Papers › Diagnosing and Mitigating Retrieval Bottlenecks in LLM-Based Cold-Start Recommendation

Diagnosing and Mitigating Retrieval Bottlenecks in LLM-Based Cold-Start Recommendation

29 Jun 2026arXiv:2606.29947added by Syntology

Zhe Dong, Fang Qin, Manish Shah, Yicheng Wang

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as rerankers in recommender systems, with the expectation that semantic understanding will help in cold-start and long-tail regimes. We test this assumption with a five-domain benchmark that explicitly separates reranking quality from retrieval coverage. In a positive-controlled regime where the gold item is guaranteed present, calibrated LLM rerankers fail to consistently outperform strong collaborative and content baselines under natural traffic, and within-family scaling from Qwen3-8B to Qwen3-32B narrows but does not close the gap on most domains. In a retrieval-realistic regime where the gold item is not injected, the bottleneck is more severe: standard single retrievers place the gold item in a 200-item pool only 4.6-22.9% of the time, largely because 32-91% of cold-start targets are brand-new items with no training interactions. We introduce LHF, a validation-trained learned hybrid fusion layer over a multi-retriever union pool, as a retrieval-side realizability baseline. LHF is the only combiner we test that beats every single retriever on all five domains and recovers 17-61% of oracle coverage headroom on content-rich domains, but only 5-7% on collaboratively strong domains. End-to-end experiments reveal the remaining mismatch: learned non-LLM ranking exploits the LHF pool, while prompt-level LLM reranking often degrades it. LLMs exhibit pockets of semantic cold-start advantage, especially in text-rich domains when the item is already present, but this advantage is largely unreachable in current retrieve-then-rerank pipelines. We release the benchmark protocol, splits, prompts, evaluation tooling, and archived reproducibility artifacts: data at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20991039 and code at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20993306.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

3 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from dongzhe1/rec-diag-bench. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2606.29947, was issued in June 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections