aiqbench analysis
This research addresses the critical challenge of implicit negative sampling in recommender systems by introducing a method that validates unobserved interactions using symbolic rules and LLM-based interpretation. The approach significantly improves precision and downstream performance metrics in sparse, real-world B2B settings while ensuring negative signals are aligned with specific business objectives. By separating candidate validity from model performance, the study offers a robust framework for building explainable recommendation engines where explicit feedback is scarce.
Evidence Before Sampling: Interpretable Implicit Negative Candidate Discovery for Recommendation
arXiv:2610.07708v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recommender systems learn from observed user-item interactions, but explicit negative feedback is often unavailable. Since deep learning models require negative signals for training, negative sampling methods typically treat selected unobserved interactions as negatives. However, a missing interaction does not explain why a user is uninterested in an item or whether there is sufficient evidence to label it negative. This is especially important in business recommendation, where negative signals should be interpretable and aligned with business objectives. We formulate implicit negative candidate discovery to identify unobserved interactions supported by observed customer behavior. We encode these patterns as symbolic rules, score them based on support, informativeness, and product relevance, and rank the retained rules by evidence. An LLM then interprets the retained rules using business objectives and domain knowledge; the interpretations are combined with the statistical evidence in the final report. We evaluate our method in an industrial B2B setting and across five public recommendation datasets. Candidate-quality evaluations in the industrial setting and three public datasets show higher precision than the evaluated baselines, while symbolic selection improves downstream test PR-AUC by 12.5% over random selection with four negatives per positive example in the industrial task. Our results show that negative candidate validity can be evaluated separately from downstream recommendation performance. This distinction enables evidence-based, business-aligned, and explainable negative selection, improving both interpretability and model training in sparse, skewed, real-world recommendation settings.
Abstract:Recommender systems learn from observed user-item interactions, but explicit negative feedback is often unavailable. Since deep learning models require negative signals for training, negative sampling methods typically treat selected unobserved interactions as negatives. However, a missing interaction does not explain why a user is uninterested in an item or whether there is sufficient evidence to label it negative. This is especially important in business recommendation, where negative signals should be interpretable and aligned with business objectives. We formulate implicit negative candidate discovery to identify unobserved interactions supported by observed customer behavior. We encode these patterns as symbolic rules, score them based on support, informativeness, and product relevance, and rank the retained rules by evidence. An LLM then interprets the retained rules using business objectives and domain knowledge; the interpretations are combined with the statistical evidence in the final report. We evaluate our method in an industrial B2B setting and across five public recommendation datasets. Candidate-quality evaluations in the industrial setting and three public datasets show higher precision than the evaluated baselines, while symbolic selection improves downstream test PR-AUC by 12.5% over random selection with four negatives per positive example in the industrial task. Our results show that negative candidate validity can be evaluated separately from downstream recommendation performance. This distinction enables evidence-based, business-aligned, and explainable negative selection, improving both interpretability and model training in sparse, skewed, real-world recommendation settings.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.07708 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.07708v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.07708 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 323 words
Related coverage
Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · Oct 12, 2026
PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026
Synthesis Superintelligence: from Semiconductors to Superconductors — Periodic Labs’ Liam Fedus and Ekin Dogus Cubuk
Latent Space · Oct 8, 2026