Fortress: A Case Study in Stabilizing Search Recommendations via Temporal Data Augmentation and Feature Pruning

Babak Seyed Aghazadeh; Chris Alvino; Dayvid V. R. Oliveira; Jia Huang; Jinda Han; Kailash Thiyagarajan; Milind Pandurang Jagre; Puja Das; Zhinan Cheng

arxiv: 2605.15299 · v1 · pith:ETKKTK4Xnew · submitted 2026-05-14 · 💻 cs.IR · cs.AI

Fortress: A Case Study in Stabilizing Search Recommendations via Temporal Data Augmentation and Feature Pruning

Milind Pandurang Jagre , Jia Huang , Dayvid V. R. Oliveira , Zhinan Cheng , Babak Seyed Aghazadeh , Puja Das , Chris Alvino , Jinda Han

show 1 more author

Kailash Thiyagarajan

This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 16:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IR cs.AI

keywords model stabilityfeature pruningtemporal snapshotssearch recommendationsengagement featuresprediction consistencyrelevance modeling

0 comments

The pith

Fortress stabilizes search recommendation models by pruning features that introduce temporal volatility in prediction scores.

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

The paper presents Fortress as a method to address instability in predictive models used for search and recommendations. Certain features, especially engagement-based ones, cause output scores to fluctuate over time even for the same input, which hurts reliability in multi-stage systems. By collecting historical snapshots of data and predictions, the approach identifies unstable cases and removes the features responsible before retraining. This allows retention of the strong predictive power from engagement signals without their volatility, while semantic features from language models provide additional coverage. If successful, this leads to more consistent and accurate predictions that improve user experience and downstream decision making.

Core claim

Fortress is a four-step framework that collects historical snapshots of temporally partitioned datasets, identifies samples with unstable predictions across periods, isolates and removes features causing those instabilities, and retrains models using only the stable features. In the context of a query-to-app relevance model, this process mitigates the trade-off between semantic features that offer generalization but incomplete coverage and engagement features that predict well but fluctuate temporally. The result is models with reduced score volatility measured by lower coefficient of variation and better classification performance via higher PR-AUC.

What carries the argument

The Fortress framework, a process that uses temporal data augmentation through historical snapshots to detect and prune instability-inducing features.

If this is right

Prediction scores for the same entities become more consistent over time.
Models achieve higher precision-recall AUC in offline evaluations.
Downstream components in multi-stage recommendation systems receive more reliable inputs.
Engagement features can be used without introducing excessive temporal noise.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The method could extend to other recommendation settings where engagement signals vary by season or event.
Focusing on stable features might lower the need for constant model retraining as data shifts.
Systems could test re-adding pruned features periodically if new snapshots show they have stabilized.

Load-bearing premise

That features identified as instability-inducing in historical snapshots are causally responsible for temporal score fluctuations and that their removal will not materially harm generalization on future data.

What would settle it

Applying Fortress to a query-to-app model and then measuring no reduction in coefficient of variation for predictions on the same entities across new time periods, or a drop in PR-AUC on later data, would show the pruning step fails to deliver stable and accurate models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15299 by Babak Seyed Aghazadeh, Chris Alvino, Dayvid V. R. Oliveira, Jia Huang, Jinda Han, Kailash Thiyagarajan, Milind Pandurang Jagre, Puja Das, Zhinan Cheng.

read the original abstract

In search and recommendation systems, predictive models often suffer from temporal instability when certain input features introduce volatility in output scores. This instability can degrade model reliability and user experience especially in multi-stage systems where consistent predictions are critical for downstream decision making. We introduce Fortress, a general framework for enhancing model stability and accuracy by identifying and pruning features that contribute to inconsistent prediction scores over time. Fortress leverages historical snapshots temporally partitioned datasets capturing score fluctuations for the same entity across periods and follows a four-step process: (1) collect historical snapshots, (2) identify samples with unstable predictions, (3) isolate and remove instability-inducing features, and (4) retrain models using only stable features. While semantic features from LLMs and BERT-based models improve generalization, they often lack full query or entity coverage. Engagement-based features offer strong predictive power but tend to introduce temporal instability. Fortress mitigates this trade-off by suppressing the volatility of engagement signals while retaining their predictive value leading to more stable and accurate models. We validate Fortress on a query-to-app relevance model in a large-scale app marketplace. Offline experiments demonstrate notable improvements in prediction stability (measured by Coefficient of Variation) and classification performance (measured by PR-AUC).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Fortress gives a straightforward four-step recipe for pruning volatility-causing features from temporal snapshots in a large recsys model, but the evidence for real gains and future generalization is still thin.

