Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

Industrial recommender systems split into two goal-driven classes—transaction-oriented and content-oriented—and the split exposes constraints that academic offline research mostly ignores.

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 ↗

A survey of A/B-validated industrial recommender systems, split into transaction-oriented and content-oriented categories, with a discussion of the academia-industry gap.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful survey of industrial RecSys practice with a plausible transaction/content taxonomy; needs corpus transparency before I'd call it systematic. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06002 v1 pith:BRX567ZH submitted 2025-09-07 cs.IR

A Survey of Real-World Recommender Systems: Challenges, Constraints, and Industrial Perspectives

Kuan Zou , Aixin Sun This is my paper
classification cs.IR
keywords industrial recommender systemstransaction-oriented recommendationcontent-oriented recommendationA/B testingmulti-objective optimizationreal-time recommendationcold-startgenerative recommendation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The survey claims that real-world recommender systems are best understood through a dichotomy: transaction-oriented systems (e-commerce, travel, food delivery) that optimize for conversion, revenue, or GMV, and content-oriented systems (video, news, audio) that optimize for engagement, dwell time, and satisfaction. Based on 228 papers from 2020–2024 with industry authorship and online A/B validation, the authors argue that this split reveals challenges academia usually misses: serving latency, system cost, real-time interest shifts, multi-objective trade-offs, and long-term user value. If the classification holds, it gives academic researchers a map of what actually matters in production and points toward under-explored research directions such as user decision-making and theory-guided multi-objective optimization.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a new organizing framework for industrial recommender systems rather than a new algorithm or dataset. It defines Transaction-Oriented RecSys as systems whose primary goal is prompting transactional actions—conversion, revenue, purchase likelihood—and Content-Oriented RecSys as systems whose primary goal is facilitating consumption and engagement, measured by dwell time, clicks, or satisfaction. It then reviews 228 A/B-validated industrial papers from major venues (2020–2024) under this split, showing that the two classes face different data characteristics, real-time requirements, evaluation metrics, and cost constraints. The survey further claims that

What carries the argument

The central object is the dual classification of recommender systems by business objective: Transaction-Oriented RecSys versus Content-Oriented RecSys. This dichotomy, paired with a strict inclusion filter (industry authorship plus online A/B testing), organizes the entire survey and drives the claim that distinct item characteristics produce distinct industrial challenges. The multi-stage production pipeline—recall, coarse ranking, fine ranking, re-ranking—serves as the recurring industrial mechanism that balances effectiveness with latency and cost.

Load-bearing premise

The survey counts a paper as industrial only if at least one author is from industry and the method was validated through online A/B testing; if A/B testing is not a necessary condition for capturing production practice, the reviewed corpus and the academic–industrial contrast rest on an incomplete sample.

What would settle it

Collect all industry-authored recommender-system papers at the same six venues from 2020 to 2024 that report deployment but no online A/B testing; if a large share of those papers exhibit the same latency, cost, and multi-objective constraints as the A/B-validated set, the survey's selection criterion misses a substantial part of industrial practice.

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

If this is right

  • If the dichotomy is accurate, academic results measured only by precision, recall, or NDCG cannot be assumed to transfer to production, because the optimization target differs by system type.
  • Cost and latency become first-class objectives: methods that ignore embedding-layer resource consumption, inference time, or serving budgets will be impractical even if offline metrics improve.
  • Real-time interest modeling—responding to triggers, scrolling, inventory, and price changes within milliseconds—becomes a core research problem rather than an engineering footnote.
  • Multi-objective optimization is the norm in industry; balancing CTR, CVR, GMV, dwell time, and long-term retention requires frameworks beyond single-metric tuning.
  • Generative and foundation-model recommender systems are emerging as a unified paradigm, with evidence that scaling laws hold for recommendation models up to trillion-parameter scale.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The transaction/content split could plausibly extend to other A/B-validated domains not covered by the corpus, such as job marketplaces, point-of-interest services, and live streaming, once enough production studies accumulate.
  • Relaxing the A/B-testing inclusion filter might substantially change the map: companies that cannot run large-scale online experiments still operate production systems, so the survey's industrial picture is biased toward firms with mature experimentation infrastructure.
  • The survey's call for offline–online consistency suggests a concrete test: building shared simulation environments benchmarked against known A/B outcomes could let academic groups validate deployment-relevant claims without industrial infrastructure.
  • User decision-making states—hesitation before clicks, tolerance after consumption—are named as underused signals; modeling them could turn psychological constructs into measurable features for long-term retention optimization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper surveys industrial recommender systems research published 2020–2024, selecting papers from major conferences with at least one industry author and online A/B validation (272 papers, 228 after excluding advertising). It introduces a taxonomy with two main classes—Transaction-Oriented RecSys (e-commerce, travel, food delivery, insurance) and Content-Oriented RecSys (video, news, audio)—reviews solution themes per class, contrasts academic and industrial evaluation and constraints, and proposes future research directions centered on user decision-making, theory-guided multi-objective optimization, and realistic problem definitions.

