Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

GLoSS: Generative Language Models with Semantic Search for Sequential Recommendation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read GLoSS, a generative recommender that matches LLaMA-3-generated queries to items with dense retrieval, achieves state-of-the-art Recall@5 and NDCG@5 on three Amazon benchmarks.

desk verdict Solid internal ablation showing dense retrieval beats BM25, but the SOTA claim rests on imported baseline numbers that are not verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01910 v2 pith:3Z56HWZZ submitted 2025-06-02 cs.IR

Krishna Acharya , Aleksandr V. Petrov , Juba Ziani This is my paper
classification cs.IR
keywords sequentialrecommendationgenerativedenseretrievalsemanticsearchlargelanguagemodelsLLaMA-3QLoRAAmazonreviewdatasets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a generative recommender reaches state-of-the-art accuracy when a fine-tuned LLaMA-3 model writes a natural-language description of the item a user is likely to buy next and a dense retriever matches that description to the item catalog, replacing the BM25 lexical matching used by the earlier GPT4Rec approach. On the Amazon Beauty, Toys, and Sports benchmarks, the largest variant GLoSS-8B improves Recall@5 by 33.27%, 52.78%, and 15.19% over the best ID-based baseline, and by 4.29%, 22.84%, and 29.54% over the best LLM-based baseline. The paper's key experiment shows the retrieval stage, not the generation stage, carries the gain: swapping BM25 for the e5-small-v2 dense encoder raises NDCG@5 by up to 12.08% for GLoSS-8B on Toys, while a larger encoder does not consistently help. If these results hold, content-based recommenders that never learn per-item embeddings can outperform ID-based sequential models, and new items can be recommended as soon as they enter the catalog.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the replacement of BM25 lexical term overlap with dense retrieval in embedding space. The pipeline has three stages: serialization (the user's item titles are formatted into a prompt), generation (a QLoRA-fine-tuned LLaMA-3 model with beam search produces five candidate item descriptions), and retrieval (the e5-small-v2 encoder embeds each candidate and the item corpus, and dot-product similarity selects the top items). The component that the paper identifies as critical is the dense retriever: in a controlled comparison, substituting e5-small-v2 for BM25 while holding the generated queries fixed raises NDCG@5 by up to 12.08%, and the larger e5-base-v2 encoder does not reliably improve on the smaller one. QLoRA's 4-bit quantization is what makes the LLM stage trainable on a single 24 GB GPU, which the paper cites as enabling the approach on modest hardware.

What would settle it

Rerun the ID-based and LLM-based baselines under GLoSS's exact preprocessing, leave-last-out split, and full-catalog Recall@5/NDCG@5 evaluation on the three Amazon datasets. If any baseline then matches or exceeds GLoSS-8B's reported scores, the state-of-the-art claim collapses. A narrower test of the central mechanism: if BM25 over the same generated queries reaches Recall@5 and NDCG@5 within noise of the dense retriever, the paper's conclusion that semantic search is the gain-carrying component would be unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that GLoSS, a 'generate-then-retrieve' recommender, reaches state-of-the-art sequential recommendation by replacing the BM25 lexical retriever used in prior work such as GPT4Rec with dense retrieval. A 4-bit quantized LLaMA-3 model, fine-tuned with QLoRA, serializes a user's purchase history into a prompt and generates five candidate titles for the next item; the e5-small-v2 encoder embeds those candidates and the full item catalog, and dot-product similarity produces the ranking. GLoSS-8B improves Recall@5 by 33.27%, 52.78%, and 15.19% over the best ID-based baseline on Beauty, Toys, and Sports, and by 4.29%, 22.84%, and 29.54% over the best LLM-based baseline. The paper's controlled comparison shows the retrieval stage carries the gain: swapping BM25 for e5-small-v2 on identical generated queries raises NDCG@5 by up to 12.08%, while a larger encoder, e5-base-v2, does not consistently beat the smaller one.

