Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Reasoning Meets Personalization: Unleashing the Potential of Large Reasoning Model for Personalized Generation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Large reasoning models underperform on personalization; a training-free framework closes the gap.

desk verdict Useful first evaluation of LRMs on LaMP, but the claimed significant gains lack error bars and the core intervention is underspecified. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17571 v1 pith:2XCJDG5V submitted 2025-05-23 cs.CL

Sichun Luo , Guanzhi Deng , Jian Xu , Xiaojie Zhang , Hanxu Hou , Linqi Song This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords largereasoningmodelspersonalizationLaMPbenchmarkretrieval-augmentedgenerationhierarchicaltemplateprocessinterventionself-referencingtraining-freeframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that large reasoning models (LRMs), despite their strong performance on math and coding, are not naturally good at personalization: on the LaMP benchmark they often lose to general-purpose LLMs, especially when four retrieved user examples are provided. It attributes this to three shortcomings: reasoning that converges too narrowly, responses that ignore required formats, and poor use of retrieved user context. To fix this without any fine-tuning, it proposes R2P, a pipeline that guides the model through a hierarchical reasoning thought template, injects corrective instructions when the chain deviates, and synthesizes multiple candidate outputs by self-referencing. On LaMP tasks, R2P beats RAG, profile-augmented prompting, and self-verification baselines on most metrics, with the largest gains in regression and generation tasks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hierarchical reasoning thought template, a seven-step prompt that decomposes any personalization query into question analysis, user profile integration, retrieval-augmented generation, content generation, format alignment, conciseness, and final output. Around it, R2P wraps two mechanisms: reasoning process intervention (RPI), a feedback loop that evaluates the chain against a checklist and injects a corrective instruction at the end if a sub-step is missing, and a self-referencing module (SRM), which generates n candidate answers and prompts the model to merge them into one consistent output. The template's role is to stop divergent thinking and force retrieved context into the answer; RPI enforces adherence; SRM stabilizes outputs across exploratory samples.

What would settle it

Run R2P on LaMP tasks with the intervention stage replaced by a no-op that never injects corrective instructions, keeping the template and self-referencing identical; if the no-op variant matches or exceeds full R2P on the reported metrics, the intervention is not doing the work the paper claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that LRMs' reasoning strengths do not transfer to personalization: generating hundreds of reasoning tokens can hurt rather than help when the goal is a format-constrained, user-specific answer. The paper's diagnosis is that LRMs engage in convergent reasoning on open-ended personalization tasks, skip over retrieved user history, and emit verbose chains that break the strict output format. R2P, the paper's proposed remedy, consists of three ingredients: a handcrafted hierarchical reasoning thought template that forces question analysis, user-profile synthesis, retrieval use, format checking, and conciseness steps; a reasoning process intervention that checks the generated chain against the template's checklist and injects a corrective instruction such as "Wait, let me analyze the user profile" when a sub-step is missing; and a self-referencing module that generates several candidate answers and then asks the model to synthesize one final response. With the full pipeline, the paper reports that R2P achieves the best scores on most LaMP tasks and improves on regression and generation metrics at k=4.