Significance. The survey addresses a real gap: much academic RecSys research is evaluated offline, and there is little organized synthesis of industrial practice. Its strengths are a recent, clearly delimited corpus, a simple and teachable taxonomy, and an unusually explicit set of caveats about coverage (POI, games, live streaming, social, jobs are excluded) and about the scarcity of public cost/performance work. If the corpus is representative and the taxonomy is reliably applied, the paper offers a useful map for academics entering industrial research. The main contribution is conceptual and descriptive rather than empirical; its value depends on corpus transparency and on the strength of the selection rules.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1.2] The corpus selection is under-specified, and this is load-bearing for the survey's claims. The paper reports that the filters produced 272 papers, and 228 after excluding advertising, but gives no list of the included papers, no per-domain or per-venue counts, and no PRISMA-style flow diagram. Since every section's synthesis is built on this corpus, readers cannot verify that the taxonomy was applied consistently, or assess sampling bias. Please provide a complete list or searchable appendix of the 228 papers, the number excluded at each step (no industry author, no A/B validation, advertising), and a breakdown across the two proposed classes and the three content subdomains.
  2. [§1.2 and §1.3] The A/B-testing filter biases the corpus toward large platforms and undercuts the unqualified 'real-world' framing. Requiring online A/B validation as 'a necessary component of applied recommender systems' selects for organizations with experimentation infrastructure. The paper itself acknowledges in §1.3 that POI, games, live streaming, social community, and job opportunities are excluded because too few A/B-validated papers exist, and §5.4 notes that much cost/performance work is 'rarely publicly available.' Thus the 228-paper corpus cannot support the abstract's claim that the taxonomy captures 'real-world recommender systems' at large; it describes A/B-validated practice in e-commerce, video, news, and audio at relatively large platforms. Please narrow the generality claims or include and analyze non-A/B industrial papers to test for selection bias.
  3. [§1.3, Definitions 1 and 2] The 'new classification' is not operationalized as claimed. The two definitions are stated solely in terms of the system's primary objective (prompting transactional actions vs. facilitating consumption), but the abstract says the classification is 'grounded in item characteristics and recommendation objectives.' No item-characteristic dimensions are defined, and the later assignment rule—'the sole criterion ... is the business context' in which a method was A/B-tested—does not address hybrids (e.g., video platforms with purchases or subscriptions, e-commerce recommenders optimizing engagement). Without explicit coding rules, or at least a description of how borderline cases were resolved, the dichotomy risks being a post-hoc labeling scheme. Specify the item-characteristic axes, define boundary cases, and state whether the categorization was done independently.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'grounded in item characteristics and recommendation objectives' is stronger than what Definitions 1 and 2 support; align the abstract with the actual operationalization.
  2. [§1.2] The count progression is confusing: 272 papers are mentioned after the A/B filter, then 228 after excluding advertising. Clarify which number corresponds to which filtering stage, and report how many papers were excluded for advertising.
  3. [§1.3/Figure 1] The text says the real-world systems are classified into 'two main categories,' but Figure 1 includes an 'Other Recommendation Systems' box. Acknowledge explicitly that the dichotomy is not exhaustive and describe how the 'other' domains relate to the two classes.
  4. [References] Reference [51] contains duplicated author names (e.g., Gong-Duo Zhang, Lihong Gu, Zhiqiang Zhang appear twice); clean up the reference list. Also, several arXiv preprints from 2025 are cited for a survey covering 2020–2024; please confirm they are part of the corpus or mark them as outlook material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the survey is a transparent taxonomy and corpus review; self-citations are peripheral and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a survey/taxonomy, not a derivation chain with predictions. Definitions 1 and 2 in Section 1.3 are stipulative classifications based on stated objectives (transactional vs. engagement), and the challenge summaries in Sections 3-4 are drawn from the 228-paper corpus selected in Section 1.2, not derived from the definitions by construction. The selection rule (industry author + online A/B testing) is explicitly stated and transparent; the later observation that industry emphasizes A/B evaluation is a corpus-design consequence, but the paper does not present it as a fitted prediction, and it is not hidden. Section 1.3 itself acknowledges the limit that POI/games/live streaming/social/jobs are excluded due to few A/B-validated papers, which is a scope limitation, not circularity. The self-citations ([54], [128], [176], [193]) appear in discussions of offline evaluation and future directions; none is load-bearing for the central taxonomy or the empirical summaries. No equation or claim is shown to reduce to its own input, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The survey has no free parameters or invented entities. Its central claims rest on two assumptions: that A/B testing defines industrial practice, and that the two-category taxonomy is a useful way to organize the field. The first is a methodological choice; the second is a framing device introduced in this paper.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption A paper counts as industrial recommender-system work only if at least one author is from industry and the method is validated through online A/B testing.
    Section 1.2 filters the corpus to papers with online A/B testing, assuming this captures 'real-world production' systems and excludes papers that are industrial but only offline.
  • ad hoc to paper Transaction-oriented vs. content-oriented classification is a meaningful and comprehensive way to organize industrial recommender systems.
    Definitions 1 and 2 in Section 1.3 are introduced by the authors and used as the organizing structure. The paper itself acknowledges that other domains (POI, games, live streaming, social, jobs) are excluded, so the taxonomy is not exhaustive.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Survey of Real-World Recommender Systems: Challenges, Constraints, and Industrial Perspectives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BRX567ZH

