Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Climber-Pilot claims that a training-time mask cures generative retrieval's short-sightedness and a sparse-attention gate makes it follow instructions, lifting Like Rate 4.24% in production.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 23:31 UTC pith:7XOBBIIA

load-bearing objection A serious industrial generative retrieval paper with a genuinely interesting time-aware masking mechanism, but the mask is anchored to the label timestamp and the train/serve skew is not resolved; worthy of referee time. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2602.13581 v2 pith:7XOBBIIA submitted 2026-02-14 cs.IR

Climber-Pilot: A Non-Myopic Generative Recommendation Model Towards Better Instruction-Following

Da Guo , Shijia Wang , Qiang Xiao , Yintao Ren , Weisheng Li , Songpei Xu , Ming Yue , Bin Huang
show 2 more authors
Guanlin Wu Chuanjiang Luo
This is my paper
classification cs.IR
keywords generative retrievalsequential recommendationmulti-item predictiontime-aware maskingsparse attentioninstruction followingindustrial recommender systemonline A/B testing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that the myopia of single-step generative retrieval is not a training-inference mismatch that requires expensive multi-step decoding; it can be distilled into the model at training time. Its solution, Climber-Pilot, uses Time-Aware Multi-Item Prediction (TAMIP): K parallel prediction heads learn to forecast the next K items while a time-aware mask hides all clicks from the 15 minutes before the target, stripping out artificial within-batch order from serialized logs. For instruction-following, Condition-Guided Sparse Attention (CGSA) encodes business constraints as attention masks, so genre or language instructions shape generation directly without post-hoc filtering or extra inference steps. The paper reports offline gains over state-of-the-art baselines and a 4.24% lift in Like Rate in a two-week production A/B test with less than 5% latency overhead. A sympathetic reader would care because it suggests industrial retrievers can get long-horizon foresight and executable instructions for essentially no serving cost.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that two apparent limitations of generative retrieval—myopic next-item prediction and inability to honor business instructions—share one fix: move complexity from inference into training and from post-hoc filtering into the attention mechanism. TAMIP extends the prediction horizon to K future items with K parallel branches over a shared encoder, and its time-aware mask forces the model to ignore interactions within Δτ=15 minutes of the target, on the premise that those are co-exposed batch artifacts rather than genuine sequential intent. CGSA then makes the final branches condition on a retrieval instruction c by masking out any historical item whose category dif

What carries the argument

Time-Aware Multi-Item Prediction (TAMIP): K parallel Transformer branches over a shared encoder, each predicting item i_{n+k}, with a Time-Aware Mask M_temp that sets attention to −∞ for any historical item whose timestamp falls in [τ_{n+1}−Δτ, τ_{n+1}], where Δτ is set to the 15-minute average serving interval. This mask is meant to delete spurious within-batch ordering while forcing the model to rely on long-term context. Condition-Guided Sparse Attention (CGSA): an attention mask M_sparse that zeros out any historical item whose category does not match the instruction c, applied to the final branches, so business constraints shape generation directly. Together they shift complexity from i

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that everything a user clicked in the 15 minutes right before the next target is causally inert batch co-exposure, so deleting all of it removes artifacts while keeping genuine intent; if real sequential preference operates inside that window, the time-aware mask throws away the signal it claims to preserve.

