Skip to content
AI Atlas
Papercs.AI

Safety as a Constraint: Fine-Tuning a LLM Recommender to Explain Itself

Published 15 Sept 2026arXiv:2609.13657

data quality89

Updated 29 h ago · first seen 15 Sept 2026

paper_01M2JK191QJ1JCPFP1H6ADSV62

Abstract

Traditional recommender systems are typically trained to predict what item users will interact with next, but not why. However, offering personalized evidence for why a user might like the predicted item is an important way to enhance the service and to raise the likelihood that the user will be genuinely interested in the recommendation. This service can be delivered by integrating a frontier-model call into the member-facing pipeline, but it will add extra cost and latency. In this paper, we train a recommender LLM to generate personalized explanations for its reccomendation, based on the user's watching history at a large video streaming service. We impose two requirements on the generated explanation: it must be faithful to the elements of the shows it links, and it must be strictly non-harmful to the user. To this end, we first train two LLM-judge reward models covering three specific criteria, and propose constrained GRPO to incorporate these different criteria. On a held-out real-world testing set, our fine-tuned model improves the all-three-criteria PASS rate rises from 0.649 to 0.956 under our own judges and from 0.677 to 0.931 under an independent judge, where as the frontier generator performs similar to the untuned recommender baseline. We conduct further experiments to show that the model's language and recommendation abilities remain unchanged. Based on these results, we conclude that an LLM-based recommender can be fine-tuned on other complex tasks without compromising its original recommendation performance, thus provide insights for further agentic user interface powered by a single model.

Authors

Authors 4

David FagnanEmma Yanyang KongJJ TanJiashu He

Linked names open researcher pages (created from the paper's author list; name-only, no affiliation unless a source states it). Unlinked names have no researcher record yet.

Organizations

Organizations 0

No organization stated. arXiv metadata does not carry affiliations; an organization is linked only when a model card or lab page cites the paper.

Models

Models introduced or described 0

Inbound described_by relations from model cards and documentation.

No model links this paper yet

Model pages link papers through their model cards and documentation; the relation is written only when a source states it.

Datasets

Datasets used 0

No dataset relation recorded.

Benchmarks

Benchmarks used 0

No benchmark relation recorded.

Code

Repositories & frameworks 0

No repository linked.

Timeline

Timeline 1

Full timeline →

Sources

Sources 1

Source documents
SourceDocumentTypeTierLast observedSnapshots
arXiv (Atom API + RSS)rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI feedT1· Official21 h ago4

Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.