Load-bearing premise

The whole claimed benefit of the reasoning process intervention depends on an unstated way of detecting whether the model's chain really deviates from the template; if that detection is unreliable, circular, or manual, the intervention's contribution to the reported gains is unproven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If R2P is correct, personalization does not require retraining a reasoning model; a structured prompt plus a feedback loop is enough to beat retrieval-augmented prompting alone.
  • The template alone reduces token length relative to bare RAG, while improving output quality, so cheaper inference can come with better personalization.
  • Increasing retrieved context from k=1 to k=4 helps R2P more than it helps baselines, so the framework converts additional user history into better answers.
  • The self-referencing parameter n=2 gives the best trade-off across classification, regression, and generation tasks; n=1 is best on the simpler citation-identification task.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The intervention's benefit rests on how deviations are detected, which the paper leaves unspecified; a natural testable extension is to compare RPI variants that use an explicit judge prompt, keyword heuristics, or no detection at all.
  • Because the paper evaluated only the Llama/Qwen/DeepSeek distill families, an untested implication is that the framework transfers to other reasoning models such as OpenAI o1; if it does, the template is a general interface for reasoning models rather than a fix specific to certain distill weights.
  • A practical extension would be to apply R2P's template-plus-intervention pattern to dynamic user interactions or multimodal personalization, which the paper explicitly flags as outside the LaMP benchmark's coverage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic evaluation of large reasoning models (LRMs) versus general-purpose LLMs on the LaMP personalization benchmark, reporting that LRMs do not consistently outperform LLMs, particularly under retrieval-intensive settings. It proposes R2P, a training-free framework with three components: a hierarchical reasoning thought template (HRT), a reasoning process intervention (RPI), and a self-referencing module (SRM). The main experimental claim is that R2P significantly outperforms RAG, PAG, and self-verification baselines on most LaMP tasks, supported by Table 7 and ablations in Figure 3.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would make a useful contribution by identifying limitations of LRMs in personalization and offering a light-weight, training-free remedy that also reduces output token length. The preliminary comparison across multiple model families (Llama, Qwen, DeepSeek) is a informative starting point for future work. However, the significance is substantially undercut by the absence of variance information or a described statistical test in the main results, and by the underspecified RPI mechanism, which is a core claimed component.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Table 7] The central claim that R2P “significantly outperforms” baselines is not supported by the reported statistics. Table 7 gives only three-run averages with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or per-run values, and the paired t-test used to mark asterisks is not described (paired over users, runs, or something else?). Several decisive comparisons are tiny or negative: at k=1 on LaMP-2N, R2P's accuracy is 0.697 vs. self-verification's 0.713; at k=1 on LaMP-2M, R2P's accuracy is 0.282 vs. RAG's 0.332; at k=4 on LaMP-2N, R2P's accuracy is 0.720 vs. PAG's 0.722. The abstract's “significantly outperforms” is therefore an overstatement. Please report variance or confidence intervals, specify the test, and temper the claims to what the data support.
  2. [§4.2] The Reasoning Process Intervention is a load-bearing component of R2P, but its implementation is not specified. The text says the output is evaluated “against a checklist derived from the HRT” and that deviations are detected, yet it never states whether this evaluation is performed by a separate LLM judge, by rule-based heuristics, or by manual inspection. Without this detail, the reader cannot determine whether the intervention is automatic, reproducible, or merely a prompt-engineering artifact. Please specify the detection mechanism, including how the checklist is instantiated and how false positives/negatives are handled, and provide evidence that the intervention behaves as claimed.
  3. [§5.3, Figure 3] The ablation study that is meant to verify the contribution of each module is reported only as a figure with no numeric values, no error bars, and no significance testing. The text states that “removing the reasoning process intervention can degrade model performance” but does not quantify the degradation or show that it is outside noise. Since the framework has three interacting components, the ablation should include the actual scores and, ideally, the same statistical treatment as the main table.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §4.2] The abstract describes an “intervention method in the reasoning process,” but §4.2 states that the intervention occurs “after the LRM completes the reasoning chain.” The wording should be adjusted to avoid implying an interleaved, mid-chain intervention, or the method should be changed accordingly.
  2. [§3.2, Table 1] The TAKEAWAY I statement that the general-purpose LLM “outperforms the LRM across most tasks in retrieval-intensive settings” should be reconciled with Table 1, where DeepSeek-Llama3 is better on several tasks (e.g., LaMP-5 R-1) even at k=4. Please phrase the takeaway with the actual per-task counts.
  3. [Throughout] The term “self referencing” is written inconsistently; it should be hyphenated as “self-referencing” throughout, including in the module name and figure captions.
  4. [§5.1] The reference number n=2 is chosen for the main experiments, but the paper does not discuss how sensitive the results are to this choice beyond Figure 4. Since n is the only hyperparameter, please state whether the significance in Table 7 changes for n=1 or n=3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: R2P's gains are empirical claims against an external benchmark, not consequences of fitted definitions or self-citations.

full rationale

This paper makes no derivation that assumes its conclusion. The preliminary study compares DeepSeek-R1-Distill and Llama/Qwen models on the external LaMP benchmark, and the proposed R2P is a training-free prompting pipeline (HRT + RPI + SRM) whose outputs are measured against the same benchmark and against RAG, PAG, and self-verification baselines. The HRT prompt is explicitly handcrafted (Appendix B), RPI is an intervention loop, and SRM synthesizes from the model's own candidate outputs; none of these is defined in terms of the reported metric values or fitted to the target quantities, so no claimed gain is forced by construction. References to the authors' prior work appear in related-work and method context and are not load-bearing for the R2P results. The only tuned parameter, n=2, is selected from benchmark behaviour (Figure 4) and reused in Table 7; this is ordinary hyperparameter selection and possible selection bias, not a circular prediction, and it does not make the comparison with baselines self-fulfilling. The underspecified RPI deviation check and the absence of variance or significance detail weaken empirical support, but those are correctness and evidence concerns, not circularity. I therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. The only tuned hyperparameter is n, selected on the evaluation set. The core unresolved assumption is the feasibility and reliability of automatic deviation detection in RPI.

