Epistemic Warrant for LLM Recommendations: Characterizing the Basis for Reliance When Ground Truth Is Unavailable

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04127v1
• Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2026 17:25:20 GMT
• Title: Epistemic Warrant for LLM Recommendations: Characterizing the Basis for Reliance When Ground Truth Is Unavailable
• Abstract summary: We introduce a decision-level construct that characterizes a warrant of individual recommendations when objective ground truth is unavailable.<n>We validate the construct using contemporary methodologies.<n>This framework offers an implementable approach for characterizing the warrant of individual recommendations when objective ground truth is unavailable.
• Score: 4.679756843190089
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used to support organizational decisions, yet users often lack a principled basis for assessing whether to rely on a specific recommendation. Existing approaches typically evaluate broad model properties, such as reliability, uncertainty, or robustness, or focus on user trust, rather than the underlying basis for relying on an individual recommendation. Adapting theoretical foundations from epistemology, we introduce epistemic warrant, a decision-level construct that characterizes the stability of a model's preference and the scope over which that preference holds. We operationalize this construct through a four-tier reliance certificate for pairwise recommendations, distinguishing among unstable, context-dependent, locally supported, and broadly supported recommendations. We validate the construct using contemporary methodologies: known-groups tests successfully recover expert-prespecified warrant orderings, and stronger warrants systematically align with independent consensus from crowd workers. Furthermore, we demonstrate that epistemic warrant provides information distinct from verbalized confidence and is not readily explained by decision difficulty. Ultimately, this framework offers a theoretically grounded, implementable approach for characterizing the warrant of individual LLM recommendations when objective ground truth is unavailable.

Related papers

• IntroConformal: Conformal Factuality Guarantees for Large Vision-Language Models via Introspective Signals [2.623527845999313]
  We argue that reliable factuality control can be achieved through introspective signals derived from the model itself.<n>IntroConformal is a training-free Conformal Risk Control framework that provides finite-sample, distribution-free factuality guarantees.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-01T15:09:56Z)
• CLAIM: Leading Open-domain Active Clarification of Large Language Models with Uncertainty Measurement [50.91045324738942]
  CLAIM is an uncertainty-driven framework for active clarification learning in open-domain settings.<n>We propose an entropy-driven synthetic data generation pipeline that integrates uncertainty estimation with semantic clustering and reasoning-based judgments.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that CLAIM can learn stable and generalizable clarification strategies without relying on manually labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T04:27:45Z)
• LLM-as-a-Judge for Reliable and Explainable Offline Evaluation in Top-K Recommendation [16.60711435187638]
  offline evaluation treats observed user feedback as a proxy of true preferences.<n>Top-K metrics only establish numerical scores without offering meaningful insights to support them.<n>We propose a reliable and explainable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for offline recommendation evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T07:42:01Z)
• Reinforced Preference Optimization for Reasoning-Augmented Recommendations [34.99578717556569]
  We introduce RPORec, a reinforced preference optimization framework for Recommender systems.<n>RPORec unifies an LLM backbone's reasoning ability with a dedicated recommendation head (Rechead) for precise item retrieval.<n>Extensive experiments on public benchmarks and large-scale online deployments show that RPORec consistently outperforms state-of-the-art LLM-based recommendation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T03:56:42Z)
• BAS: A Decision-Theoretic Approach to Evaluating Large Language Model Confidence [22.382291859991472]
  We introduce the Behavioral Alignment Score (BAS), a decision-theoretic metric for evaluating how well large language models support abstention-aware decision making.<n>BAS is derived from an explicit answer-or-abstain utility model and aggregates realized utility across a continuum of risk thresholds.<n>We show theoretically that truthful confidence estimates uniquely maximize expected BAS utility, linking calibration to decision-optimal behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T17:44:32Z)
• What Do We Care About in Bandits with Noncompliance? BRACE: Bandits with Recommendations, Abstention, and Certified Effects [0.0]
  We show that recommendation welfare can strictly exceed every learner-measurable treatment policy when downstream actors use private information.<n>For finite-context square-IV problems we propose BRACE, a parameter-free phase-doubling algorithm that performs IV inversion only after matrix certification.<n>We complement the theory with a finite-context empirical benchmark spanning direct control, mediated present-versus-future tradeoffs, weak identification, homogeneity failure, and rectangular overidentification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-10T11:40:42Z)
• Verifiable Reasoning for LLM-based Generative Recommendation [106.7765000777685]
  Reasoning in Large Language Models (LLMs) has recently shown strong potential in enhancing generative recommendation.<n>We propose a novel textbftextitreason-verify-recommend paradigm, which interleaves reasoning with verification to provide reliable feedback.<n>Experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate that VRec substantially enhances recommendation effectiveness and scalability without compromising efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-08T16:55:45Z)
• Are We Evaluating the Edit Locality of LLM Model Editing Properly? [68.441768731381]
  We find that existing specificity evaluation protocols are inadequate for this purpose.<n>Existing specificity metrics are weakly correlated with the strength of specificity regularizers.<n>We also find that current metrics lack sufficient sensitivity, rendering them ineffective at distinguishing the specificity performance of different methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T07:07:21Z)
• Calibration Is Not Enough: Evaluating Confidence Estimation Under Language Variations [49.84786015324238]
  Confidence estimation (CE) indicates how reliable the answers of large language models (LLMs) are, and can impact user trust and decision-making.<n>We present a comprehensive evaluation framework for CE that measures their confidence quality on three new aspects.<n>These include robustness of confidence against prompt perturbations, stability across semantic equivalent answers, and sensitivity to semantically different answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T23:16:50Z)
• Reason4Rec: Large Language Models for Recommendation with Deliberative User Preference Alignment [69.11529841118671]
  We propose a new Deliberative Recommendation task, which incorporates explicit reasoning about user preferences as an additional alignment goal.<n>We then introduce the Reasoning-powered Recommender framework for deliberative user preference alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T07:17:54Z)
• Debiasing Recommendation by Learning Identifiable Latent Confounders [49.16119112336605]
  Confounding bias arises due to the presence of unmeasured variables that can affect both a user's exposure and feedback. Existing methods either (1) make untenable assumptions about these unmeasured variables or (2) directly infer latent confounders from users' exposure. We propose a novel method, i.e., identifiable deconfounder (iDCF), which leverages a set of proxy variables to resolve the aforementioned non-identification issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-10T05:10:26Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.