@misc{pith2026250906002,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Survey of Real-World Recommender Systems: Challenges, Constraints, and Industrial Perspectives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BRX567ZH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06002}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Recommender systems have generated tremendous value for both users and businesses, drawing significant attention from academia and industry alike. However, due to practical constraints, academic research remains largely confined to offline dataset optimizations, lacking access to real user data and large-scale recommendation platforms. This limitation reduces practical relevance, slows technological progress, and hampers a full understanding of the key challenges in recommender systems. In this survey, we provide a systematic review of industrial recommender systems and contrast them with their academic counterparts. We highlight key differences in data scale, real-time requirements, and evaluation methodologies, and we summarize major real-world recommendation scenarios along with their associated challenges. We then examine how industry practitioners address these challenges in Transaction-Oriented Recommender Systems and Content-Oriented Recommender Systems, a new classification grounded in item characteristics and recommendation objectives. Finally, we outline promising research directions, including the often-overlooked role of user decision-making, the integration of economic and psychological theories, and concrete suggestions for advancing academic research. Our goal is to enhance academia's understanding of practical recommender systems, bridge the growing development gap, and foster stronger collaboration between industry and academia.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06002 by Aixin Sun, Kuan Zou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of shared challenges/tasks across recommender platforms and the objectives of two main [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An illustration of the development of recommender systems in light of the increasing growth of both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Grevo: A Unified Generative Recommendation Framework with Evolutionary Item Indexing

    cs.IR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Grevo lets a generative recommender evolve item identifier codes through budgeted posterior-guided search instead of training a separate tokenizer.

  2. TurboGR: An Accelerated Training System for Large-Scale Generative Recommendation

    cs.DC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    TurboGR trains up to 0.2B-parameter generative recommendation models on Ascend NPUs at 54.71% MFU with 0.97 near-linear scalability via jagged acceleration, hierarchical parallelism, and negative sampling optimizations.

  3. TRU: Targeted Reverse Update for Efficient Multimodal Recommendation Unlearning

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    TRU is a plug-and-play unlearning method for multimodal recommenders that applies ranking fusion, modality scaling, and layer isolation to achieve better retain-forget trade-offs than uniform baselines.

  4. Self-EvolveRec: Self-Evolving Recommender Systems with LLM-based Directional Feedback

    cs.IR 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    An LLM-driven recommender evolution loop that combines simulated-user critiques with co-evolving diagnostic probes outperforms scalar-metric-only evolution baselines on standard ranking metrics.