What would settle it

Vary Δτ over, say, 1, 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes on the industrial logs and measure HR@10 at prediction steps 1 through 10. If shortening the window to a few minutes preserves or improves the long-horizon gains, the consumption-lag premise is wrong and the reported lift comes from filtering rather than from learned multi-item foresight; likewise, an ablation that removes all masked-position labels rather than masking attention would expose whether the gain is purely data filtering.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A generative retriever can be trained to look several items ahead but still served with a single inference step, so long-horizon intent costs no extra latency at serving time.
  • A single unified model can follow arbitrary retrieval instructions by swapping the condition in the sparse-attention mask, replacing multiple specialized retrieval channels.
  • Instruction-following and relevance are not in opposition: the CGSA variant reports the highest Hit Rate and near-top Condition Compliance, so constraints can be enforced without sacrificing accuracy.
  • Instruction-conditioned fine-tuning also improves unconstrained general recommendation, suggesting that personalized instruction construction surfaces latent user intent rather than only policing categories.
  • The production deployment shows the whole pipeline adds less than 5% latency (7.26 ms vs 6.94 ms) while lifting Like Rate, making the approach compatible with strict serving budgets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 15-minute cutoff were swept per user or per behavior type, gains might grow or shrink; our reading is that the current single global cutoff is a conservative proxy, not a tuned hyperparameter.
  • The same time-aware masking recipe transfers to any co-exposure log where the serial order is an artifact, such as homepage feeds or e-commerce search result pages, provided the batch window is re-estimated for that surface.
  • The pre-computed top-category instructions could be replaced by a learned instruction proposer trained jointly with the retriever, potentially making the instruction-following loop adaptive on short horizons.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Climber-Pilot, a generative retrieval model for industrial recommendation. It introduces two main components: (1) TAMIP (Time-Aware Multi-Item Prediction), which trains a shared encoder with K parallel prediction branches and a time-aware attention mask that blocks attention to interactions within a Δτ=15-minute window before the first target item; and (2) CGSA (Condition-Guided Sparse Attention), which applies a category-matching sparse mask in the SFT stage so that retrieval instructions (genre, language, etc.) are injected directly into the attention computation without extra inference steps. The authors report consistent offline gains over SASRec, TIGER, HSTU, PinRec, and AdaLN-Zero on three Amazon datasets and an industrial corpus, an ablation showing TAMIP outperforming NIP and MIP, and a two-week online A/B test at NetEase Cloud Music with a 4.24% Like Rate lift over the production baseline at under 5% latency overhead.

Significance. If the claims are correct, the paper makes a practical contribution: it offers a training-time method to reduce myopia in single-step generative retrieval and an attention-level mechanism for instruction-following that avoids post-hoc filtering costs. The online A/B result and the TAMIP-vs-MIP ablation are the right kinds of evidence, and the CGSA loss uses a clean conditional objective. The main weakness is that the paper's core myopia-alleviation mechanism — the time-aware mask of Eq. (1) — is anchored to the label timestamp τ_{n+1}, which is absent at serving time. This creates a train/serve skew and raises the possibility that the reported gains come from label-derived masking rather than from genuine long-horizon distillation. The paper also leaves the Figure 3 evaluation protocol and the Δτ sensitivity unspecified, which makes the central interpretation harder to verify.

major comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1), Sec. 3.2.2] The time-aware mask depends on τ_{n+1}, the timestamp of the first target item. This is label information. The paper's assertion that this introduces no leakage because only a 'temporal cutoff' is exposed is too quick: the exact pattern of which positions are masked is a function of the gap between the latest observed interaction and the label timestamp, and a transformer can in principle learn to read this gap as a time-to-label signal. At serving time there is no future label timestamp, so the mask cannot be reproduced in the same way. The deployment section (Sec. 3.4) does not specify how the mask is applied at inference. Please state exactly what mask is used at serving and add an experiment that rules out label-anchored leakage — for example, train with a cutoff anchored to a random or history-derived timestamp rather than to τ_{n+1}, or compare against a version that masks the same
  2. [Sec. 3.2.2, Sec. 4.1.2] The Consumption Lag premise is load-bearing, but the only support is a single uniform Δτ = 15 minutes, which is set to the average serving interval. No sensitivity analysis is provided. If genuine sequential intent operates at sub-15-minute timescales, the mask deletes the very signal TAMIP claims to preserve, and the Figure 3 gains could come from filtering recent interactions rather than from learning long-horizon structure. Please report HR@K for Δτ ∈ {5, 15, 30, 60} minutes (and ideally per-user request intervals), and show that the TAMIP-vs-MIP difference is robust. This is necessary to support the claim that TAMIP alleviates inherent myopia rather than acting as a fixed-window denoiser.
  3. [Figure 3, Sec. 4.3] The myopia experiment is the direct evidence for the central claim, but the evaluation protocol is under-specified. What exactly are the ground truths at steps t+1 through t+10? Are they the next 10 serialized log entries, or are they filtered by request boundaries? How are multiple predictions per user aggregated? Is the time-aware mask applied at evaluation, and if so, what timestamp is used as the anchor? If the ground truths are taken from the same serialized log that the paper argues is contaminated by batch artifacts, the comparison between NIP, MIP, and TAMIP may conflate artifact removal with genuine long-horizon prediction. Please provide the precise construction of Figure 3 and the exact inference-time masking procedure used for each curve.
  4. [Sec. 4.5.1, Table 4] The online A/B result is the strongest evidence for the paper's practical claims, but no statistical significance measures are reported. The paper states 5% traffic per variant and a two-week duration, yet Table 4 lists only point estimates (e.g., +4.24% Like Rate, +4.10% in Genre-Specific). Please report confidence intervals, p-values, or day-level variance, and specify how the lift was computed (e.g., ratio of daily averages, per-user metrics, or clicks/likes normalization). Without this, the 4.24% claim cannot be distinguished from noise, especially for the Genre-Specific +0.56% Total Listening Time row.
  5. [Sec. 4.4, Table 3] The SFT evaluation uses the attribute of the ground-truth next item as the instruction c_{n+1} both at training and at test. In deployment, however, instructions come from pre-computed recall instructions (Sec. 3.4.1) that are derived from user history and are not necessarily equal to the ground-truth item's attribute. The gap between oracle-conditioned evaluation and actual online conditioning is not measured. Please either evaluate with the deployed instruction-generation strategy in an offline setting or report the distribution of instruction accuracy. This would clarify whether CGSA's offline HR/CC results transfer to the production instruction-following scenario.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The sentence 'No label-specific features beyond the temporal cutoff are exposed to the model' is ambiguous. The 'temporal cutoff' itself is a function of τ_{n+1}; please define explicitly what information is available to the attention mask and what is not.
  2. [Figure 1] The label 'Casual Self-Attention' is a typo; it should be 'Causal Self-Attention'.
  3. [Sec. 4.1.1] The text says 'two large-scale datasets' but then lists three Amazon benchmarks plus the industrial dataset. Please correct the count.
  4. [Sec. 3.3.1] The SFT dataset is described as 'high-quality online user interaction logs,' but the quality filter is never specified. Define the criteria used to select these logs.
  5. [Sec. 4.1.2, Sec. 3.4.1] The number of TAMIP branches K is set to 2, but the number of pre-computed recall instructions P used in the online A/B test is not reported. Please report P and any sensitivity to it.
  6. [Sec. 2, Related Work] The distinction between the prior Climber model [30] and the new contributions is not explicit. Since Climber-Pilot reuses the encoder architecture and the batched multi-condition inference idea, please state clearly which components are inherited and which are novel.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; TAMIP and CGSA are evaluated against external baselines and online A/B, with self-citations limited to non-load-bearing architectural details.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. TAMIP's myopia-alleviation claim is tested by ablating NIP vs MIP vs TAMIP (Figure 3), and the time-aware mask is a training-time regularizer rather than a construction that encodes the target result; the model still predicts items from learned representations. The instruction-following claim is tested against PinRec, LUM, and AdaLN-Zero from the same pretrained checkpoint (Table 3), and the online A/B is against a production baseline (Table 4). The two self-citations to the authors' prior Climber [30] — the encoder architecture in §3.2.1 and batched multi-condition inference in §3.4.2 — are architectural and inference-engineering choices, not load-bearing uniqueness arguments or fitted predictions. The τ_{n+1}-anchored mask raises a train/serve-skew and possible leakage concern, but that is a correctness/robustness issue, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Therefore no circular step is established; the minor non-load-bearing self-citations justify a low score of 2 rather than 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

Everything the central claim rests on that the reader didn't pay for upstream. The numerically chosen knobs are Δτ = 15 min (mask horizon, set to the average serving interval with no sensitivity analysis), K = 2 (branch count chosen for efficiency), P (per-user instruction count, unreported), and an undefined 'high-quality' filter for the SFT logs. The load-bearing premises are: the Consumption Lag claim that co-exposed batch items are causally inert, the sufficiency/accuracy of category labels as instruction semantics, and the no-leakage claim for anchoring the mask at the label timestamp τ_{n+1}. One posited phenomenon — Consumption Lag — has no direct independent measurement.