Load-bearing premise

The state-of-the-art claim assumes that the baseline scores quoted from earlier papers were produced under the same evaluation protocol as GLoSS's own full-catalog top-5 measurement, so the reported margins reflect method quality rather than differences in item filtering, sequence splitting, metric sampling, or codebase.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because GLoSS stores only text embeddings and never learns per-item ID embeddings, new items can be recommended immediately after being added to the index, without retraining.
  • On Toys and Sports, GLoSS achieves its highest Recall@5 on cold-start users with at most five interactions, indicating the content-based pipeline generalizes from sparse histories.
  • Because dense retrieval over generated queries is the gain-carrying stage, the paper's results imply that improving query generation quality and retriever selection matters more than scaling the generation backbone.
  • The paper identifies LLM-based reranking as a complementary next step: pairing GLoSS's high-recall candidate set with a reranker such as LlamaRec's could improve NDCG@5.
  • QLoRA fine-tuning of 4-bit LLaMA-3 makes the approach trainable on a single RTX A5000 GPU, so the pipeline is reproducible on modest hardware.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the strong performance of the training-free Last-Item Search baseline suggests that much of the sequential signal in these datasets lies in the last item's text; ablating which history items the LLM actually attends to would test how much of GLoSS's gain comes from genuinely using the full sequence.
  • Editorial extension: the mixed results when switching from e5-small-v2 to e5-base-v2 imply that the embedding model's pretraining distribution matters more than parameter count, so a product-title-tuned encoder may push recall further than a larger generic one.
  • Editorial extension: because the paper retains P5's 'likely optimistic' Toys numbers, a faithful reproduction of P5 might shrink the reported 22.84% margin; the head-to-head should be re-verified before the state-of-the-art claim is treated as settled.
  • Editorial extension: if LLaMA-3 or the e5 encoder has seen Amazon product text during pretraining, part of the reported gain may be memorization; evaluating on items released after the models' training cutoffs would quantify this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GLoSS, a generate-then-retrieve sequential recommender: a QLoRA-finetuned, 4-bit quantized LLaMA-3 model (1B/3B/8B) is prompted with a serialized purchase history to generate candidate next-item titles, and the candidates are matched against the item catalog using a dense retriever (e5-small-v2 or e5-base-v2). The authors evaluate on Amazon Beauty, Toys, and Sports with leave-last-out splitting and full-catalog Recall@5/NDCG@5, compare against ID-based and LLM-based baselines, ablate BM25 against dense retrieval, and segment users by history length. They report state-of-the-art results and release code and checkpoints. I find no circularity in the core evaluation design: the split is a holdout next-item split and the retrieval encoder is a frozen pretrained model, while the query generator is fine-tuned only on training prefixes.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper's main contribution is to show that dense retrieval over LLM-generated query texts substantially improves ranking over BM25 in a generative recommendation pipeline, and that an 8B backbone with LoRA is sufficient. The internal comparison in Table 3 is well controlled and supports the central retrieval-mechanism claim, and the release of code and checkpoints is a concrete strength. However, the headline state-of-the-art claim is not yet supported at the same standard, because it rests on baseline numbers imported from papers with different evaluation protocols and no significance testing is reported. The paper is transparent about compute constraints and discusses memorization risk in Appendix A, which is commendable, but the SOTA claim needs either a shared-harness re-evaluation or careful qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1.3, Tables 1–2] The state-of-the-art claim in the Abstract and Section 4.2.1 rests on baseline numbers imported from ActionPiece, P5, GPT4Rec, LlamaRec, and E4SRec, none of which are rerun in a shared evaluation harness. GLoSS is scored with full-catalog top-5 metrics, but the imported results may use different item filtering, sequence splits, or sampled candidate sets; the paper itself flags P5's Toys numbers as "likely optimistic" (Section 4.2.1) and notes in Appendix B that TIGER's filtering differs by "few 100s" of interactions. Please either rerun the key baselines end-to-end under the GLoSS protocol or, if that is infeasible, soften the Abstract's SOTA claim and present the cross-paper comparison as indicative rather than definitive.
  2. [Section 4.2.1, Table 2] The comparison against LLM-based recommenders is incomplete: GPT4Rec and LlamaRec report no results on Toys and Sports, so the 22.84% and 29.54% Recall@5 gains are computed relative only to P5 and E4SRec on those datasets. Moreover, no variance estimates, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported; for example, GLoSS-8B's 0.0681 versus GPT4Rec's 0.0653 on Beauty lies within a range that could plausibly be explained by finetuning stochasticity or small evaluation differences. Please add repeated-run variance or user-level bootstrap intervals, and restrict the "outperforms LLM-based recommenders" claim to the datasets where each baseline actually has numbers.
  3. [Section 3.3.3 and Section 4.1.4] The paper does not specify how the five generated candidate texts per user are aggregated into a single top-5 ranking. Beam search produces five distinct texts (Section 4.1.4), and the pipeline computes Recall@5/NDCG@5 over candidate items (Section 4.2), but the reader cannot tell whether the five texts are ranked jointly, whether retrieved items are pooled and deduplicated, or how ties are broken. Please describe the aggregation step precisely; this is needed to reproduce Tables 1–3.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2.3 and Appendix C] The text says Tables 6 and 7 are in Appendix C.1, but those tables appear in Appendix C.2; Appendix C.1 contains the threshold table. Please fix the cross-reference.
  2. [References] References [11] and [12] are the same paper (He and McAuley 2016); please merge them or cite the paper consistently.
  3. [Appendix A] The phrase "5.82% percent" is redundant, and the memorization-rate argument extrapolates from MovieLens to Amazon; please state explicitly whether the Amazon datasets were checked for overlap with LLaMA-3 pretraining corpora.
  4. [Table 3] The bracketed percentage improvements are not defined in the table caption; please state explicitly that they are relative to the BM25 row for the same GLoSS variant.
  5. [Throughout] Use consistent naming for the method (P5Rec versus P5) and for the retriever variants (e5-small-v2 versus E5-small-v2); minor inconsistencies make the paper feel less polished.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: GLoSS is validated by holdout next-item evaluation with a frozen external retriever; the SOTA comparison imports baseline numbers but is a protocol-comparability concern, not a circularity.