  5. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data for Recommender Systems

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Larger training datasets continue to improve recommender system performance without observable saturation on typical user-item data.

  6. A Position Paper on Recommender Systems in the Era of Autonomous Agents

    cs.IR 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0

    A position paper proposes that transaction-oriented recommender systems be redesigned around client-side autonomous agents that query, compare, and verify options across platforms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

200 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Saurabh Agrawal, John Trenkle, and Jaya Kawale. 2023. Beyond labels: Leveraging deep learning and llms for content metadata. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 1–1

    2023

  2. [2]

    Zhicheng An, Zhexu Gu, Li Yu, Ke Tu, Zhengwei Wu, Binbin Hu, Zhiqiang Zhang, Lihong Gu, and Jinjie Gu. 2024. DDCDR: A Disentangle-based Distillation Framework for Cross-Domain Recommendation. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 4764–4773

    2024

  3. [3]

    Anirudhan Badrinath, Prabhat Agarwal, Laksh Bhasin, Jaewon Yang, Jiajing Xu, and Charles Rosenberg. 2025. PinRec: Outcome-Conditioned, Multi-Token Generative Retrieval for Industry-Scale Recommendation Systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10507(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Ting Bai, Yudong Xiao, Bin Wu, Guojun Yang, Hongyong Yu, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2022. A contrastive sharing model for multi-task recommendation. InProceedings of the ACM web conference 2022. 3239–3247

    2022

  5. [5]

    Yimeng Bai, Yang Zhang, Fuli Feng, Jing Lu, Xiaoxue Zang, Chenyi Lei, and Yang Song. 2024. GradCraft: Elevating Multi-task Recommendations through Holistic Gradient Crafting. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 4774–4783

    2024

  6. [6]

    Paul Baltescu, Haoyu Chen, Nikil Pancha, Andrew Zhai, Jure Leskovec, and Charles Rosenberg. 2022. Itemsage: Learning product embeddings for shopping recommendations at pinterest. InProceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 2703–2711

    2022

  7. [7]

    Buket Baran, Guilherme Dinis Junior, Antonina Danylenko, Olayinka S Folorunso, Gösta Forsum, Maksym Lefarov, Lucas Maystre, and Yu Zhao. 2023. Accelerating creator audience building through centralized exploration. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 70–73

    2023

  8. [8]

    Christine Bauer, Eva Zangerle, and Alan Said. 2024. Exploring the Landscape of Recommender Systems Evaluation: Practices and Perspectives.ACM Trans. Recomm. Syst.2, 1, Article 11 (March 2024), 31 pages. doi:10.1145/3629170

    doi:10.1145/3629170 2024

  9. [9]

    Walid Bendada, Guillaume Salha-Galvan, Thomas Bouabça, and Tristan Cazenave. 2023. A scalable framework for automatic playlist continuation on music streaming services. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 464–474

    2023

  10. [10]

    Ye Bi, Liqiang Song, Mengqiu Yao, Zhenyu Wu, Jianming Wang, and Jing Xiao. 2020. A heterogeneous information network based cross domain insurance recommendation system for cold start users. InProceedings of the 43rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 2211–2220

    2020

  11. [11]

    Léa Briand, Guillaume Salha-Galvan, Walid Bendada, Mathieu Morlon, and Viet-Anh Tran. 2021. A semi-personalized system for user cold start recommendation on music streaming apps. InProceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 2601–2609

    2021

  12. [12]

    Guohao Cai, Jieming Zhu, Quanyu Dai, Zhenhua Dong, Xiuqiang He, Ruiming Tang, and Rui Zhang. 2022. Reloop: A self-correction continual learning loop for recommender systems. InProceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2692–2697

    2022

  13. [13]

    Tianchi Cai, Shenliao Bao, Jiyan Jiang, Shiji Zhou, Wenpeng Zhang, Lihong Gu, Jinjie Gu, and Guannan Zhang. 2023. Model-free Reinforcement Learning with Stochastic Reward Stabilization for Recommender Systems. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2179–2183

    2023

  14. [14]

    Marjan Celikik, Ana Peleteiro Ramallo, and Jacek Wasilewski. 2022. Reusable Self-Attention Recommender Systems in Fashion Industry Applications. InProceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 448–451

