Offline evaluation is the standard methodology for comparing top-N recommender systems, yet it relies on incomplete relevance information. In most benchmark datasets, only a small subset of user--item preferences is observed, and unjudged items are commonly treated as non-relevant. This missing-as-negative assumption can bias evaluation, penalize plausible recommendations with no recorded feedback, and favour algorithms that concentrate on popular or highly exposed items. We propose an LLM-based framework to expand relevance judgements for offline recommender evaluation. Our approach uses large language models in two complementary roles. First, a preference induction stage summarizes each user's historical interactions into a textual profile that captures their tastes and interests. Second, conditioned on this profile, an LLM acts as a relevance judge for candidate recommended items that lack observed labels in the original test data. To make this process tractable and evaluation-focused, we apply judgement expansion to a pooled candidate set built from the top-ranked outputs of multiple recommenders. The resulting enriched judgements provide additional relevance evidence for previously unobserved user--item pairs, enabling ranking metrics to be computed on a more complete basis. Experimental results show that this approach is a promising strategy for improving the robustness of offline top-N evaluation and mitigating the popularity-sensitive distortions caused by sparse feedback.

翻译：暂无翻译