journal article·2025-12-22Open access

An LLM–MCDM Framework with Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient for Recommendation Systems: A Case Study in Food Preference

Thanathorn Phoka, Thanwa Wathahong, Pornpimon Boriwan

Applied Sciences· Volume 16· Issue 1

Abstract

Food recommender systems are pivotal in helping people make optimal dietary choices based on tremendous amounts of data. Extant studies offer different methods and techniques, but the combination of similarity search, large language models (LLMs), and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) remains underexplored. This study proposes a new system that leverages all three. First, we utilize an LLM to suggest queries from the same domain as the dish database. Then, the queries are vectorized and used for similarity search to generate a preliminary list of suggested menu items. Next, multiple LLMs provide scores for each item, which become the MCDM inputs, where Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (LCCC) enhances the weighted sum scalarization technique. We evaluated the prototype on three publicly available dish datasets and at classification thresholds of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75, and the proposed domain-adaptation approach consistently outperformed the baseline query. For example, at the 0.50 threshold, precision ranged from 49.11% to 56.60%, compared with 35.40% for the baseline. Furthermore, aggregating multiple LLMs mitigates single-model bias in recommendations. To substantiate this, a bootstrap evaluation of the proposed LCCC-based consensus weighting confirms that both the estimated weights and the induced rankings are numerically stable under sampling perturbations. To further ensure the robustness and reliability of the proposed system, we validate the results against other established weighting schemes and state-of-the-art MCDM methods. Moreover, Kendall’s τ-based comparisons across weighting schemes and multiple MCDM methods confirm that the proposed LCCC-based framework produces highly consistent and statistically significant rankings, demonstrating strong robustness to methodological choices. This paper contributes a system architecture and design that can be adopted for other domains of recommender systems where the capability of multiple LLMs can benefit complex and multifaceted decision-making processes.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Recommender Systems and Techniques · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Computer Science and Information Technology, Faculty of Science, Naresuan University, 99 Village No. 9, Tha Pho, Muang District, Phitsanulok 65000, Thailand

Technology Management and Innopreneurship Program, Chulalongkorn University, 254 Phayathai Rd., Pathumwan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand

Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Khon Kaen University, 123 Village No. 16 Mittraphap Rd., Nai-Muang, Muang District, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand

Funding

Faculty of Science, Naresuan University · Frontier Research and Innovation Cluster Fund, Naresuan University

References (54)