free parameters (4)
  • Δτ (time-aware mask margin) = 15 minutes (average logged serving interval, industrial)
    Defines the temporal exclusion window [τ_{n+1}−Δτ, τ_{n+1}] in Eq. 1 that removes recent interactions before multi-item prediction. It is the linchpin of TAMIP; the paper provides no sensitivity analysis, and the value is derived from the industrial data distribution.
  • K (number of TAMIP branches) = 2
    Chosen in §4.1.2 'to balance efficiency and the core objective of validating TAMIP's effectiveness'; controls the multi-item prediction horizon and the number of parallel SFT branches, so it bounds the claimed foresight gain.
  • P (pre-computed recall instructions per user) = unspecified
    Number of top interest categories cached per user for batched multi-condition inference (§3.4.1); the value is not reported, although it determines the serving-time branch count and the diversity/engagement effects in Table 5.
  • 'high-quality' SFT log filter = undefined
    The SFT datasets are built from 'high-quality online user interaction logs that align with specific retrieval conditions' (§3.3.1) with no operational definition of quality or alignment; a hand-made selection criterion that can bias instruction-following results.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Consumption lag: items co-exposed in one request share no causal order; serialized logs invent spurious sequential structure
    The central premise for TAMIP (§3.2.2, citing [21]). If within-batch order were behaviorally meaningful, the time mask would discard genuine signal rather than artifacts.
  • ad hoc to paper A uniform Δτ = average serving interval (~15 min) separates batch artifacts from real intent progression
    No argument is given that the artifact horizon is uniform across users, categories, or request types; one hard cutoff is applied to all users, with no sensitivity analysis.
  • domain assumption Using the label timestamp τ_{n+1} to construct the training mask does not leak label information
    Assumed in §3.2.2 ('this timestamp is solely used to mask out recent interactions'). The cutoff position is a function of the label's timestamp — a weaker form of label dependence the paper asserts without empirical test.
  • domain assumption Category labels C(·) are accurate and semantically sufficient for instruction following
    Both the CGSA hard mask (Eq. 5) and the CC@K metric (Eq. 8) require reliable item-to-category mapping (genre/language/freshness); no label-noise analysis is given.
  • domain assumption The ground-truth next item's attribute is a valid instruction for evaluating instruction following
    In §4.4 the instruction c_{n+1} is defined as the attribute of the target item; this is a reasonable but assumption-laden protocol that ties instruction quality to the target item's category.
  • standard math Sampled softmax with shared in-batch negatives approximates the full softmax over >6M items
    Eq. 3 uses a shared sampled-softmax; standard practice, but the negative sampling distribution is not specified, which can bias HR estimates.
  • domain assumption FAISS ANN search over learned representations faithfully simulates the deployed generative retrieval path
    All offline HR@K numbers (§4.1.2) come from ANN over embeddings, while the paper frames the work as generative retrieval; the two paths are not shown to be equivalent.
invented entities (1)
  • Consumption Lag (named phenomenon) no independent evidence
    purpose: Poses that batch-served items, serialized in logs, create artificial sequential dependence that next-item training overfits; motivates the time-aware mask
    The paper argues the mechanism from the batch-serving setup and cites [21], but provides no direct measurement (e.g., no evaluation of order-permuted logs). The only evidence is the indirect result that TAMIP beats MIP (Figure 3), which is also consistent with the mask acting as a regularizer that simply forces longer-range attention.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13846 in / 28543 out tokens · 254080 ms · 2026-08-02T23:31:17.354867+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Generative retrieval has emerged as a promising paradigm in recommender systems, offering superior sequence modeling capabilities over traditional dual-tower architectures. However, in large-scale industrial scenarios, such models often suffer from inherent myopia: due to single-step inference and strict latency constraints, they tend to collapse diverse user intents into locally optimal predictions, failing to capture long-horizon and multi-item consumption patterns. Moreover, real-world retrieval systems must follow explicit retrieval instructions, such as category-level control and policy constraints. Incorporating such instruction-following behavior into generative retrieval remains challenging, as existing conditioning or post-hoc filtering approaches often compromise relevance or efficiency. In this work, we present Climber-Pilot, a unified generative retrieval framework to address both limitations. First, we introduce Time-Aware Multi-Item Prediction (TAMIP), a novel training paradigm designed to mitigate inherent myopia in generative retrieval. By distilling long-horizon, multi-item foresight into model parameters through time-aware masking, TAMIP alleviates locally optimal predictions while preserving efficient single-step inference. Second, to support flexible instruction-following retrieval, we propose Condition-Guided Sparse Attention (CGSA), which incorporates business constraints directly into the generative process via sparse attention, without introducing additional inference steps. Extensive offline experiments and online A/B testing at NetEase Cloud Music, one of the largest music streaming platforms, demonstrate that Climber-Pilot significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, achieving a 4.24\% lift of the core business metric.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.13581 by Bin Huang, Chuanjiang Luo, Da Guo, Guanlin Wu, Ming Yue, Qiang Xiao, Shijia Wang, Songpei Xu, Weisheng Li, Yintao Ren.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the Climber-Pilot framework. (a) Model Architecture. This part details the Time-Aware mask employed in the TAMIP module and illustrates the working mechanism of CGSA. During the SFT stage, the TAMIP branch adopts CGSA to enable instruction-following capability. (b) Pre-Training Pipeline. (c) SFT Pipeline. 3 Method 3.1 Framework Overview In this section, we propose a novel sequential recommendat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the Climber-Pilot inference process. The detail of the deployment of Climber-Pilot is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Effectiveness of TAMIP in alleviating inherent myopia. We compare three training paradigms on the industrial dataset: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A case study demonstrating the instruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Melo: A Production LLM-Powered Music Recommendation Agent

