PreprintCited by 515Recommender Systems and TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic Modeling

The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

A Survey on Large Language Models for Recommendation

Open access

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools in the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and have recently gained significant attention in the domain of Recommendation Systems (RS). These models, trained on massive amounts of data using self-supervised learning, have demonstrated remarkable success in learning universal representations and have the potential to enhance various aspects of recommendation systems by some effective transfer techniques such as fine-tuning and prompt tuning, and so on. The crucial aspect of harnessing the power of language models in enhancing recommendation quality is the utilization of their high-quality representations of textual features and their extensive coverage of external knowledge to establish correlations between items and users. To provide a comprehensive understanding of the existing LLM-based recommendation systems, this survey presents a taxonomy that categorizes these models into two major paradigms, respectively Discriminative LLM for Recommendation (DLLM4Rec) and Generative LLM for Recommendation (GLLM4Rec), with the latter being systematically sorted out for the first time. Furthermore, we systematically review and analyze existing LLM-based recommendation systems within each paradigm, providing insights into their methodologies, techniques, and performance. Additionally, we identify key challenges and several valuable findings to provide researchers and practitioners with inspiration. We have also created a GitHub repository to index relevant papers on LLMs for recommendation, https://github.com/WLiK/LLM4Rec.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.19860

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI long-term memory can enhance various domains such as content personalization and motion control.

    “Beyond the two applications aforementioned, AI long-term memory can also enhance various domains such as content personalization (e.g. recommender systems [332, 258, 333]) and motion control (e.g. robotics [334, 335, 336]).”

    From Human-inspired Perspectives: A Survey on AI Long-term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as [333]

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 110 · Cited by 515

Metadata

Authors
Wu, L., Zheng, Z., Qiu, Z., Wang, H., Gu, H., Shen, T., Qin, C., Zhu, C., Zhu, H., Liu, Q., Xiong, H., & Chen, E.
Affiliations
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Wang, Hao
  • Zhu, Chen
  • Zhu, Hengshu
  • Xiong, Hui
  • Chen, Enhong
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
27
Issue
5
ISSN
1386-145X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4401834466
Cited by
515
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 235 · 2025: 215 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 7
FWCI
190.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • World Wide Web (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
large language models, recommender systems, LLM-based recommendation, fine-tuning, prompt tuning, knowledge transfer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review