    2022

  15. [15]

    Zheng Chai, Zhihong Chen, Chenliang Li, Rong Xiao, Houyi Li, Jiawei Wu, Jingxu Chen, and Haihong Tang. 2022. User-aware multi-interest learning for candidate matching in recommenders. InProceedings of the 45th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 1326–1335

    2022

  16. [16]

    Gaode Chen, Yuezihan Jiang, Rui Huang, Kuo Cai, Yunze Luo, Ruina Sun, Qi Zhang, Han Li, and Kun Gai. 2024. Missing Interest Modeling with Lifelong User Behavior Data for Retrieval Recommendation. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 4390–4396

    2024

  17. [17]

    Gaode Chen, Ruina Sun, Yuezihan Jiang, Jiangxia Cao, Qi Zhang, Jingjian Lin, Han Li, Kun Gai, and Xinghua Zhang

  18. [18]

    Hao Chen, Yuanchen Bei, Qijie Shen, Yue Xu, Sheng Zhou, Wenbing Huang, Feiran Huang, Senzhang Wang, and Xiao Huang. 2024. Macro graph neural networks for online billion-scale recommender systems. InProceedings of the ACM web conference 2024. 3598–3608. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025. A Survey of Real-World Recommender Systems:...

    2024

  19. [19]

    Suming J Chen, Zhen Qin, Zac Wilson, Brian Calaci, Michael Rose, Ryan Evans, Sean Abraham, Donald Metzler, Sandeep Tata, and Michael Colagrosso. 2020. Improving recommendation quality in google drive. InProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 2900–2908

    2020

  20. [21]

    Yankai Chen, Quoc-Tuan Truong, Xin Shen, Jin Li, and Irwin King. 2024. Shopping trajectory representation learning with pre-training for e-commerce customer understanding and recommendation. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 385–396

    2024

  21. [22]

    Yan Chen, Emilian Vankov, Linas Baltrunas, Preston Donovan, Akash Mehta, Benjamin Schroeder, and Matthew Herman. 2023. Contextual multi-armed bandit for email layout recommendation. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 400–402

    2023

  22. [23]

    Yudong Chen, Xin Wang, Miao Fan, Jizhou Huang, Shengwen Yang, and Wenwu Zhu. 2021. Curriculum meta-learning for next POI recommendation. InProceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 2692–2702

    2021

  23. [24]

    Zhihong Chen, Jiawei Wu, Chenliang Li, Jingxu Chen, Rong Xiao, and Binqiang Zhao. 2022. Co-training disentangled domain adaptation network for leveraging popularity bias in recommenders. InProceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 60–69

    2022

  24. [26]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [27]

    Jiaxin Deng, Shiyao Wang, Yuchen Wang, Jiansong Qi, Liqin Zhao, Guorui Zhou, and Gaofeng Meng. 2024. MMBee: Live Streaming Gift-Sending Recommendations via Multi-Modal Fusion and Behaviour Expansion. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 4896–4905

    2024

  26. [28]

    Bora Edizel, Tim Sweetser, Ashok Chandrashekar, Kamilia Ahmadi, and Puja Das. 2024. Towards understanding the gaps of offline and online evaluation metrics: Impact of series vs. movie recommendations. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 844–846

    2024

  27. [29]

    Yu-Chen Fan, Yitong Ji, Jie Zhang, and Aixin Sun. 2024. Our Model Achieves Excellent Performance on MovieLens: What Does It Mean?ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.42, 6, Article 159 (Oct. 2024), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/3675163

    doi:10.1145/3675163 2024

  28. [30]

    Junpeng Fang, Qing Cui, Gongduo Zhang, Caizhi Tang, Lihong Gu, Longfei Li, Jinjie Gu, Jun Zhou, and Fei Wu

  29. [31]

    Vivek Farias, Hao Li, Tianyi Peng, Xinyuyang Ren, Huawei Zhang, and Andrew Zheng. 2023. Correcting for interference in experiments: A case study at douyin. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 455–466

    2023

  30. [32]

    Philip J Feng, Pingjun Pan, Tingting Zhou, Hongxiang Chen, and Chuanjiang Luo. 2021. Zero shot on the cold-start problem: Model-agnostic interest learning for recommender systems. InProceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management. 474–483

