Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

ShopX claims a single model that generates catalog item codes directly — rather than handing intents to external search and ranking tools — carries multi-turn shopping context with less loss and beats tool-mediated agents on stateful fulfil

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 09:14 UTC pith:LP6GK5MD

load-bearing objection Solid industrial system paper with a load-bearing confound in the central comparison; the SID design and ablations are worth engaging with, but Table 5 does not yet isolate the model-native interface. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.31693 v2 pith:LP6GK5MD submitted 2026-06-30 cs.IR cs.AIcs.CL

ShopX: A Foundation Model for Intent-to-Item Fulfillment in Agentic Shopping

Jiacheng Chen , Tao Zhang , Manxi Lin , Dunxian Huang , Teng Shi , Honghao Fu , Mengyan Li , Xinming Zhang
show 21 more authors
Chenchi Zhang Xuan Lu Xiaoxiong Du Haibin Chen Shaolin Ye Hao Chang Xiaoqi Li Shuwen Xiao Yujin Yuan Jingxuan Feng Shaopan Xiong Huimin Yi Ju Huang Qiu Shen Ying Chen Junjun Zheng Xiangheng Kong Dan Ou Haihong Tang Yuning Jiang Bo Zheng
This is my paper
classification cs.IR cs.AIcs.CL
keywords semantic IDsgenerative recommendationagentic shoppingmodel-native fulfillmenttool-mediated agentsmulti-turn recommendationon-policy distillationintent-to-item fulfillment
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.

This paper tries to establish that the main bottleneck in AI-native shopping agents is the interface between language understanding and item-space execution: an LLM forced to compress rich intents into keyword queries for external search and ranking tools loses context, constraints, and references to previously shown items. To test that diagnosis, the authors build ShopX, a general LLM trained to treat catalog items as semantic IDs it can generate, rerank, bundle, and reason over directly, with a lightweight serving harness supplying context, catalog grounding, and state. On benchmark tasks derived from anonymized production shopping logs, the model-native framework beats tool-mediated LLM agents on eight framework-level metrics, with the largest gaps on the stateful axes — feedback adaptation and cross-turn reference. The authors are explicit that the advantage is concentrated where fulfillment state must stay coherent across planning, execution, grounding, and updates; on first-pass intent matching and personalization, strong tool-mediated baselines remain competitive or better.

Core claim

The central claim is that model-native fulfillment reduces the lossy hand-offs that appear when language understanding and item-space execution are separated by tool interfaces. In ShopX, the same model that understands the user also carries out item-space operations — SID beam-search retrieval, listwise ranking, seed expansion, bundling — and emits preference-update signals, while a serving harness only assembles context, grounds SIDs in catalog evidence, and stores state across turns. At framework level, ShopX-8B leads on item precision, ranking quality, constraint grounding, feedback adaptation, and cross-turn reference, while tool-mediated baselines still lead on first-pass intent fulfil

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. The first is the hybrid semantic ID (SID): a compact code for a catalog item, made of a two-token global prefix obtained by residual quantization of a contrastively organized item embedding (chosen for stable autoregressive generation) and four suffix tokens vector-quantized from local facet embeddings (chosen for semantic recoverability of category, attributes, and captions). The second is the model-native serving framework: a lightweight harness defines a model-facing action protocol with four slots — Plan, Execute, Fulfill, Update — and three support surfaces (Context, Catalog, State), so the model decides fulfillment paths and composes SID-native operat

Load-bearing premise

The framework-level comparison of Section 7.2 assumes the measured gains come from the model-native interface rather than from training investment: ShopX-8B receives SID alignment, roughly 114B tokens of continued pre-training, supervised fine-tuning, distillation, and reinforcement learning, while the tool-mediated baselines are stock general LLMs paired with external tools, and no tool-mediated control is trained with the same budget.

