of relevant items at K=100 across eight datasets in three domains, imposing a deterministic upper bound on any closed-candidate reranker's top-k NDCG. Under leave-one-out evaluation, mathbbE[NDCG@k] ≤ Recall@|Wπ|, where Wπ is the reranker's candidate window. Under realistic retrieval, none of the tested optimisation strategies significantly improves over the collaborative-filtering baseline on our primary Amazon datasets. These strategies include prompt engineering, model scaling over a 168× parameter range, sequential models, supervised neural rerankers, LoRA fine-tuning, hybrid retrieval, score-aware prompting, and LLM+CF fusion. Text-aware retrieval increases recall on one dataset but does not improve end-to-end NDCG, while providing upstream CF scores mainly makes the LLM reproduce the CF order. We therefore propose the Recall-Aware Evaluation Protocol (RAEP): first classify the retrieval-recall regime, then evaluate reranking where the ceiling permits meaningful differentiation. In the low-recall regimes measured here, improving retrieval is more consequential than increasing reranker sophistication; this ordering need not hold in production systems with higher recall, richer features, or online feedback.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Aug 2026.

Builds on

15 of 34 references.

References · 15

  1. 2018Self-Attentive Sequential Recommendationcited by 1,184
  2. 2020LightGCN: Simplifying and Powering Graph Convolution Network for Recommendationcited by 1,139
  3. 2022Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineerscited by 1,045
  4. 2019BERT4Rec: Sequential Recommendation with Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformercited by 964
  5. 2019Passage Re-ranking with BERTcited by 645
  6. 2023TALLRec: An Effective and Efficient Tuning Framework to Align Large Language Model with Recommendationcited by 337
  7. 2023Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Rankers for Recommender Systemscited by 309
  8. 2020Self-supervised Graph Learning for Recommendationcited by 305
  9. 2016Recommendations as Treatments: Debiasing Learning and Evaluationcited by 248
  10. 2021Are Graph Augmentations Necessary? Simple Graph Contrastive Learning for Recommendationcited by 173
  11. 2023Recommendation as Instruction Following: A Large Language Model Empowered Recommendation Approachcited by 168
  12. 2023GPT4Rec: A Generative Framework for Personalized Recommendation and User Interests Interpretationcited by 103
3 more
  1. 2020Controllable Multi-Interest Framework for Recommendationcited by 93
  2. 2022Towards Representation Alignment and Uniformity in Collaborative Filteringcited by 57
  3. 2024Review-driven Personalized Preference Reasoning with Large Language Models for Recommendationcited by 22

Built on by

Not cited yet.