Yi Fang, Wenjie Wang, Mingfeng Xue, Boyi Deng, Fengli Xu, Dayiheng Liu, Fuli Feng. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2026.

Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with recommendation tasks represents an emerging paradigm in recommendation domain, exhibiting promising performance overall. However, these aligned recommendation LLMs often struggle with complex scenarios due to limitations in the current alignment task formulation, which optimizes LLMstodirectly generate user feedback without deliberation. To develop more reliable recommendation LLMs, we introduce a new Deliberative Recommendation task, which enforces explicit reasoning about user preferences as an additional alignment objective. To address this task, we propose a Reasoning-powered Recommender framework designed to enhance reasoning capabilities by leveraging verbalized user feedback in a step-wise manner. Specifically, this framework employs collaborative step-wise experts alongside specifically crafted expert-wise training strategies. Extensive experiments conducted on three real-world datasets demonstrate the rationality of the deliberative task formulation and the effectiveness of the proposed framework in improving both pre diction accuracy and reasoning quality. Our implementation is publicly available on GitHub: https://github.com/Peter-Fy/Reason4Rec.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in various natural language processing tasks but struggle with hallucination issues. Existing solutions have considered utilizing LLMs’ inherent reasoning abilities to alleviate hallucination, such as self-correction and diverse sampling methods. However, these methods often overtrust LLMs’ initial answers due to inherent biases. The key to alleviating this issue lies in overriding LLMs’ inherent biases for answer inspection. To this end, we propose a CounterFactual Multi-Agent Debate (CFMAD) framework. CFMAD presets the stances of LLMs to override their inherent biases by compelling LLMs to generate justifications for a predetermined answer’s correctness. The LLMs with different predetermined stances are engaged with a skeptical critic for counterfactual debate on the rationality of generated justifications. Finally, the debate process is evaluated by a third-party judge to determine the final answer. Extensive experiments on four datasets of three tasks demonstrate the superiority of CFMAD over existing methods.