What would settle it

Train a tool-mediated agent with the same backbone and exactly the same training budget as ShopX — same SID alignment, same ~114B-token continued-pretraining mixture, same SFT and distillation/RL recipe — but keep its item-space execution behind external search and ranking tools. If this matched-budget agent closes the gaps on feedback adaptation and cross-turn reference, the interface-loss claim is unsupported; if the gaps persist, the model-native interface is the cause. A partial in-paper check already exists: replacing ShopX's hybrid SID with a simpler global-only SID narrows those statefu

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

If this is right

  • If the interface-loss diagnosis is right, the main lever for better shopping agents is training the item space into the model, not improving the retrieval and ranking tools behind it.
  • Complex, ambiguous, and feedback-driven requests are where model-native fulfillment pays off; simple direct queries are already served well by tool-mediated pipelines, so the two designs are complementary rather than one being uniformly better.
  • The hybrid SID split — short global prefix for generability, local suffix for recoverability — is a transferable design principle for generative recommendation beyond shopping.
  • SID specialization alone destroys non-retrieval abilities (profile extraction and ranking collapse to near zero in the paper's ablation), so any generative-recommendation training recipe needs explicit preservation signals such as the multi-teacher distillation used here.
  • Domain specialization has measurable costs on general knowledge and math benchmarks (GPQA-Diamond and MATH-500 drop at 8B), which the paper treats as an accepted trade-off for shopping ability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the tool-mediated baselines are stock general LLMs while ShopX receives alignment, roughly 114B tokens of continued pre-training, SFT, distillation, and RL, part of the measured gap may reflect training investment rather than the model-native interface; a matched-budget tool-mediated control (my inference, not the paper's experiment) would settle the attribution.
  • If the model-native pattern holds, external retrieval and ranking stacks could shift from serving-time execution to offline data sources, with the harness's catalog surface acting mainly as a grounding and validation layer — a trajectory the paper hints at but does not claim.
  • The same carry-state-inside-the-model logic should transfer to other agentic domains where multi-turn constraints and item references strain tool boundaries, such as travel or local services; porting the Plan–Execute–Fulfill–Update protocol to a second catalog domain would be a direct test.
  • The evaluation protocol (fixed shopper simulator plus rubric judge on eight metrics) is reusable but rests on LLM judgments; measuring agreement with human raters on the stateful axes would test whether the reported gaps are real to shoppers.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ShopX, a foundation model that uses hybrid Semantic IDs (SIDs) as a model-native item-space interface for agentic shopping. It describes a serving harness with Plan/Execute/Fulfill/Update actions and context/catalog/state support surfaces, and a training recipe that starts from Qwen3 and proceeds through SID token alignment (200B tokens), domain continued pre-training (113.96B tokens), fulfillment SFT (10.17B tokens), and joint multi-teacher on-policy distillation with RL rewards (51,200 prompts). The evaluation includes a framework-level comparison of ShopX against tool-mediated LLM-agent baselines (InteRecAgent, Chat-REC, RecMind) on 279 single-turn and 80 multi-turn Taobao-derived cases, a capability breakdown on public and in-house diagnostics, and ablations of SID design, CPT mixture, and post-training stages. The central claim, stated in §7.2, is that model-native fulfillment reduces the lossy hand-offs that arise when language understanding and item-space execution are separated by tool interfaces.