read the letter

Hi, the main thing to know about Fortress is that it walks through a concrete four-step process—collect historical temporal snapshots, flag samples with unstable scores, isolate the features driving that instability, then retrain on the pruned set—to reduce score volatility in a query-to-app relevance model while trying to keep predictive power from engagement signals. That addresses a practical pain point in multi-stage systems where inconsistent outputs mess with downstream decisions. The paper does a decent job framing the trade-off: engagement features deliver strong signals but fluctuate over time, while semantic ones from LLMs are steadier yet incomplete, and the method aims to suppress the volatility without fully sacrificing accuracy. If the full experiments include clear before-and-after metrics and ablations, this could serve as a useful pattern for teams dealing with similar drift in production ranking. The soft spots are mostly in the missing details. The abstract claims better Coefficient of Variation and PR-AUC after pruning, yet supplies no deltas, baselines, significance tests, or exact definitions for unstable samples and features, which makes it difficult to judge whether the improvements are meaningful or just from tuning the instability threshold. The stress-test concern also holds weight here: features flagged as unstable in past windows may be correlated with volatility rather than causal, and dropping them risks hurting performance once the test distribution shifts beyond the pruning periods. A strict temporal hold-out would clarify this, but it is not described. This paper is for applied engineers and researchers working on large-scale search or recommendation platforms who already manage mixed feature sets and temporal inconsistency. A reader facing the same operational friction could extract some actionable steps, even if the novelty is mainly in the specific combination rather than a new principle. I would send it for peer review so the experiments and evaluation choices can get proper scrutiny.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces Fortress, a framework for stabilizing predictive models in search and recommendation systems by using temporally partitioned historical snapshots to identify unstable samples, isolate instability-inducing features (particularly volatile engagement signals), and retrain models on the pruned feature set. Applied as a case study to a query-to-app relevance model in a large-scale app marketplace, it claims to resolve the trade-off between semantic/LLM features and engagement features, yielding more stable predictions (via reduced Coefficient of Variation) and higher accuracy (via improved PR-AUC) in offline experiments.

Significance. If the empirical results hold under proper validation, the approach provides a practical, data-driven method to enhance temporal consistency in multi-stage recommendation pipelines without discarding all predictive value from engagement features. This addresses a common production concern where score volatility degrades downstream reliability.

major comments (3)

Abstract: The central claim of 'notable improvements in prediction stability (measured by Coefficient of Variation) and classification performance (measured by PR-AUC)' is asserted without any quantitative deltas, baseline comparisons (e.g., against the unpruned model or alternative stabilization methods), statistical significance tests, or definitions of how 'unstable samples' and 'instability-inducing features' were identified from the snapshots. This omission renders the primary result unevaluable.
Four-step process (method description): The identification of unstable samples and features relies on an explicit 'instability threshold' (a free parameter per the axiom ledger) and temporal partitioning, yet no details, sensitivity analysis, or justification for threshold selection are supplied; without these, it is impossible to determine whether pruning targets causal sources of volatility or merely correlated signals.
Offline experiments / validation: No strict temporal hold-out is described (e.g., prune features using periods 1..k and evaluate stability/accuracy on period k+1 onward). This is required to test the weakest assumption that removed features are not needed for generalization once the test distribution shifts beyond the pruning window, directly undermining the claim that predictive value is retained.

minor comments (2)

The manuscript could clarify how semantic features from LLMs/BERT are combined with the pruned engagement features in the final model.
Dataset scale and characteristics (e.g., number of queries, entities, or snapshot periods) are referenced only at high level; concrete numbers would aid reproducibility assessment.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, providing clarifications and committing to revisions where they strengthen the presentation of our work.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract: The central claim of 'notable improvements in prediction stability (measured by Coefficient of Variation) and classification performance (measured by PR-AUC)' is asserted without any quantitative deltas, baseline comparisons (e.g., against the unpruned model or alternative stabilization methods), statistical significance tests, or definitions of how 'unstable samples' and 'instability-inducing features' were identified from the snapshots. This omission renders the primary result unevaluable.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by including specific quantitative results. In the revised manuscript we will update the abstract to report the observed deltas (reduction in Coefficient of Variation and gain in PR-AUC relative to the unpruned baseline), note the baseline comparisons performed, reference the statistical tests used, and briefly define how unstable samples and instability-inducing features were identified from the temporal snapshots. These additions will make the primary claims directly evaluable while keeping the abstract concise. revision: yes
Referee: Four-step process (method description): The identification of unstable samples and features relies on an explicit 'instability threshold' (a free parameter per the axiom ledger) and temporal partitioning, yet no details, sensitivity analysis, or justification for threshold selection are supplied; without these, it is impossible to determine whether pruning targets causal sources of volatility or merely correlated signals.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this gap in the method description. We will add a new subsection detailing the instability threshold, including its derivation from prediction variance across snapshots and the justification for the chosen value. We will also include a sensitivity analysis that varies the threshold and reports effects on the number of pruned features as well as downstream stability and accuracy metrics. This will clarify that the pruning targets features that systematically drive temporal volatility rather than incidental correlations. revision: yes
Referee: Offline experiments / validation: No strict temporal hold-out is described (e.g., prune features using periods 1..k and evaluate stability/accuracy on period k+1 onward). This is required to test the weakest assumption that removed features are not needed for generalization once the test distribution shifts beyond the pruning window, directly undermining the claim that predictive value is retained.