    2021

  31. [33]

    Yufei Feng, Binbin Hu, Fuyu Lv, Qingwen Liu, Zhiqiang Zhang, and Wenwu Ou. 2020. Atbrg: Adaptive target-behavior relational graph network for effective recommendation. InProceedings of the 43rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 2231–2240

    2020

  32. [34]

    Hamed Firooz, Maziar Sanjabi, Adrian Englhardt, Aman Gupta, Ben Levine, Dre Olgiati, Gungor Polatkan, Iuliia Melnychuk, Karthik Ramgopal, Kirill Talanine, et al. 2025. 360brew: A decoder-only foundation model for personalized ranking and recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16450(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  33. [35]

    Weihao Gao, Xiangjun Fan, Chong Wang, Jiankai Sun, Kai Jia, Wenzi Xiao, Ruofan Ding, Xingyan Bin, Hui Yang, and Xiaobing Liu. 2021. Learning an end-to-end structure for retrieval in large-scale recommendations. InProceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management. 524–533

    2021

  34. [36]

    Xudong Gong, Qinlin Feng, Yuan Zhang, Jiangling Qin, Weijie Ding, Biao Li, Peng Jiang, and Kun Gai. 2022. Real-time short video recommendation on mobile devices. InProceedings of the 31st ACM international conference on information & knowledge management. 3103–3112

    2022

  35. [37]

    Yuqi Gong, Xichen Ding, Yehui Su, Kaiming Shen, Zhongyi Liu, and Guannan Zhang. 2023. An unified search and recommendation foundation model for cold-start scenario. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025. 24 Kuan Zou and Aixin Sun on Information and Knowledge Management. 4595–4601

    2023

  36. [38]

    Yanjie Gou, Yuanzhou Yao, Zhao Zhang, Yiqing Wu, Yi Hu, Fuzhen Zhuang, Jiangming Liu, and Yongjun Xu. 2024. Controllable multi-behavior recommendation for in-game skins with large sequential model. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 4986–4996

    2024

  37. [39]

    Andreas Grün and Xenija Neufeld. 2023. Transparently serving the public: Enhancing public service media values through exploration. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 1045–1048

    2023

  38. [40]

    Viet Ha-Thuc, Matthew Wood, Yunli Liu, and Jagadeesan Sundaresan. 2021. From producer success to retention: A new role of search and recommendation systems on marketplaces. InProceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2629–2630

    2021

  39. [41]

    Ruidong Han, Qianzhong Li, He Jiang, Rui Li, Yurou Zhao, Xiang Li, and Wei Lin. 2024. Enhancing CTR Prediction through Sequential Recommendation Pre-training: Introducing the SRP4CTR framework. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management(Boise, ID, USA)(CIKM ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [42]

    Ruidong Han, Bin Yin, Shangyu Chen, He Jiang, Fei Jiang, Xiang Li, Chi Ma, Mincong Huang, Xiaoguang Li, Chunzhen Jing, et al. 2025. MTGR: Industrial-Scale Generative Recommendation Framework in Meituan.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18654(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [43]

    Xu He, Bo An, Yanghua Li, Haikai Chen, Qingyu Guo, Xin Li, and Zhirong Wang. 2020. Contextual user browsing bandits for large-scale online mobile recommendation. InProceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 63–72

    2020

  42. [44]

    More to Read

    Franklin Horn, Aurelia Alston, and Won J You. 2024. " More to Read" at the Los Angeles Times: Solving a Cold Start Problem with LLMs to Improve Story Discovery. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 742–744

    2024

  43. [45]

    Xiao Hu, Yuan Cheng, Zhi Zheng, Yue Wang, Xinxin Chi, and Hengshu Zhu. 2023. BOSS: A bilateral occupational- suitability-aware recommender system for online recruitment. InProceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 4146–4155

    2023

  44. [46]

    Zepeng Huai, Yuji Yang, Mengdi Zhang, Zhongyi Zhang, Yichun Li, and Wei Wu. 2023. M2GNN: Metapath and multi-interest aggregated graph neural network for tag-based cross-domain recommendation. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1468–1477

    2023

  45. [47]