Significance. If the central claim survives, the paper makes a substantial system contribution: it demonstrates how a single LLM can be trained to perform retrieval, ranking, bundling, and stateful refinement directly over semantic item IDs, with the largest reported gains on stateful multi-turn axes. The paper's strengths include a clearly specified training recipe with data sizes, extensive ablations of the SID representation and tokenization, careful transparency about general-capability trade-offs (e.g., GPQA-Diamond and MATH-500 drops in Table 6), and qualitative traces that illustrate the interface-loss mechanism. However, the main framework-level evidence is currently confounded by unmatched training investment, and the metrics rely on self-defined LLM-judge rubrics without human validation. The significance is therefore conditional on a matched-training control and stronger evaluation evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [§7.2 / Table 5, together with §5.1, §5.2, §6.2] This is the load-bearing attribution gap. A matched training control, or a substantial reframing of the claim as 'the combination of SID-native interface plus large-scale domain training beats stock LLM-plus-tools', is needed.
  2. [§3.1 / Appendix B.2] The framework-level metrics (Table 1, Appendix B.2) are all derived from a rubric-based Claude Sonnet 4.6 judge whose rubrics were authored by the same team, and the benchmark is constructed from the authors' Taobao production logs. No human agreement, correlation with human judgments, or calibration is reported for the eight aggregate metrics. With only 279 single-turn and 80 multi-turn cases, the differences in Table 5 — many in the 2–10 point range — could be sensitive to judge noise or rubric design. Reporting at minimum a human-annotated subset with inter-annotator agreement (e.g., Cohen's κ or rank correlation) would substantially raise confidence. This is a load-bearing concern because the stateful-gain claim rests entirely on these judge scores.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 5] No confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests are reported. With 80 multi-turn trajectories, point differences of a few points should be interpreted cautiously.
  2. [§7.4 / Table 8] The row-5 SID structure column reads 'G+L' whereas the text and §4.2 consistently name the selected variant 'G2+L4'. Make the notation uniform.
  3. [§7.1] The phrase 'progressive beam-size schedule [8, 32, 64, 64, ...]' is ambiguous. Specify whether the schedule is over the six SID levels, e.g., [8, 32, 64, 64, 64, 64].
  4. [Table 6] The Qwen3 reference columns are blank for SID-native rows (e.g., Personalized Sequential Recommendation, Interleaved Text–SID). This is explained in the text, but a visual 'N/A' marker would help readers avoid inferring missing values.
  5. [§9] The paper candidly notes the absence of trajectory-level agentic RL and states that tool registration/invocation relies on the base model's inherited tool-use abilities. This is an appropriate limitation, but it also means the claimed 'agentic shopping' capability is currently scoped to model-native fulfillment with harness-defined tool skills rather than fully learned agentic behavior.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found; the framework comparison has a training-budget confound but no derivation step reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: SID learning (§4) is validated against catalog grounding diagnostics (Tables 7–8) on fixed held-out mini catalogs; CPT/SFT/OPD–RL (§5–6) are trained on separate data mixtures and evaluated on framework-level and public benchmarks with user-level deduplication. No equation equates a predicted quantity to a fitted parameter or defines X in terms of Y. The central evidence in §7.2/Table 5 is a system-level comparison, not a derivation from definitions: ShopX-8B receives far more domain training than the stock Qwen3 tool-mediated baselines, which is a genuine attribution confound for the 'model-native interface' claim, but it is a validity threat rather than a circular reduction. The training-time Interleaved Fulfillment Reward (Appendix D.4) and the evaluation rubric (Appendix B.5) are thematically similar, but they are distinct prompts applied to different training and held-out examples, so optimizing the reward does not by construction produce the evaluation scores. The FORGE citation [28] is self-citational with overlapping authors, but it is used as a baseline and starting point, and the paper's own ablations (§7.4) independently establish the SID design; it is not load-bearing for the main claim. No uniqueness theorem, imported ansatz, or renamed known result carries the argument. The paper also discloses relevant limitations (§9, Appendix D.2) rather than hiding them. Overall, there is no specific reduction by construction, so the paper is not circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central system rests on many hand-chosen hyperparameters and proprietary data. No free parameter is fitted in a closed-form derivation, but the final configuration is selected via ablations on self-defined diagnostics.