full rationale

I walked the paper's claimed derivation chain. The core method (Section 3.3) is: serialize a user's history into text, fine-tune LLaMA-3 with QLoRA to generate a candidate next-item title, and retrieve the closest catalog item by dense embedding using the frozen, pretrained e5-small-v2 encoder (Section 4.1.4). The evaluation (Section 4.1.2) uses a leave-last-out split with full-catalog scoring, and the metric is whether the true next item appears in the top-5 retrieved items. The retriever is a parameter-free external model; the generator is fine-tuned on training-set histories and evaluated on held-out next items. There is no step where the predicted quantity is defined in terms of the target quantity, no parameter fitted to the test set and then renamed as a prediction, and no machinery that forces the output by construction. The closest pattern candidates: (i) the ID-based and LLM-based baseline numbers in Tables 1-2 are imported from ActionPiece, P5, GPT4Rec, LlamaRec, and E4SRec (Section 4.1.3) rather than re-run, which creates a comparability risk given possible protocol differences in filtering, sampling, and splits—the paper itself flags P5's Toys numbers as 'likely optimistic' (Section 4.2.1) and notes TIGER's filtering differs by 'few 100s' of interactions (Appendix B). This is a correctness/validity concern about external benchmark comparability, not circularity: the baseline numbers are independent inputs, and the comparison does not define GLoSS's output in terms of them. (ii) The user-segment framing cites the authors' own prior ECIR paper [1] and the generative-recommendation discussion cites the authors' own GPTRec work ([28, 29] with an overlapping author); these citations are contextual and not load-bearing for the SOTA claim. (iii) The Appendix A memorization discussion uses an external published study [8] on MovieLens and is an explicit acknowledgment of a risk rather than a circular dependence. The well-controlled internal ablation (Table 3, dense vs BM25 on identical generated texts) independently supports the dense-retrieval mechanism. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited per the hard rules (quote plus exact reduction), and the honest finding is a score of 1, reflecting only minor self-citations that do not carry the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

GLoSS is an empirical pipeline with no new scientific entities and no fitted constants in the physics sense. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about item representation, frozen retriever quality, baseline comparability, and memorization. The listed hyperparameters are hand-chosen design choices rather than parameters fitted against the reported metrics.