    cs.IR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5

    Production music agent Melo cuts entity misID 7.8 pp and recovers 59% of sparse long-tail sessions via named grounding and reflective retry, with >2 pp retention and >1 min engagement lifts online.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Himan Abdollahpouri, Robin Burke, and Bamshad Mobasher. 2019. Managing popularity bias in recommender systems with personalized re-ranking.arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.07555(2019)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Prabhat Agarwal, Anirudhan Badrinath, Laksh Bhasin, Jaewon Yang, Edoardo Botta, Jiajing Xu, and Charles Rosenberg. 2025. Pinrec: Outcome-conditioned, multi-token generative retrieval for industry-scale recommendation systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10507(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Yukuo Cen, Jianwei Zhang, Xu Zou, Chang Zhou, Hongxia Yang, and Jie Tang

  4. [4]

    Paul Covington, Jay Adams, and Emre Sargin. 2016. Deep neural networks for youtube recommendations. InProceedings of the 10th ACM conference on recommender systems. 191–198

    2016

  5. [5]

    Pooya Davoodi, Chul Gwon, Guangda Lai, and Trevor Morris. 2019. Tensorrt inference with tensorflow. InGPU Technology Conference

    2019

  6. [6]

    Jiaxin Deng, Shiyao Wang, Kuo Cai, Lejian Ren, Qigen Hu, Weifeng Ding, Qiang Luo, and Guorui Zhou. 2025. Onerec: Unifying retrieve and rank with generative recommender and iterative preference alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18965 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Tim Donkers, Benedikt Loepp, and Jürgen Ziegler. 2017. Sequential user-based recurrent neural network recommendations. InProceedings of the eleventh ACM conference on recommender systems. 152–160

    2017

  8. [8]

    Matthijs Douze, Alexandr Guzhva, Chengqi Deng, Jeff Johnson, Gergely Szilvasy, Pierre-Emmanuel Mazaré, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, and Hervé Jégou. 2025. The faiss library.IEEE Transactions on Big Data(2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    Ningya Feng, Junwei Pan, Jialong Wu, Baixu Chen, Ximei Wang, Qian Li, Xian Hu, Jie Jiang, and Mingsheng Long. 2024. Long-Sequence Recommendation Models Need Decoupled Embeddings.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02604(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    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

  11. [11]

    Fabian Gloeckle, Badr Youbi Idrissi, Baptiste Rozière, David Lopez-Paz, and Gabriel Synnaeve. 2024. Better & faster large language models via multi-token prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19737(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Beliz Gunel, Jingfei Du, Alexis Conneau, and Ves Stoyanov. 2020. Supervised contrastive learning for pre-trained language model fine-tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01403(2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Yupeng Hou, Zhankui He, Julian McAuley, and Wayne Xin Zhao. 2023. Learning vector-quantized item representation for transferable sequential recommenders. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 1162–1171

    2023

  14. [14]

    Yupeng Hou, Jiacheng Li, Ashley Shin, Jinsung Jeon, Abhishek Santhanam, Wei Shao, Kaveh Hassani, Ning Yao, and Julian McAuley. 2025. Generating long semantic ids in parallel for recommendation. InProceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V. 2. 956–966

    2025

  15. [15]