free parameters (10)
  • Hard-negative weight α = not reported (α∈(0,1))
    Soft-target InfoNCE in Eq. (1) controls the pull of same-category hard negatives.
  • Contrastive temperature τ = not reported
    Temperature in the InfoNCE objective, Eq. (1).
  • Reconstruction weight λ_TR = not reported
    Balances contrastive loss and text reconstruction loss in Eq. (3).
  • Number of local vectors M = not reported; final SID uses L4 suffix
    Determines number of local facet embeddings and suffix code levels, §4.1/§4.2.
  • Codebook sizes per SID level = 8192 codewords per level
    Vocabulary size for each of the 6 SID levels, §7.1.
  • CPT replay ratio = 70B domain : 35B general = 2:1
    Selected by the 4B ablation grid in §7.5; affects specialization-preservation trade-off.
  • OPD-RL task-family weights = 20/20/20/20/20
    Uniform routing across General, SID Prediction, Ranking, Interleave, Other, Table 4/§D.1.
  • Interleaved reward dimension weights = [0.10,0.10,0.35,0.05,0.30,0.10]
    Weights for aesthetic, reference-correctness, query-correctness, text quality, reason match, SID matching, Appendix D.3.
  • SID prefix level scores for reward matching = [0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,1.0]
    Partial credit for hierarchical SID matching in Interleaved Fulfillment Reward, Appendix D.3.
  • Penalty multipliers for missing/fabricated/duplicate SIDs = 0.1, 1/(1+n), 1/(1+0.5n) etc.
    Rule-based penalties in Interleaved Fulfillment Reward, Appendix D.3.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Rubric-based LLM judge (Claude Sonnet 4.6) produces valid fulfillment quality scores without human agreement calibration.
    All framework-level metrics depend on this judge, §3.1/§B.2; no inter-annotator agreement is reported.
  • domain assumption Claude Sonnet 4.6 as a fixed shopper simulator generates realistic multi-turn user behavior.
    Multi-turn trajectories are collected with this simulator, §3.1/§B.1.
  • domain assumption Equivalent-product supervision plus same-category hard negatives organizes the item embedding space semantically.
    Central to SID recoverability, §4.1; validated only on internal diagnostics.
  • domain assumption SID prefix structure is learnable and stable as an autoregressive generation target.
    The LLM-operability goal for SIDs, §4; tested by lightweight codebook validation on a 25M-item mini catalog.
  • domain assumption Tool-mediated interfaces are lossy; the interface-loss premise justifies the whole model-native design.
    Figure 2 illustrates this qualitatively, but no quantitative measure of interface loss is provided.
  • domain assumption The ~1.2B-item Taobao snapshot and anonymized production logs are representative of agentic shopping.
    Defines item universe and benchmark, §3.1; no external dataset is used for the central claim.
  • domain assumption General replay data prevents catastrophic forgetting of instruction following, knowledge, and reasoning.
    Assumed in CPT mixture design, §5.2; supported by ablations in Table 9.
invented entities (1)
  • Hybrid Semantic IDs (G2+L4) no independent evidence
    purpose: Model-native item language connecting natural-language intents to catalog items via autoregressive generation.
    No external benchmark validates SID semantics; evidence is internal diagnostics (§7.4) on a proprietary catalog.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 45304 in / 12452 out tokens · 113074 ms · 2026-08-02T09:14:32.732622+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The wave of AI-native applications is moving shopping beyond page- and feed-based browsing toward intent-driven experiences orchestrated by LLM agents. A common design wraps an LLM around existing search and recommendation pipelines, forcing complex intents through low-bandwidth retrieval or ranking interfaces and leaving a gap between language understanding and item-space fulfillment. Generative recommendation gives LLMs a direct item-space interface through semantic IDs (SIDs), but existing models mainly generate candidates for retrieval rather than translate flexible intents into item-space outcomes. We propose ShopX to address this bottleneck by unifying intent understanding, execution planning, and flexible SID-native item-space operations into a single foundation model. We deploy ShopX in agentic shopping workflows through a model-native item-fulfillment framework with a serving harness that defines a model-facing action protocol and exposes support surfaces for context access, catalog grounding, and state management. Within this framework, ShopX plans and composes SID-based item-space operations such as SID beam-search retrieval, listwise ranking, or product bundling. This model-centric design reduces lossy hand-offs between agent orchestration and item-space execution. To build ShopX, we design semantically recoverable, LLM-operable SIDs and a training recipe that equips a general LLM for flexible multi-turn item-space fulfillment while retaining the knowledge and instruction-following abilities needed by a shopping agent. We evaluate the ShopX framework against tool-mediated agentic systems on single- and multi-turn fulfillment tasks derived from anonymized Taobao production logs, showing that model-native fulfillment improves overall framework behavior, especially on complex or ambiguous requests.

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. RecGPT-V3 Technical Report

    cs.IR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A stateful LLM recommender with memory, text-plus-Semantic-ID grounding, and latent reasoning reports higher Taobao engagement and sales at ~52% lower serving compute than its predecessor.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 26 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Introducing gpt-5

    OpenAI. Introducing gpt-5. https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5/ , August 2025. Accessed: 2026-06-08

    2025

  2. [2]

    Introducing claude 4

    Anthropic. Introducing claude 4. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-4 , May 2025. Accessed: 2026-06-08

    2025

  3. [3]

    Gemini 3: Introducing the latest gemini ai model from google

    Google. Gemini 3: Introducing the latest gemini ai model from google. https://blog.g oogle/products/gemini/gemini-3/, November 2025. Accessed: 2026-06-08