free parameters (4)
  • LoRA rank and alpha = 16
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.1.4; governs adapter capacity of the query generator and affects generation quality.
  • Beam search width = 5
    Number of candidate texts generated per user; determines the size of the retrieval candidate pool (Section 4.1.4).
  • max_new_tokens = 50
    Generation length cap after 'Next item:' in Section 4.1.4; affects how much of a product title can be emitted.
  • Context length = 1024 tokens
    Left-truncated history window in Section 4.1.4; determines how much of a user's purchase history the model sees.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Item titles alone are a sufficient item representation for next-item prediction.
    The serialization in Section 3.3.1 uses only title text, and both generation and retrieval operate on titles rather than other metadata such as categories or reviews.
  • domain assumption E5-small-v2 dot-product scores rank semantic relevance between generated text and item titles.
    Section 4.1.4 indexes titles with a frozen e5-small-v2 encoder; no retriever fine-tuning or calibration is performed on Amazon data.
  • domain assumption Published baseline metrics are comparable to GLoSS's evaluation setting.
    Section 4.1.3 imports baseline numbers from prior papers without reproducing them; the SOTA claim depends on this comparability despite possible differences in preprocessing, splits, and metric sampling.
  • domain assumption LLaMA-3 models do not memorize Amazon titles enough to inflate retrieval performance.
    Appendix A extrapolates memorization rates measured on MovieLens to Amazon data, but no direct memorization test is run on the Amazon test items.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GLoSS: Generative Language Models with Semantic Search for Sequential Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3Z56HWZZ

@misc{pith2026250601910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GLoSS: Generative Language Models with Semantic Search for Sequential Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3Z56HWZZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01910}
}
read the original abstract

We propose Generative Low-rank language model with Semantic Search (GLoSS), a generative recommendation framework that combines large language models with dense retrieval for sequential recommendation. Unlike prior methods such as GPT4Rec, which rely on lexical matching via BM25, GLoSS uses semantic search to retrieve relevant items beyond lexical matching. For query generation, we employ 4-bit quantized LlaMA-3 models fine-tuned with low-rank adaptation (LoRA), enabling efficient training and inference on modest hardware. We evaluate GLoSS on three real-world Amazon review datasets: Beauty, Toys, and Sports, and find that it achieves state-of-the-art performance. Compared to traditional ID-based baselines, GLoSS improves Recall@5 by 33.3%, 52.8%, and 15.2%, and NDCG@5 by 30.0%, 42.6%, and 16.1%, respectively. It also outperforms LLM-based recommenders such as P5, GPT4Rec, LlamaRec and E4SRec with Recall@5 gains of 4.3%, 22.8%, and 29.5%. Additionally, user segment evaluations show that GLoSS performs particularly well for cold-start users in the Amazon Toys and Sports datasets, and benefits from longer user histories in Amazon Beauty dataset, demonstrating robustness across different levels of interaction lengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01910 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GLoSS: a finetuned LLM generates queries, which [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Last-item text-based search (LIS) is a simple, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Krishna Acharya, David Wardrope, Timos Korres, Aleksandr V Petrov, and Anders Uhrenholt. 2025. Improving Minimax Group Fairness in Sequential Recommen- dation. InEuropean Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 355–370

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Rohan Anil, Andrew M Dai, Orhan Firat, Melvin Johnson, Dmitry Lepikhin, Alexandre Passos, Siamak Shakeri, Emanuel Taropa, Paige Bailey, Zhifeng Chen, et al. 2023. Palm 2 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403(2023)

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Rocío Cañamares and Pablo Castells. 2020. On target item sampling in offline recommender system evaluation. InProceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 259–268

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Hang Cui, Ji-Rong Wen, Jian-Yun Nie, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2003. Query expansion by mining user logs.IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering15, 4 (2003), 829–839

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    2023.Unsloth

    Michael Han Daniel Han and Unsloth team. 2023.Unsloth. http://github.com/ unslothai/unsloth

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. QLORA: efficient finetuning of quantized LLMs. InProceedings of the 37th In- ternational Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(NIPS ’23). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, Article 441, 28 pages

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. 4171–4186

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Dario Di Palma, Felice Antonio Merra, Maurizio Sfilio, Vito Walter Anelli, Fedelu- cio Narducci, and Tommaso Di Noia. 2025. Do LLMs Memorize Recommendation Datasets? A Preliminary Study on MovieLens-1M.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.10212 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Shijie Geng, Shuchang Liu, Zuohui Fu, Yingqiang Ge, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2022. Recommendation as language processing (rlp): A unified pretrain, personalized prompt & predict paradigm (p5). InProceedings of the 16th ACM conference on recommender systems. 299–315

    2022

  2. [10]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ruining He and Julian McAuley. 2016. Ups and downs: Modeling the visual evolution of fashion trends with one-class collaborative filtering. Inproceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web. 507–517

    2016

  4. [12]

    Ruining He and Julian McAuley. 2016. Ups and Downs: Modeling the Visual Evo- lution of Fashion Trends with One-Class Collaborative Filtering. InProceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web(Montréal, Québec, Canada) (WWW ’16). International World Wide Web ...