free parameters (1)
  • n = 2
    Number of candidate responses in the self-referencing module; selected as most effective in Figure 4.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LaMP tasks and metrics (accuracy, F1, MAE, ROUGE) adequately capture personalization quality.
    Used as ground truth for all comparisons.
  • domain assumption DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B and DeepSeek-Distill-Qwen variants are representative large reasoning models.
    The paper's conclusions about LRMs are based only on these distills; the authors acknowledge they did not test o1.
  • ad hoc to paper The RPI can automatically and reliably detect deviations from the HRT template.
    No algorithm is provided; this is a load-bearing premise for the intervention's effectiveness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reasoning Meets Personalization: Unleashing the Potential of Large Reasoning Model for Personalized Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2XCJDG5V

@misc{pith2026250517571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reasoning Meets Personalization: Unleashing the Potential of Large Reasoning Model for Personalized Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2XCJDG5V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17571}
}
read the original abstract

Personalization is a critical task in modern intelligent systems, with applications spanning diverse domains, including interactions with large language models (LLMs). Recent advances in reasoning capabilities have significantly enhanced LLMs, enabling unprecedented performance in tasks such as mathematics and coding. However, their potential for personalization tasks remains underexplored. In this paper, we present the first systematic evaluation of large reasoning models (LRMs) for personalization tasks. Surprisingly, despite generating more tokens, LRMs do not consistently outperform general-purpose LLMs, especially in retrieval-intensive scenarios where their advantages diminish. Our analysis identifies three key limitations: divergent thinking, misalignment of response formats, and ineffective use of retrieved information. To address these challenges, we propose Reinforced Reasoning for Personalization (\model), a novel framework that incorporates a hierarchical reasoning thought template to guide LRMs in generating structured outputs. Additionally, we introduce a reasoning process intervention method to enforce adherence to designed reasoning patterns, enhancing alignment. We also propose a cross-referencing mechanism to ensure consistency. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms existing techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between non-reasoning model generation, large reasoning model generation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline of the proposed R2P. For a given query, the model integrates a reasoning thought template to guide structured reasoning, employs self-referencing to ensure consistency, and incorporates reasoning process intervention to maintain alignment with task requirements. To solve this, we propose a hierarchical reasoning thought template, which offers a structured approach to guide LRMs in personalization tasks. By … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ablation study of R2P across four LaMP tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance under different n across four LaMP tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean token lengths of generated outputs across four LaMP tasks under different configura [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of answers generated by Llama3 and DeepSeek-Llama3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Achiam, S

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    R. Anil, A. M. Dai, O. Firat, M. Johnson, D. Lepikhin, A. Passos, S. Shakeri, E. Taropa, P. Bailey, Z. Chen, et al. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Araujo and N

    T. Araujo and N. Bol. From speaking like a person to being personal: The effects of personalized, regular interactions with conversational agents. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1):100030, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Brown, B

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  5. [5]

    J. Chen, Z. Liu, X. Huang, C. Wu, Q. Liu, G. Jiang, Y . Pu, Y . Lei, X. Chen, X. Wang, et al. When large language models meet personalization: Perspectives of challenges and opportunities. World Wide Web, 27(4):42, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Deepseek-r1

    DeepSeek. Deepseek-r1. https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1 , 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Grattafiori, A

    A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Q. Gu. Llm-based code generation method for golang compiler testing. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 2201–2203, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    D. Guo, D. Yang, H. Zhang, J. Song, R. Zhang, R. Xu, Q. Zhu, S. Ma, P. Wang, X. Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Huang and K

    J. Huang and K. C.-C. Chang. Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1049–1065, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Huang, S

    Q. Huang, S. Fu, X. Liu, W. Wang, T. Ko, Y . Zhang, and L. Tang. Learning retrieval augmenta- tion for personalized dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2523–2540. Association for Computational Li...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Jaech, A

    A. Jaech, A. Kalai, A. Lerer, A. Richardson, A. El-Kishky, A. Low, A. Helyar, A. Madry, A. Beutel, A. Carney, et al. Openai o1 system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16720, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. Jameson. Adaptive interfaces and agents. In The human-computer interaction handbook, pages 459–484. CRC press, 2007

    2007

  6. [14]