    Hongtao Huang, Chengkai Huang, Junda Wu, Tong Yu, Julian McAuley, and Lina Yao. 2025. Listwise Preference Diffusion Optimization for User Behavior Trajectories Prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00530(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Eugene Ie, Vihan Jain, Jing Wang, Sanmit Narvekar, Ritesh Agarwal, Rui Wu, Heng-Tze Cheng, Tushar Chandra, and Craig Boutilier. 2019. SlateQ: A Tractable Decomposition for Reinforcement Learning with Recommendation Sets.. InIJCAI, Vol. 19. 2592–2599

    2019

  17. [17]

    Clark Mingxuan Ju, Liam Collins, Leonardo Neves, Bhuvesh Kumar, Louis Yufeng Wang, Tong Zhao, and Neil Shah. 2025. Generative Recommendation with Seman- tic IDs: A Practitioner’s Handbook. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 6420–6425

    2025

  18. [18]

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

    2018

  19. [19]

    Diederik P Kingma. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980(2014)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [20]

    Chao Li, Zhiyuan Liu, Mengmeng Wu, Yuchi Xu, Huan Zhao, Pipei Huang, Guoliang Kang, Qiwei Chen, Wei Li, and Dik Lun Lee. 2019. Multi-interest network with dynamic routing for recommendation at Tmall. InProceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management. 2615–2623

    2019

  21. [21]

    Zida Liang, Changfa Wu, Dunxian Huang, Weiqiang Sun, Ziyang Wang, Yuliang Yan, Jian Wu, Yuning Jiang, Bo Zheng, Ke Chen, et al. 2025. Tbgrecall: A generative retrieval model for e-commerce recommendation scenarios. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 5863–5870

    2025

  22. [22]

    Xiaohao Liu, Xiaobo Xia, Weixiang Zhao, Manyi Zhang, Xianzhi Yu, Xiu Su, Shuo Yang, See-Kiong Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2025. L-MTP: Leap Multi-Token Prediction Beyond Adjacent Context for Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17505(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Yu A Malkov and Dmitry A Yashunin. 2018. Efficient and robust approximate nearest neighbor search using hierarchical navigable small world graphs.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence42, 4 (2018), 824–836

    2018

  24. [24]

    Nikil Pancha, Andrew Zhai, Jure Leskovec, and Charles Rosenberg. 2022. Pinner- former: Sequence modeling for user representation at pinterest. InProceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 3702–3712

    2022

  25. [25]

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. 2023. Scalable diffusion models with transform- ers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. 4195–4205

    2023

  26. [26]

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

  27. [27]

    Yelong Shen, Xiaodong He, Jianfeng Gao, Li Deng, and Grégoire Mesnil. 2014. Learning semantic representations using convolutional neural networks for web search. InProceedings of the 23rd international conference on world wide web. 373–374

    2014

  28. [28]

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

  29. [29]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need.Advances in neural information processing systems30 (2017)

    2017

  30. [30]

    Songpei Xu, Shijia Wang, Da Guo, Xianwen Guo, Qiang Xiao, Bin Huang, Guanlin Wu, and Chuanjiang Luo. 2025. Climber: Toward efficient scaling laws for large recommendation models. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 6193–6200

    2025

  31. [31]

    Bencheng Yan, Shilei Liu, Zhiyuan Zeng, Zihao Wang, Yizhen Zhang, Yujin Yuan, Langming Liu, Jiaqi Liu, Di Wang, Wenbo Su, et al. 2025. Unlocking Scaling Law in Industrial Recommendation Systems with a Three-step Paradigm based Large User Model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08309(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Xinyang Yi, Ji Yang, Lichan Hong, Derek Zhiyuan Cheng, Lukasz Heldt, Aditee Kumthekar, Zhe Zhao, Li Wei, and Ed Chi. 2019. Sampling-bias-corrected neural modeling for large corpus item recommendations. InProceedings of the 13th ACM conference on recommender systems. 269–277

    2019

  33. [33]

    Jiaqi Zhai, Lucy Liao, Xing Liu, Yueming Wang, Rui Li, Xuan Cao, Leon Gao, Zhaojie Gong, Fangda Gu, Jiayuan He, et al . 2024. Actions speak louder than words: trillion-parameter sequential transducers for generative recommendations. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning. 58484– 58509

    2024

  34. [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

  35. [2020]

    InProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining

    Controllable multi-interest framework for recommendation. InProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 2942–2951

  36. [2023]

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

    2023