    2016

  5. [13]

    Yupeng Hou, Jianmo Ni, Zhankui He, Noveen Sachdeva, Wang-Cheng Kang, Ed H Chi, Julian McAuley, and Derek Zhiyuan Cheng. 2025. ActionPiece: Contextually Tokenizing Action Sequences for Generative Recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13581(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Jianchao Ji, Zelong Li, Shuyuan Xu, Wenyue Hua, Yingqiang Ge, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. Genrec: Large language model for generative recommen- dation. InEuropean Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 494–502

    2024

  7. [15]

    Rosie Jones, Benjamin Rey, Omid Madani, and Wiley Greiner. 2006. Generat- ing query substitutions. InProceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web(Edinburgh, Scotland)(WWW ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 387–396. doi:10.1145/1...

    2006

  8. [16]

    Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2018. Self-attentive sequential recom- mendation. In2018 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM). IEEE, 197–206

    2018

  9. [17]

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oğuz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense Passage Retrieval for Open- Domain Question Answering. InProc. EMNLP(2020-09-30). arXiv:2004.04906 [cs] http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04906

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Yehuda Koren, Robert Bell, and Chris Volinsky. 2009. Matrix factorization tech- niques for recommender systems.Computer42, 8 (2009), 30–37

    2009

  11. [19]

    Walid Krichene and Steffen Rendle. 2022. On sampled metrics for item recom- mendation.Commun. ACM65, 7 (June 2022), 75–83. doi:10.1145/3535335

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Ken Lang. 1995. NewsWeeder: Learning to Filter Netnews. InMachine Learning Proceedings 1995, Armand Prieditis and Stuart Russell (Eds.). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (CA), 331–339. doi:10.1016/B978-1-55860-377-6.50048-7

    1995 doi

  13. [21]

    Jinming Li, Wentao Zhang, Tian Wang, Guanglei Xiong, Alan Lu, and Gerard Medioni. 2023. GPT4Rec: A generative framework for personalized recommen- dation and user interests interpretation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03879(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Xinhang Li, Chong Chen, Xiangyu Zhao, Yong Zhang, and Chunxiao Xing. 2023. E4srec: An elegant effective efficient extensible solution of large language models for sequential recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.02443(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Yaoyiran Li, Xiang Zhai, Moustafa Alzantot, Keyi Yu, Ivan Vulić, Anna Korhonen, and Mohamed Hammad. 2024. Calrec: Contrastive alignment of generative llms for sequential recommendation. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 422–432

    2024

  16. [24]

    Pasquale Lops, Antonio Silletti, Marco Polignano, Cataldo Musto, and Giovanni Semeraro. 2024. Reproducibility of LLM-based Recommender Systems: the Case Study of P5 Paradigm. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems(Bari, Italy)(RecSys ’24). Association ...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Julian McAuley, Christopher Targett, Qinfeng Shi, and Anton van den Hengel

  18. [26]

    Zaiqiao Meng, Richard McCreadie, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis. 2020. Ex- ploring Data Splitting Strategies for the Evaluation of Recommendation Models. InProceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems(Virtual Event, Brazil)(RecSys ’20). Association for Comput...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Michael Pazzani, Jack Muramatsu, and Daniel Billsus. 1996. Syskill & webert: Identifying interesting web sites. InProceedings of the Thirteenth National Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1(Portland, Oregon)(AAAI’96). AAAI Press, 54–61

    1996

  20. [28]

    Petrov and Craig Macdonald

    Aleksandr V. Petrov and Craig Macdonald. 2024. Aligning GPTRec with Beyond- Accuracy Goals with Reinforcement Learning. InProc. GenRec@TheWebConf (2024-03-07). arXiv:2403.04875

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Petrov and Craig Macdonald

    Aleksandr V. Petrov and Craig Macdonald. 2023. Generative Sequential Recom- mendation with GPTRec. InProc. Gen-IR@SIGIR