Authors: We acknowledge that an explicit strict temporal hold-out validation strengthens the experimental claims. Although our current setup already uses temporally partitioned snapshots, we will revise the experiments section to describe and report results from a hold-out protocol in which feature pruning is performed on earlier periods and both stability and accuracy are evaluated on subsequent future periods. This addition will directly demonstrate that the retained features preserve predictive power beyond the pruning window. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Fortress is an empirical pruning pipeline on external temporal snapshots

full rationale

The paper describes a four-step applied method—collect historical snapshots, identify unstable samples, isolate instability-inducing features, and retrain on the pruned set—using temporally partitioned external data from a query-to-app relevance model. This process operates on observed score fluctuations across periods and performs explicit feature removal before retraining, without any self-definitional loops, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central stability claim to its own inputs. The derivation remains self-contained as a practical data-augmentation and pruning technique whose outputs (improved Coefficient of Variation and PR-AUC) are measured on the same offline experiments rather than being forced by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework depends on unstated choices for what counts as an unstable prediction and which features are instability-inducing; these choices function as free parameters. The core assumption that historical snapshots faithfully reflect intrinsic feature volatility without external confounding is a domain assumption.

free parameters (1)

instability threshold
A cutoff on score variation across snapshots used to label samples as unstable; its value directly controls which features are pruned.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Historical snapshots capture genuine temporal fluctuations for the same entity without external changes or data drift artifacts
The method compares scores for identical entities across periods and attributes differences to feature volatility.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5786 in / 1282 out tokens · 63570 ms · 2026-05-19T16:02:23.902917+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Fortress leverages historical snapshots temporally partitioned datasets... identify samples with unstable predictions, isolate and remove instability-inducing features... retrain models using only stable features.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/ArrowOfTime.lean z_monotone_absolute unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

improvements in prediction stability (measured by Coefficient of Variation) and classification performance (measured by PR-AUC)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 785–794

work page 2016
[2]

Wenqi Fan. 2024. Recommender systems in the era of large language models (llms). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2024), 1–20

work page 2024
[3]

Tom Gunter, Zirui Wang, Chong Wang, Ruoming Pang, Andy Narayanan, Aonan Zhang, Bowen Zhang, Chen Chen, Chung- Cheng Chiu, David Qiu, et al. 2024. Apple Intelligence Foun- dation Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21075 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21075

work page arXiv 2024
[4]

Yupeng Hou, Junjie Zhang, Zihan Lin, Hongyu Lu, Ruobing Xie, Julian McAuley, and Wayne Xin Zhao. 2024. Large language models are zero- shot rankers for recommender systems. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 364–381

work page 2024
[5]

Gareth James, Daniela Witten, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani

work page
[6]

Springer, New York

An Introduction to Statistical Learning. Springer, New York

work page
[7]

Ron Kohavi and George H. John. 1997. Wrappers for feature subset selection. In Artificial Intelligence, V ol. 97. 273–324

work page 1997
[8]

Xueting Lin, Zhan Cheng, Longfei Yun, Qingyi Lu, and Yuanshuai Luo

work page
[9]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18713 (2024)

Enhanced Recommendation Combining Collaborative Filtering and Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18713 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024
[10]

Zhen Qin, Rolf Jagerman, Kai Hui, Honglei Zhuang, Junru Wu, Le Yan, Jiaming Shen, Tianqi Liu, Jialu Liu, Donald Metzler, et al. 2023. Large language models are effective text rankers with pairwise ranking prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17563 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023
[11]

Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf

work page
[12]

DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter

DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108 (2019)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910
[13]

