paper-with-me

Papers

Beyond Ranking Accuracy: Evaluating LLM-Cited Feature Rationales for Next Basket Repurchase Recommendation

2026-08-31 · Yanan Cao, Anay Dombe, Murali Mohana Krishna Dandu, Shreeranjani Srirangamsridharan, Sinduja Subramaniam, Yogananth Mahalingam, Evren Korpeoglu, Kannan Achan arxiv

Next-basket repurchase recommendation is commonly formulated as a ranking task: given a customer's purchase history, the system ranks previously purchased items that may be needed again. In production settings, however, ranking accuracy is only one component of recommendation quality. Customers may also benefit from concise evidence about why an item is recommended now. Large language models (LLMs) offer a potential way to surface such evidence through feature-based, human-readable rationales grounded in interpretable behavioral signals. We construct repurchase features spanning cadence, frequency, recency, user behavior, and item popularity, and evaluate LLMs on two public grocery datasets and one proprietary retail dataset. We investigate (1) whether off-the-shelf LLMs can use these features as next-basket scorers relative to heuristic and supervised rankers, and (2) whether LLM-cited features carry outcome-grounded ranking signal. For the latter, we compare LLM-cited features with model-specific attribution methods under a cross-model feature-masking protocol that measures ranking degradation after masking selected features. Our results show that LLM scores are not competitive with supervised rankers, suggesting that off-the-shelf LLMs should not be used as standalone repurchase recommenders. However, changes in prompt and evidence representation can improve outcome-grounded feature-masking results in some settings even when ranking performance does not improve; the effect is dataset-dependent and does not consistently match attribution baselines. These findings suggest a practical role for LLMs as validated explanation components rather than primary rankers, with rationale quality evaluated separately from ranking accuracy.

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2608.30333

Code (0)

등록된 구현이 없습니다.

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

Evaluating Scholarly Impact: Towards Content-Aware Bibliometrics

2021-11-01 · EMNLP 2021 11 · Saurav Manchanda, George Karypis

Quantitatively measuring the impact-related aspects of scientific, engineering, and technological (SET) innovations is a fundamental problem with broad applications. Traditional citation-based measures for assessing the …

Crystal: Characterizing Relative Impact of Scholarly Publications

2026-03-25 · Hannah Collison, Benjamin Van Durme, Daniel Khashabi arxiv

Assessing a cited paper's impact is typically done by analyzing its citation context in isolation within the citing paper. While this focuses on the most directly relevant text, it prevents relative comparisons across al…

Re-Ranking Through an Attribution Lens for Citation Quality in Legal QA

2026-06-02 · Mohamed Hesham Elganayni, Selim Saleh arxiv

Retrieval-augmented generation systems for legal question answering typically retrieve passages based on semantic similarity and provide them to a language model, which then generates cited answers. Prior work assumes th…

Semantic SimilarityQuestion Answering

Towards Fair RAG: On the Impact of Fair Ranking in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

2024-09-17 · To Eun Kim, Fernando Diaz

Modern language models frequently include retrieval components to improve their outputs, giving rise to a growing number of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. Yet, most existing work in RAG has underemphasized…

FairnessRAGRetrievalRetrieval-augmented Generation

DEER: A Benchmark for Evaluating Deep Research Agents on Expert Report Generation

2025-12-19 · Janghoon Han, Heegyu Kim, Changho Lee, Dahm Lee 외 arxiv

Recent advances in large language models have enabled deep research systems that generate expert-level reports through multi-step reasoning and evidence-based synthesis. However, evaluating such reports remains challengi…