Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 2, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Large language models (LLMs) have introduced a generative approach to recommendation, producing item lists from textual representations of user histories and item information. However, this generative setting raises challenges concerning output validity, prompt consistency, and sensitivity to demographic descriptors. In this work, we investigate how preprocessing choices in fine-tuning data affect recommendation utility and fairness-related behavior in a generative LLM-based recommender system. We first establish a controlled recommendation pipeline that combines supervised fine-tuning, catalog-constrained decoding, and prompt augmentation. We then study three preprocessing choices: item-title representation, demographic balancing, and auxiliary item-knowledge enrichment. Experiments on MovieLens-1M show that the catalog-constrained pipeline eliminates out-of-catalog items and ensures complete ten-item outputs, while prompt augmentation improves prompt consistency and utility. Original MovieLens titles increase HR@10 from 10.67% to 12.47% and Coverage@10 from 41.36% to 47.88%. Fairness-related effects are attribute-dependent: age balancing and knowledge enrichment reduce selected group-level utility gaps while largely preserving utility, whereas gender balancing reduces utility without improving the evaluated gender-related indicators. Overall, preprocessing choices in fine-tuning data should be evaluated jointly in terms of utility, output behavior, and demographic sensitivity.