    2023

  22. [30]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer.J. Mach. Learn. Res.21, 1, Article 140 (Jan. 2020), 67 pages

    2020

  23. [31]

    Shashank Rajput, Nikhil Mehta, Anima Singh, Raghunandan Hulikal Keshavan, Trung Vu, Lukasz Heldt, Lichan Hong, Yi Tay, Vinh Tran, Jonah Samost, et al

  24. [32]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Em- beddings Using Siamese BERT-Networks. InProc. EMNLP(2019-08-27). arXiv:1908.10084 [cs] http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Stephen E Robertson, Steve Walker, Susan Jones, Micheline M Hancock-Beaulieu, Mike Gatford, et al. 1995. Okapi at TREC-3.Nist Special Publication Sp109 (1995), 109

    1995

  26. [34]

    Karen Sparck Jones. 1972. A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval.Journal of documentation28, 1 (1972), 11–21

    1972

  27. [35]

    Fei Sun, Jun Liu, Jian Wu, Changhua Pei, Xiao Lin, Wenwu Ou, and Peng Jiang

  28. [36]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yas- mine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhos- ale, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Jianling Wang, Kaize Ding, and James Caverlee. 2021. Sequential recommendation for cold-start users with meta transitional learning. InProceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1783–1787

    2021

  30. [38]

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Binxing Jiao, Linjun Yang, Daxin Jiang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2024. Text Embeddings by Weakly-Supervised Contrastive Pre-training. arXiv:2212.03533 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2212. 03533

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hongyi Wen, Xinyang Yi, Tiansheng Yao, Jiaxi Tang, Lichan Hong, and Ed H. Chi. 2022. Distributionally-robust Recommendations for Improving Worst-case User Experience. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022(Virtual Event, Lyon, France)(WWW ’22). Association for Computing ...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Fanghua Ye, Meng Fang, Shenghui Li, and Emine Yilmaz. 2023. Enhancing conversational search: Large language model-aided informative query rewriting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09716(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhenrui Yue, Sara Rabhi, Gabriel de Souza Pereira Moreira, Dong Wang, and Even Oldridge. 2023. Llamarec: Two-stage recommendation using large language models for ranking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02089(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Zhenrui Yue, Yueqi Wang, Zhankui He, Huimin Zeng, Julian Mcauley, and Dong Wang. 2024. Linear Recurrent Units for Sequential Recommendation. InProceed- ings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (Merida, Mexico)(WSDM ’24). Association for Compu...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Jiaqi Zhai, Lucy Liao, Xing Liu, Yueming Wang, Rui Li, Xuan Cao, Leon Gao, Zhao- jie Gong, Fangda Gu, Michael He, et al. 2024. Actions speak louder than words: Trillion-parameter sequential transducers for generative recommendations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17152(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Sheng, Jiajie Xu, Deqing Wang, Guanfeng Liu, and Xiaofang Zhou

    Tingting Zhang, Pengpeng Zhao, Yanchi Liu, Victor S. Sheng, Jiajie Xu, Deqing Wang, Guanfeng Liu, and Xiaofang Zhou. 2019. Feature-level deeper self-attention network for sequential recommendation. InProceedings of the 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intellig...

    2019

  37. [45]

    Kun Zhou, Hui Wang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Yutao Zhu, Sirui Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Zhongyuan Wang, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2020. S3-rec: Self-supervised learning for se- quential recommendation with mutual information maximization. InProceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on inf...

    2020

  38. [46]

    Beauty” (Beauty), “Toys and Games

    Ziwei Zhu, Shahin Sefati, Parsa Saadatpanah, and James Caverlee. 2020. Rec- ommendation for New Users and New Items via Randomized Training and Mixture-of-Experts Transformation. InProceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Inform...

    2020

  39. [2015]

    InProceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Santiago, Chile)(SIGIR ’15)

    Image-Based Recommendations on Styles and Substitutes. InProceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Santiago, Chile)(SIGIR ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 43–52. doi:10.1145/2766...

  40. [2019]

    InProceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management

    BERT4Rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder rep- resentations from transformer. InProceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management. 1441–1450

  41. [2023]

    Recommender systems with generative retrieval.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2023), 10299–10315

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.