    2025

  4. [4]

    Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    Qwen Team. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Introducing codex

    OpenAI. Introducing codex. https://openai.com/index/introducing-codex/ , May 2025. Accessed: 2026-06-08

    2025

  6. [6]

    Claude code

    Anthropic. Claude code. https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/ge tting-started, 2025. Accessed: 2026-06-08

    2025

  7. [7]

    Openclaw.https://docs.openclaw.ai/, 2026

    OpenClaw. Openclaw.https://docs.openclaw.ai/, 2026. Accessed: 2026-06-08

    2026

  8. [8]

    Amazon’s rufus ai assistant now available to all u.s

    Amazon. Amazon’s rufus ai assistant now available to all u.s. customers. https://ww w.aboutamazon.com/news/retail/how-to-use-amazon-rufus , 2024. Accessed: 2026-05-11

    2024

  9. [9]

    Powering product discovery in chatgpt

    OpenAI. Powering product discovery in chatgpt. https://openai.com/index/power ing-product-discovery-in-chatgpt/, March 2026. Accessed: 2026-05-11

    2026

  10. [10]

    Buy it in chatgpt: Instant checkout and the agentic commerce protocol

    OpenAI. Buy it in chatgpt: Instant checkout and the agentic commerce protocol. https: //openai.com/index/buy-it-in-chatgpt/, September 2025. Accessed: 2026-05-11

    2025

  11. [11]

    千问与淘宝打通用ai也能“逛淘宝”了

    People’s Daily Online. 千问与淘宝打通用ai也能“逛淘宝”了. https://finance.people .com.cn/n1/2026/0511/c1004-40717594.html, May 2026. Accessed: 2026-06-01

    2026

  12. [12]

    Shop with ai mode, use ai to buy and try clothes on yourself virtually

    Google. Shop with ai mode, use ai to buy and try clothes on yourself virtually. https: //blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/shopping/google-shopp ing-ai-mode-virtual-try-on-update/, May 2025. Accessed: 2026-05-11

    2025

  13. [13]

    淘宝内测 ai搜索，上线两款新品

    Sina Finance. 淘宝内测 ai搜索，上线两款新品 . https://finance.sina.com.cn/ tech/it/2025-09-12/doc-infqfwzc7426261.shtml , September 2025. Accessed: 2026-06-01

    2025

  14. [14]

    小红书站内开测ai搜索功能，并已上线独立 app

    3E Life. 小红书站内开测ai搜索功能，并已上线独立 app. https://www.3elife.net/A rt/internet/202501/05/100181.html, January 2025. Accessed: 2026-06-01

    2025

  15. [15]

    A survey on large language models for recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19860, 2023

    Likang Wu, Zhi Zheng, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hao Wang, Hongchao Gu, Tingjia Shen, Chuan Qin, Chen Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Qi Liu, Hui Xiong, and Enhong Chen. A survey on large language models for recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19860, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    A survey of large language model empowered agents for recommenda- tion and search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05659, 2025

    Yizhe Zhang et al. A survey of large language model empowered agents for recommenda- tion and search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05659, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Chat- rec: Towards interactive and explainable llms-augmented recommender system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14524, 2023

    Yunfan Gao, Tao Sheng, Youlin Xiang, Yun Xiong, Haofen Wang, and Jiawei Zhang. Chat- rec: Towards interactive and explainable llms-augmented recommender system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14524, 2023. 35

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Recommender ai agent: Integrating large language models for interactive recommendations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16505, 2023

    Xu Huang, Jianxun Lian, Yuxuan Lei, Jing Yao, Defu Lian, and Xing Xie. Recommender ai agent: Integrating large language models for interactive recommendations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16505, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Recmind: Large language model powered agent for recommendation

    Yancheng Wang, Ziyan Jiang, Zheng Chen, Fan Yang, Yingxue Zhou, Eunah Cho, Xing Fan, Xiaojiang Huang, Yanbin Lu, and Yingzhen Yang. Recmind: Large language model powered agent for recommendation. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, 2024

    2024

  20. [20]

    Recai: Lever- aging large language models for next-generation recommender systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06465, 2024

