Reasoning with Evidence, Not Merely Rationales: Verifiable Preference Proofs for LLM-Based Recommendation

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

Large language models (LLMs) can infer user preferences from interaction histories and reviews, yet the rationales they generate may not reflect the information actually used for recommendation. A preference claim may be weakly supported by its selected evidence, or may have little effect on the final ranking. We refer to these two failures as the grounding-influence gap. We introduce PROVE-REC, a general framework for verifiable preference reasoning in LLM-based recommendation. Pass A converts the complete pre-target history into a compact preference proof consisting of positive and avoidance claims linked to selected evidence entries. Pass B predicts the next item using only the proof and its selected evidence, preventing the recommender from bypassing the reasoning path. To verify evidence-to-proof grounding, we compare the effect of masking selected evidence with masking a comparable control entry. To verify proof-to-recommendation influence, we remove a preference claim and measure the resulting decrease in the target item's ranking margin. A ranking-preservation objective further retains useful information from the complete history. Comprehensive experiments on wide-ranging real-world datasets demonstrate that PROVE-REC consistently outperforms strong sequential, generative, and LLM-enhanced baselines, with improvements of up to 7.45%. Controlled ablations confirm the effectiveness of the two-pass architecture and verification objectives. Moreover, PROVE-REC produces claims that are more strongly grounded in historical evidence and more influential to recommendation while preserving ranking quality.