Junyi Shen, Dayvid VR Oliveira, Jin Cao, Brian Knott, Goodman Gu, Sindhu Vijaya Raghavan, Yunye Jin, Nikita Sudan, and Rob Monarch

work page
[14]

In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems

Identifying Controversial Pairs in Item-to-Item Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 671–674

work page
[15]

J. Tang, S. Alelyani, and H. Liu. 2014. Data Classification: Algorithms and Ap- plications. CRC Press, Chapter Feature selection for classifica- tion: a review, 37–64

work page 2014
[16]

Jianling Wang, Haokai Lu, Yifan Liu, He Ma, Yueqi Wang, Yang Gu, Shuzhou Zhang, Ningren Han, Shuchao Bi, Lexi Baugher, et al

work page
[17]

In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems

Llms for user interest exploration in large-scale recommendation systems. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 872–877

work page
[18]

Likang Wu et al. 2023. A Survey on Large Language Mod- els for Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19860 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.19860

work page arXiv 2023
[19]

Xiaochuan Xu, Zeqiu Xu, Peiyang Yu, and Jiani Wang. 2025. Enhancing user intent for recommendation systems via large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10871 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[20]

Xinyi Zhang, Chenshuo Sun, Renyu Zhang, and Khim-Yong Goh. 2024. The Value of AI-Generated Metadata for UGC Platforms: Evidence from a Large-scale Field Experiment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18337 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[1] [1]

Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 785–794

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Wenqi Fan. 2024. Recommender systems in the era of large language models (llms). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2024), 1–20

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Tom Gunter, Zirui Wang, Chong Wang, Ruoming Pang, Andy Narayanan, Aonan Zhang, Bowen Zhang, Chen Chen, Chung- Cheng Chiu, David Qiu, et al. 2024. Apple Intelligence Foun- dation Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21075 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21075

work page arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Yupeng Hou, Junjie Zhang, Zihan Lin, Hongyu Lu, Ruobing Xie, Julian McAuley, and Wayne Xin Zhao. 2024. Large language models are zero- shot rankers for recommender systems. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 364–381

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Gareth James, Daniela Witten, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani

work page

[6] [6]

Springer, New York

An Introduction to Statistical Learning. Springer, New York

work page

[7] [7]

Ron Kohavi and George H. John. 1997. Wrappers for feature subset selection. In Artificial Intelligence, V ol. 97. 273–324

work page 1997

[8] [8]

Xueting Lin, Zhan Cheng, Longfei Yun, Qingyi Lu, and Yuanshuai Luo

work page

[9] [9]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18713 (2024)

Enhanced Recommendation Combining Collaborative Filtering and Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18713 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024

[10] [10]

Zhen Qin, Rolf Jagerman, Kai Hui, Honglei Zhuang, Junru Wu, Le Yan, Jiaming Shen, Tianqi Liu, Jialu Liu, Donald Metzler, et al. 2023. Large language models are effective text rankers with pairwise ranking prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17563 (2023)

work page arXiv 2023

[11] [11]

Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf

work page

[12] [12]

DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter

DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108 (2019)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

[13] [13]

Junyi Shen, Dayvid VR Oliveira, Jin Cao, Brian Knott, Goodman Gu, Sindhu Vijaya Raghavan, Yunye Jin, Nikita Sudan, and Rob Monarch

work page

[14] [14]

In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems

Identifying Controversial Pairs in Item-to-Item Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 671–674

work page

[15] [15]

J. Tang, S. Alelyani, and H. Liu. 2014. Data Classification: Algorithms and Ap- plications. CRC Press, Chapter Feature selection for classifica- tion: a review, 37–64

work page 2014

[16] [16]

Jianling Wang, Haokai Lu, Yifan Liu, He Ma, Yueqi Wang, Yang Gu, Shuzhou Zhang, Ningren Han, Shuchao Bi, Lexi Baugher, et al

work page

[17] [17]

In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems

Llms for user interest exploration in large-scale recommendation systems. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 872–877

work page

[18] [18]

Likang Wu et al. 2023. A Survey on Large Language Mod- els for Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19860 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.19860

work page arXiv 2023

[19] [19]

Xiaochuan Xu, Zeqiu Xu, Peiyang Yu, and Jiani Wang. 2025. Enhancing user intent for recommendation systems via large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.10871 (2025)

work page arXiv 2025

[20] [20]

Xinyi Zhang, Chenshuo Sun, Renyu Zhang, and Khim-Yong Goh. 2024. The Value of AI-Generated Metadata for UGC Platforms: Evidence from a Large-scale Field Experiment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18337 (2024)

work page arXiv 2024