    Jianxun Lian, Yuxuan Lei, Xu Huang, Jing Yao, Wei Xu, and Xing Xie. Recai: Lever- aging large language models for next-generation recommender systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06465, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Retrieval-augmented conversational recommendation with prompt-based semi-structured natural language state tracking

    Sara Kemper, Justin Cui, Kai Dicarlantonio, Kathy Lin, Danjie Tang, Anton Korikov, and Scott Sanner. Retrieval-augmented conversational recommendation with prompt-based semi-structured natural language state tracking. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2024

    2024

  22. [22]

    Recgpt technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22879, 2025

    Chao Yi et al. Recgpt technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22879, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Recgpt-v2 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14503, 2025

    Chao Yi et al. Recgpt-v2 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14503, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Keshavan, Trung Vu, Lukasz Heldt, Lichan Hong, Yi Tay, Vinh Q

    Shashank Rajput, Nikhil Mehta, Anima Singh, Raghunandan H. Keshavan, Trung Vu, Lukasz Heldt, Lichan Hong, Yi Tay, Vinh Q. Tran, Jonah Samost, Maciej Kula, Ed H. Chi, and Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy. Recommender systems with generative retrieval. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Adapting large language models by integrating collaborative semantics for recommendation

    Bowen Zheng, Yupeng Hou, Hongyu Lu, Yu Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Ming Chen, and Ji-Rong Wen. Adapting large language models by integrating collaborative semantics for recommendation. In2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 1435–1448, 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    Learnable item tokenization for generative recommendation

    Wenjie Wang, Honghui Bao, Xinyu Lin, Jizhi Zhang, Yongqi Li, Fuli Feng, See-Kiong Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. Learnable item tokenization for generative recommendation. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 2400–2409, 2024

    2024

  27. [27]

    Generative recommender with end-to-end learnable item tokenization

    Enze Liu, Bowen Zheng, Cheng Ling, Lantao Hu, Han Li, and Wayne Xin Zhao. Generative recommender with end-to-end learnable item tokenization. InProceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 729–739, 2025

    2025

  28. [28]

    Forge: Forming semantic identifiers for generative retrieval in industrial datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20904, 2025

    Kairui Fu, Tao Zhang, Shuwen Xiao, Ziyang Wang, Xinming Zhang, Chenchi Zhang, Yuliang Yan, Junjun Zheng, Yu Li, Zhihong Chen, Jian Wu, Xiangheng Kong, Shengyu Zhang, Kun Kuang, Yuning Jiang, and Bo Zheng. Forge: Forming semantic identifiers for generative retrieval in industrial datasets.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20904, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Onerec technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13695, 2025

    Guorui Zhou et al. Onerec technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13695, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Onerec-v2 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.20900, 2025

    Guorui Zhou et al. Onerec-v2 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.20900, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Openonerec technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.24762, 2025

    Guorui Zhou, Honghui Bao, et al. Openonerec technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.24762, 2025. 36

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Onerec- think: In-text reasoning for generative recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11639, 2025

    Zhanyu Liu, Shiyao Wang, Xingmei Wang, Rongzhou Zhang, Jiaxin Deng, Honghui Bao, Jinghao Zhang, Wuchao Li, Pengfei Zheng, Xiangyu Wu, Yifei Hu, Qigen Hu, Xinchen Luo, Lejian Ren, Zixing Zhang, Qianqian Wang, Kuo Cai, Yunfan Wu, Hongtao Cheng, Zexuan Cheng, Lu Ren, Huanjie Wang, Yi Su, Ruiming Tang, Kun Gai, and Guorui Zhou. Onerec- think: In-text reasonin...

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16634, 2023

    Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. G-eval: Nlg evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16634, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P . Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  35. [35]

    Prometheus 2: An open source language model specialized in evaluating other language models

    Seungone Kim, Juyoung Suk, Shayne Longpre, Bill Yuchen Lin, Jamin Shin, Sean Welleck, Graham Neubig, Moontae Lee, Kyungjae Lee, and Minjoon Seo. Prometheus 2: An open source language model specialized in evaluating other language models. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2024

    2024

  36. [36]

    Anisha Gunjal, Anthony Wang, Elaine Lau, Vaskar Nath, Yunzhong He, Bing Liu, and Sean M. Hendryx. Rubrics as rewards: Reinforcement learning beyond verifiable domains. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. URL https://openreview.n et/forum?id=c1bTcrDmt4

