Abstract
Recommendation systems thrive on personalization, where ''correctness'' is rarely a binary truth but a matter of subjective human preference. As Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed as autonomous verifiers of safety and quality guidelines, they face a distinctive challenge: context-aware preference alignment. Recent gains in Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are indexed mostly on objective, mathematical tasks. Through a large-scale study spanning both proprietary and open-source models on four real-world verification tasks from a production recommender platform, we ask whether explicit reasoning generalizes to subjective, human-centric industry rubrics. We expose a fundamental vulnerability: rigid, math-centric reasoning traces actively degrade verification, and applying standard RLVR triggers a phenomenon we term reasoning collapse, in which the policy abandons deliberation in favor of rapid heuristic guessing. We introduce a conditional length-penalized post-training algorithm that intertwines verification accuracy with bounded reasoning length, halting collapse and recovering performance. Finally, we show that a reasoning trace's efficacy is tightly coupled with its socio-linguistic framing: across 1500 synthesized personas, verification accuracy swings by nearly 0.38 macro-F1 depending solely on the adopted reasoning persona---evidence that much subjective-verification error is really reasoning-style mismatch. This observation motivates a mid-training architecture that routes reasoning through contextually aligned personas. This work offers both a scalable algorithmic patch and a long-term architectural blueprint for aligning reasoning models with real-world subjective constraints.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08889