    A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Roux, A. Mensch, B. Savary, C. Bamford, D. S. Chaplot, D. d. l. Casas, E. B. Hanna, F. Bressand, et al. Mixtral of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04088, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. B. Kocaballi, S. Berkovsky, J. C. Quiroz, L. Laranjo, H. L. Tong, D. Rezazadegan, A. Briatore, and E. Coiera. The personalization of conversational agents in health care: systematic review. Journal of medical Internet research, 21(11):e15360, 2019. 10

    2019

  8. [16]

    W. Kwon, Z. Li, S. Zhuang, Y . Sheng, L. Zheng, C. H. Yu, J. Gonzalez, H. Zhang, and I. Stoica. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 611–626, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Lewis, E

    P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V . Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. Küttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:9459–9474, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    C.-Y . Lin. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. InText summarization branches out, pages 74–81, 2004

    2004

  11. [19]

    F. Liu, Y . Liu, L. Shi, H. Huang, R. Wang, Z. Yang, L. Zhang, Z. Li, and Y . Ma. Exploring and evaluating hallucinations in llm-powered code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00971, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    S. Luo, Y . Xiao, and L. Song. Personalized federated recommendation via joint representation learning, user clustering, and model adaptation. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM international conference on information & knowledge management, pages 4289–4293, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    S. Luo, Y . Xiao, X. Zhang, Y . Liu, W. Ding, and L. Song. Perfedrec++: Enhancing personalized federated recommendation with self-supervised pre-training. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(5):1–24, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    S. Luo, Y . Yao, B. He, Y . Huang, A. Zhou, X. Zhang, Y . Xiao, M. Zhan, and L. Song. Integrating large language models into recommendation via mutual augmentation and adaptive aggregation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13870, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Richardson, Y

    C. Richardson, Y . Zhang, K. Gillespie, S. Kar, A. Singh, Z. Raeesy, O. Z. Khan, and A. Sethy. Integrating summarization and retrieval for enhanced personalization via large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20081, 2023

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Robertson, H

    S. Robertson, H. Zaragoza, et al. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333–389, 2009

    2009

  17. [25]

    Salemi, S

    A. Salemi, S. Mysore, M. Bendersky, and H. Zamani. Lamp: When large language models meet personalization. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7370–7392, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Schiaffino and A

    S. Schiaffino and A. Amandi. User–interface agent interaction: personalization issues. Interna- tional Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60(1):129–148, 2004

    2004

  19. [27]

    C. A. Thompson, M. H. Goker, and P. Langley. A personalized system for conversational recommendations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 21:393–428, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Touvron, T

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozière, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Touvron, L

    H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Almahairi, Y . Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    K. Wang, H. Ren, A. Zhou, Z. Lu, S. Luo, W. Shi, R. Zhang, L. Song, M. Zhan, and H. Li. Mathcoder: Seamless code integration in llms for enhanced mathematical reasoning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

  23. [31]

    X. Wang, J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, Q. V . Le, E. H. Chi, S. Narang, A. Chowdhery, and D. Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

  24. [32]

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou, et al. Chain-of- thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824–24837, 2022. 11

    2022

  25. [33]

    Y . Weng, M. Zhu, F. Xia, B. Li, S. He, S. Liu, B. Sun, K. Liu, and J. Zhao. Large language models are better reasoners with self-verification. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 2550–2575, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    F. Xu, Q. Hao, Z. Zong, J. Wang, Y . Zhang, J. Wang, X. Lan, J. Gong, T. Ouyang, F. Meng, et al. Towards large reasoning models: A survey of reinforced reasoning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09686, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A. Yang, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Li, D. Liu, F. Huang, H. Wei, et al. Qwen2.5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. Griffiths, Y . Cao, and K. Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:11809–11822, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Zhang, R

    Z. Zhang, R. A. Rossi, B. Kveton, Y . Shao, D. Yang, H. Zamani, F. Dernoncourt, J. Barrow, T. Yu, S. Kim, et al. Personalization of large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00027, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. Zhou, K. Wang, Z. Lu, W. Shi, S. Luo, Z. Qin, S. Lu, A. Jia, L. Song, M. Zhan, et al. Solving challenging math word problems using gpt-4 code interpreter with code-based self-verification. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

  31. [39]

    X. Zhou, Y . Xu, Y . Li, A. Josang, and C. Cox. The state-of-the-art in personalized recommender systems for social networking. Artificial Intelligence Review, 37:119–132, 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

    answer only

    Y . Zhuang, H. Sun, Y . Yu, R. Qiang, Q. Wang, C. Zhang, and B. Dai. Hydra: Model factorization framework for black-box llm personalization. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 12 A Evaluation Details Hardware and Software. We conduc...

Pith tools

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