    2026

  37. [37]

    Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, Tianle Li, Max Ku, Kai Wang, Alex Zhuang, Rongqi Fan, Xiang Yue, and Wenhu Chen. Mmlu-pro: A more robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  38. [38]

    Cmmlu: Measuring massive multitask language understanding in chinese

    Haonan Li, Yixuan Zhang, Fajri Koto, Yifei Yang, Hai Zhao, Yeyun Gong, Nan Duan, and Timothy Baldwin. Cmmlu: Measuring massive multitask language understanding in chinese. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, 2024

    2024

  39. [39]

    Instruction-following evaluation for large language models

    Jeffrey Zhou, Tianjian Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Siddhartha Brahma, Sujoy Basu, Yi Luan, Denny Zhou, and Le Hou. Instruction-following evaluation for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07911, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Le, Ed H

    Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V . Le, Ed H. Chi, Denny Zhou, and Jason Wei. Challenging big-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them.Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023

    2023

  41. [41]

    David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Dirani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R. Bowman. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a benchmark. InFirst Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

    2024

  42. [42]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021. 37

    2021

  43. [43]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Le, and Charles Sutton

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc V . Le, and Charles Sutton. Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation

    Jiawei Liu, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuyao Wang, and Lingming Zhang. Is your code generated by chatgpt really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  46. [46]

    Qwen3-VL technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, Keqin Chen, Xionghui Chen, Zesen Cheng, Lianghao Deng, Wei Ding, Chang Gao, Chunjiang Ge, et al. Qwen3-VL technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InProceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021

    2021

  48. [48]

    BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 2019

    2019

  49. [49]

    BLIP-2: Bootstrapping language- image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Silvio Savarese, and Steven Hoi. BLIP-2: Bootstrapping language- image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2023

    2023

  50. [50]

    Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748, 2018

    Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding.arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748, 2018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Towards noise contrastive estimation with soft targets for conditional models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14076, 2024

    Johannes Hugger and Virginie Uhlmann. Towards noise contrastive estimation with soft targets for conditional models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14076, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    ColBERT: Efficient and effective passage search via contextualized late interaction over BERT

    Omar Khattab and Matei Zaharia. ColBERT: Efficient and effective passage search via contextualized late interaction over BERT. InProceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 39–48, 2020

    2020

  53. [53]

    MetaEmbed: Scaling multimodal retrieval at test-time with flexible late interaction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18095, 2025

    Zilin Xiao, Qi Ma, Mengting Gu, Chun-cheng Jason Chen, Xintao Chen, Vicente Ordonez, and Vijai Mohan. MetaEmbed: Scaling multimodal retrieval at test-time with flexible late interaction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.18095, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Neural discrete representa- tion learning

    Aaron van den Oord, Oriol Vinyals, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. Neural discrete representa- tion learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  55. [55]

    Autoregressive image generation using residual quantization

    Doyup Lee, Chiheon Kim, Saehoon Kim, Minsu Cho, and Wook-Shin Han. Autoregressive image generation using residual quantization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022

    2022

  56. [56]

    Improved residual vector quantization for high-dimensional approximate nearest neighbor search.arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.05195, 2015

    Shicong Liu, Hongtao Lu, and Junru Shao. Improved residual vector quantization for high-dimensional approximate nearest neighbor search.arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.05195, 2015. 38

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    OneSearch: A preliminary exploration of the unified end-to-end generative framework for e-commerce search.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.03236, 2025

    Ben Chen, Xian Guo, Siyuan Wang, Zihan Liang, Yue Lv, Yufei Ma, Xinlong Xiao, Bowen Xue, Xuxin Zhang, Ying Yang, Huangyu Dai, Xing Xu, Tong Zhao, Mingcan Peng, XiaoYang Zheng, Cong Zhang, Qihang Zhao, Yuqing Ding, Chenyi Lei, Wenwu Ou, and Han Li. OneSearch: A preliminary exploration of the unified end-to-end generative framework for e-commerce search.arX...

