DTRec: Learning Dynamic Reasoning Trajectories for Sequential Recommendation
Open accessAbstract
Inspired by advances in LLMs, reasoning-enhanced sequential recommendation performs multi-step deliberation before making final predictions, unlocking greater potential for capturing user preferences. However, current methods are constrained by static reasoning trajectories that are ill-suited for the diverse complexity of user behaviors. They suffer from two key limitations: (1) a static reasoning direction, which uses flat supervision signals misaligned with human-like hierarchical reasoning, and (2) a fixed reasoning depth, which inefficiently applies the same computational effort to all users, regardless of pattern complexity. These rigidity lead to suboptimal performance and significant computational waste. To overcome these challenges, we propose DTRec, a novel and effective framework that explores the Dynamic reasoning Trajectory for Sequential Recommendation along both direction and depth. To guide the direction, we develop Hierarchical Process Supervision (HPS), which provides coarse-to-fine supervisory signals to emulate the natural, progressive refinement of human cognitive processes. To optimize the depth, we introduce the Adaptive Reasoning Halting (ARH) mechanism that dynamically adjusts the number of reasoning steps by jointly monitoring three indicators. Extensive experiments on three real-world datasets demonstrate the superiority of our approach, achieving up to a 24.5% performance improvement over strong baselines while simultaneously reducing computational cost by up to 41.6%.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Real personalization requires agents to reason over long-term trajectories, infer latent preferences, and act in ways aligned with user goals.
“Real personalization requires agents to reason over long-term trajectories, infer latent preferences, and more importantly, act in ways aligned with user goals (Zhang et al., 2025d; Shao et al., 2025).”
From MemoryCD: Benchmarking Long-Context User Memory of LLM Agents for Lifelong Cross-Domain Personalization (2026) · cites this paper as Shao et al., 2025
The Introduction (p. 1) says sequential recommendation uses a user's historical behavior to predict the next item, and that multi-step reasoning refines understanding of user intent. Further Analysis (p. 4) discusses longer sequences and more complex interests. The paper does not establish that personalization requires agents to act in alignment with user goals; its reasoning trajectories are steps toward a recommendation, not necessarily long-term user trajectories. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- [1][1] Yukuo Cen, Jianwei Zhang, Xu Zou, Chang Zhou, Hongxia Yang, and Jie Tang. 2020. Controllable multi-interest framework for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 2942-2951. -
- [2][2] Balázs Hidasi, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Linas Baltrunas, and Domonkos Tikk. 2015. Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06939 (2015). - · arXiv
- [3][3] Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2018. Self-attentive sequential recommendation. In 2018 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 197-206. -
- [4][4] Enze Liu, Bowen Zheng, Xiaolei Wang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jinpeng Wang, Sheng Chen, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2025. LARES: Latent Reasoning for Sequential Recommendation. arXiv:2505.16865 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16865 - · arXiv
- [5][5] David Navon. 1977. Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive psychology 9, 3 (1977), 353-383. -
- [6][6] Fei Sun, Jun Liu, Jian Wu, Changhua Pei, Xiao Lin, Wenwu Ou, and Peng Jiang. 2019. BERT4Rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder representations from transformer. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management . 1441-1450. -
- [7][7] Jiakai Tang, Sunhao Dai, Teng Shi, Jun Xu, Xu Chen, Wen Chen, Wu Jian, and Yuning Jiang. 2025. Think Before Recommend: Unleashing the Latent Reasoning Power for Sequential Recommendation. arXiv:2503.22675 [cs.IR] https://arxiv. org/abs/2503.22675 - · arXiv
- [8][8] Peilin Zhou, Jingqi Gao, Yueqi Xie, Qichen Ye, Yining Hua, Jae Boum Kim, Shoujin Wang, and Sunghun Kim. 2024. Equivariant Contrastive Learning for Sequential Recommendation. arXiv:2211.05290 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.05290 · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhang, W., Wei, X., Huang, W.-C., Hui, Z., Wang, C., Gong, M., & Yu, P. S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.25973
Self-citation
- Authors
- Shao, Y., Zhou, P., Wang, S., Zhang, W., Cai, X., & Kim, S.
- Affiliations
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) (CN)
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Jilin University (CN)
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- Pages
- 8549-8552
- arXiv
- 2512.14036
- OpenAlex
- W4417466219
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- OPUS - Open Publications of UTS Scholars (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- 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
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
- Keywords
- sequential recommendation, multi-step reasoning, computational efficiency, user preference modeling
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