Show source-provided references
1. Rais, R.N.B., Noman, M., Khalid, O., and Khan, I.A. (2024). A Hybrid Group-Based Food Recommender Framework for Handling Overlapping Memberships. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app14135843 ↗
2. A Novel Healthy Food Recommendation to User Groups Based on a Deep Social Community Detection Approach10.1016/j.neucom.2024.127326 ↗
3. An Interactive Food Recommendation System Using Reinforcement Learning10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124313 ↗
4. A Systematic Review on Food Recommender Systems10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122166 ↗
5. A Review and Research Panorama on Food Recommender System Based on Health Care
6. A Systematic Literature Review of Food Recommender Systems10.1007/s42979-023-02537-y ↗
7. Zheng, Y., and Wang, D. (2023, January 27–31). Multi-Criteria Decision Making and Recommender Systems. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Sydney, NSW, Australia.10.1145/3581754.3584163 ↗
8. Lin, J., Dai, X., Xi, Y., Liu, W., Chen, B., Zhang, H., Liu, Y., Wu, C., Li, X., and Zhu, C. (2023). How Can Recommender Systems Benefit from Large Language Models: A Survey. arXiv.
9. A Survey on Large Language Models for Recommendation10.1007/s11280-024-01291-2 ↗
10. Sanner, S., Balog, K., Radlinski, F., Wedin, B., and Dixon, L. (2023, January 18–22). Large Language Models Are Competitive Near Cold-Start Recommenders for Language- and Item-Based Preferences. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, Singapore.10.1145/3604915.3608845 ↗
11. Tell Me What You Like: Introducing Natural Language Preference Elicitation Strategies in a Virtual Assistant for the Movie Domain10.1007/s10844-023-00835-8 ↗
12. Meng, L., Feng, F., He, X., Gao, X., and Chua, T.-S. (2020, January 12–16). Heterogeneous Fusion of Semantic and Collaborative Information for Visually-Aware Food Recommendation. Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Seattle, WA, USA.10.1145/3394171.3413598 ↗
13. An Overview of Recommender Systems in the Healthy Food Domain10.1007/s10844-017-0469-0 ↗
14. A Survey on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods and Its Applications
15. A Review of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) towards Sustainable Renewable Energy Development10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.191 ↗
16. Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Techniques and Their Applications—A Review of the Literature from 2000 to 201410.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139 ↗
17. An Efficient Framework to Combat Multidimensionality in Multi-Criteria Recommender Systems10.1007/s10586-024-04946-x ↗
18. Methodical Aspects of MCDM-Based E-Commerce Recommender System10.3390/jtaer16060122 ↗
19. Electrocardiogram Monitor Supplier Selection Based on Fuzzy MCDM Evaluation Method
20. Soft Computing Techniques in Multi-Criteria Recommender Systems: A Comprehensive Review10.1016/j.asoc.2024.112579 ↗
21. Artificial Intelligence in Recommender Systems10.1007/s40747-020-00212-w ↗
22. Principles and Validations of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Recommender System Suggesting Acceptable Food Changes10.1016/j.tjnut.2022.12.022 ↗
23. Theodoridis, T., Solachidis, V., Dimitropoulos, K., Gymnopoulos, L., and Daras, P. (2019, January 5–7). A Survey on AI Nutrition Recommender Systems. Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, Rhodes, Greece.10.1145/3316782.3322760 ↗
24. Singh, R., and Dwivedi, P. (2023, January 6–8). Food Recommendation Systems Based on Content-Based and Collaborative Filtering Techniques. Proceedings of the 2023 14th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), Delhi, India.10.1109/ICCCNT56998.2023.10307080 ↗
25. AI Based Food Quality Recommendation System10.55524/ijircst.2023.11.3.4 ↗
26. AI Nutrition Recommendation Using a Deep Generative Model and ChatGPT10.1038/s41598-024-65438-x ↗
27. Mendes Samagaio, Á., Lopes Cardoso, H., and Ribeiro, D. (2021, January 7–9). A Chatbot for Recipe Recommendation and Preference Modeling. Proceedings of the Progress in Artificial Intelligence: EPIA 2021 Proceedings, Virtual Event.10.1007/978-3-030-86230-5_31 ↗
28. Pecune, F., Callebert, L., and Marsella, S. (2022). Designing Persuasive Food Conversational Recommender Systems with Nudging and Socially-Aware Conversational Strategies. Front. Robot. AI, 8.10.3389/frobt.2021.733835 ↗
29. Zuheros, C., Herrera-Poyatos, D., Montes, R., and Herrera, F. (2024). Large Language Models for Crowd Decision Making Based on Prompt Design Strategies Using ChatGPT: Models, Analysis and Challenges. arXiv.
30. Aldwean, A.M. (2024). An In-Depth Analysis of the Adoption of Large Language Models in Clinical Settings: A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach. [Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bridgeport].
31. Liu, Y., Iter, D., Xu, Y., Wang, S., Xu, R., and Zhu, C. (2023). G-Eval: NLG Evaluation Using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.153 ↗
32. A Concordance Correlation Coefficient to Evaluate Reproducibility10.2307/2532051 ↗
33. Effectiveness of Entropy Weight Method in Decision-Making
34. Critid: Enhancing CRITIC with Advanced Independence Testing for Robust Multi-Criteria Decision-Making10.1038/s41598-024-75992-z ↗
35. Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L., and Hwang, F.P. (1992). Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-46768-4 ↗
36. A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) Method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458 ↗
37. Sustainable Supplier Selection in Healthcare Industries Using a New MCDM Method: Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking According to COmpromise Solution (MARCOS)10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231 ↗
38. Benchmarking large and small MLLMs10.1007/s00138-025-01762-0 ↗
39. A New Measure of Rank Correlation10.1093/biomet/30.1-2.81 ↗
40. (2025, December 03). RecipeBERT. Hugging Face Model Card. Available online: https://huggingface.co/alexdseo/RecipeBERT.
41. Nussbaum, Z., Morris, J.X., Duderstadt, B., and Mulyar, A. (2024). Nomic Embed: Training a Reproducible Long Context Text Embedder. arXiv.
42. Recipe1M+: A Dataset for Learning Cross-Modal Embeddings for Cooking Recipes and Food Images10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2927476 ↗
43. Developing a Personalized Meal Recommendation System for Chinese Older Adults: Observational Cohort Study10.2196/52170 ↗
44. Examining the User Evaluation of Multi-List Recommender Interfaces in the Context of Healthy Recipe Choices10.1145/3581930 ↗
45. Granado, F.F., Bezerra, D.A., Queiroz, I., Oliveira, N., Fernandes, P., and Schock, B. (2025). Personalized Recommendation of Dish and Restaurant Collections on iFood. arXiv.
46. “Tell Me Why”: Using Natural Language Justifications in a Recipe Recommender System to Support Healthier Food Choices10.1007/s11257-023-09377-8 ↗
47. Wang, J., Karatzoglou, A., Arapakis, I., and Jose, J.M. (2024, January 14–18). Reinforcement Learning-Based Recommender Systems with Large Language Models for State, Reward and Action Modeling. Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Washington, DC, USA.10.1145/3626772.3657767 ↗
48. Xue, W., Cai, Q., Xue, Z., Sun, S., Liu, S., Zheng, D., Jiang, P., Gai, K., and An, B. (2023, January 6–10). PrefRec: Recommender Systems with Human Preferences for Reinforcing Long-Term User Engagement. Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Long Beach, CA, USA.10.1145/3580305.3599473 ↗
49. Yang, Z., Sun, A., Zhao, Y., Yang, Y., Li, D., and Zhou, C. (2025, January 8–10). RLHF Fine-Tuning of LLMs for Alignment with Implicit User Feedback in Conversational Recommenders. Proceedings of the 2025 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things and Cloud Computing Technology (AIoTC), Guilin, China.10.1109/AIoTC66747.2025.11198794 ↗
50. How Experts’ Own Inconsistency Relates to Their Confidence and Between-Expert Disagreement10.1038/s41598-022-12847-5 ↗
51. Mankins, J.C. (1995). Technology Readiness Levels, NASA. White Paper.
52. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffmann, A., and Giovannini, E. (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide, OECD Publishing/JRC.
53. An Analysis of Transformations10.1111/j.2517-6161.1964.tb00553.x ↗
54. Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, Springer.10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6 ↗