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    Aaron Grattafiori et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Mimo-v2-flash technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02780, 2026

    Xiaomi MiMo Team. Mimo-v2-flash technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02780, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Deepseek-v4 technical report

    DeepSeek-AI. Deepseek-v4 technical report. https://huggingface.co/deepseek-a i/DeepSeek-V4-Pro/blob/main/DeepSeek_V4.pdf, 2026. Accessed: 2026-06-03

    2026

  61. [61]

    Nemotron-cascade 2: Post-training llms with cascade rl and multi-domain on-policy distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19220, 2026

    NVIDIA Nemotron Team. Nemotron-cascade 2: Post-training llms with cascade rl and multi-domain on-policy distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19220, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Reinforcement learning optimization for large- scale learning: An efficient and user-friendly scaling library.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06122, 2025

    Weixun Wang, Shaopan Xiong, Gengru Chen, Wei Gao, Sheng Guo, Yancheng He, Ju Huang, Jiaheng Liu, Zhendong Li, Xiaoyang Li, et al. Reinforcement learning optimization for large- scale learning: An efficient and user-friendly scaling library.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06122, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Ruoyu Zhang, Shirong Ma, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Is chatgpt good at search? investigating large language models as re-ranking agents

    Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Shuaiqiang Wang, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. Is chatgpt good at search? investigating large language models as re-ranking agents. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2023

    2023

  65. [65]

    Zero-shot listwise document reranking with a large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02156, 2023

    Xueguang Ma, Xinyu Zhang, Ronak Pradeep, and Jimmy Lin. Zero-shot listwise document reranking with a large language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02156, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    Llm4rerank: Llm-based auto-reranking framework for recommendations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12433, 2024

    Jingtong Gao, Bo Chen, Weiwen Liu, Xiangyang Li, Yichao Wang, Wanyu Wang, Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, and Xiangyu Zhao. Llm4rerank: Llm-based auto-reranking framework for recommendations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12433, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Care: Contextual adaptation of recommenders for llm-based conversational recommendation

    Chuang Li, Yang Deng, Hengchang Hu, See-Kiong Ng, Min-Yen Kan, and Haizhou Li. Care: Contextual adaptation of recommenders for llm-based conversational recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13889, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Llada-rec: Discrete diffusion for parallel semantic id generation in generative recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.06254, 2025

    Teng Shi, Chenglei Shen, Weijie Yu, Shen Nie, Chongxuan Li, Xiao Zhang, Ming He, Yan Han, and Jun Xu. Llada-rec: Discrete diffusion for parallel semantic id generation in generative recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.06254, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Content-based collabo- rative generation for recommender systems

    Yidan Wang, Zhaochun Ren, Weiwei Sun, Jiyuan Yang, Zhixiang Liang, Xin Chen, Ruobing Xie, Su Yan, Xu Zhang, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, and Xin Xin. Content-based collabo- rative generation for recommender systems. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 2420–2430, 2024

    2024

  70. [70]

    Tokenrec: Learning to tokenize id for llm- based generative recommendations.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2025

    Haohao Qu, Wenqi Fan, Zihuai Zhao, and Qing Li. Tokenrec: Learning to tokenize id for llm- based generative recommendations.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2025. 39

    2025

  71. [71]

    Order-agnostic identifier for large language model-based generative recommenda- tion

    Xinyu Lin, Haihan Shi, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, Qifan Wang, See-Kiong Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. Order-agnostic identifier for large language model-based generative recommenda- tion. InProceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 1923–1933, 2025

    1923

  72. [72]

    Universal item tokenization for transferable generative recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04405, 2025

    Bowen Zheng, Hongyu Lu, Yu Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. Universal item tokenization for transferable generative recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04405, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Bbqrec: Behavior-bind quantization for multi-modal sequential recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06636, 2025

    Kaiyuan Li, Rui Xiang, Yong Bai, Yongxiang Tang, Yanhua Cheng, Xialong Liu, Peng Jiang, and Kun Gai. Bbqrec: Behavior-bind quantization for multi-modal sequential recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06636, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    [omitted]

    Yupeng Hou, Jiacheng Li, Ashley Shin, Jinsung Jeon, Abhishek Santhanam, Wei Shao, Kaveh Hassani, Ning Yao, and Julian McAuley. Generating long semantic ids in parallel for recommendation. InProceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 956–966, 2025. 40 Appendix A. Author List Core Contributors Jiacheng Chen∗ ...

    2025