    Zhaoxin Huan, Gongduo Zhang, Xiaolu Zhang, Jun Zhou, Qintong Wu, Lihong Gu, Jinjie Gu, Yong He, Yue Zhu, and Linjian Mo. 2022. An industrial framework for cold-start recommendation in zero-shot scenarios. InProceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 3403–3407

    2022

  46. [49]

    Yanhua Huang, Yuqi Chen, Xiong Cao, Rui Yang, Mingliang Qi, Yinghao Zhu, Qingchang Han, Yaowei Liu, Zhaoyu Liu, Xuefeng Yao, et al. 2025. Towards Large-scale Generative Ranking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04180(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [50]

    Yanhua Huang, Weikun Wang, Lei Zhang, and Ruiwen Xu. 2021. Sliding spectrum decomposition for diversified recommendation. InProceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 3041–3049

    2021

  48. [52]

    Olivier Jeunen, Jatin Mandav, Ivan Potapov, Nakul Agarwal, Sourabh Vaid, Wenzhe Shi, and Aleksei Ustimenko

  49. [53]

    Luo Ji, Qi Qin, Bingqing Han, and Hongxia Yang. 2021. Reinforcement Learning to Optimize Lifetime Value in Cold-Start Recommendation. InProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management(Virtual Event, Queensland, Australia)(CIKM ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 782–791. doi:10.1145/3459...

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [54]

    Yitong Ji, Aixin Sun, Jie Zhang, and Chenliang Li. 2023. A Critical Study on Data Leakage in Recommender System Offline Evaluation.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.41, 3 (2023), 75:1–75:27. doi:10.1145/3569930

    doi:10.1145/3569930 2023

  51. [55]

    InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems

    Multi-objective recommendation via multivariate policy learning. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 712–721

  52. [56]

    Wensen Jiang, Yizhu Jiao, Qingqin Wang, Chuanming Liang, Lijie Guo, Yao Zhang, Zhijun Sun, Yun Xiong, and Yangyong Zhu. 2022. Triangle graph interest network for click-through rate prediction. InProceedings of the fifteenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining. 401–409

    2022

  53. [57]

    Yuezihan Jiang, Gaode Chen, Wenhan Zhang, Jingchi Wang, Yinjie Jiang, Qi Zhang, Jingjian Lin, Peng Jiang, and Kaigui Bian. 2024. Prompt Tuning for Item Cold-start Recommendation. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 411–421

    2024

  54. [58]

    Daohong Jian, Yang Bao, Jun Zhou, and Hua Wu. 2023. A Practical Online Allocation Framework at Industry-scale in Constrained Recommendation. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 3270–3274. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025. A Survey of Real-World Recomm...

    2023

  55. [59]

    Manas R Joglekar, Cong Li, Mei Chen, Taibai Xu, Xiaoming Wang, Jay K Adams, Pranav Khaitan, Jiahui Liu, and Quoc V Le. 2020. Neural input search for large scale recommendation models. InProceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 2387–2397

    2020

  56. [60]

    Akshay Kekuda, Yuyang Zhang, and Arun Udayashankar. 2024. Embedding based retrieval for long tail search queries in ecommerce. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 771–774

    2024

  57. [61]

    Yuezihan Jiang, Changyu Li, Gaode Chen, Peiyi Li, Qi Zhang, Jingjian Lin, Peng Jiang, Fei Sun, and Wentao Zhang. 2024. MMGCL: Meta Knowledge-Enhanced Multi-view Graph Contrastive Learning for Recommendations. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 538–548

    2024

  58. [62]

    Anastasiia Klimashevskaia, Mehdi Elahi, Dietmar Jannach, Lars Skjærven, Astrid Tessem, and Christoph Trattner

  59. [63]

    Venkata Harshit Koneru, Xenija Neufeld, Sebastian Loth, and Andreas Grün. 2024. Enhancing Recommendation Quality of the SASRec Model by Mitigating Popularity Bias. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 781–783

    2024

  60. [64]

    Kirill Khrylchenko, Artem Matveev, Sergei Makeev, and Vladimir Baikalov. 2025. Scaling Recommender Transformers to One Billion Parameters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.15994(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  61. [65]

    Johannes Kruse, Kasper Lindskow, Michael Riis Andersen, and Jes Frellsen. 2023. Creating the next generation of news experience on ekstrabladet. dk with recommender systems. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 1067–1070

    2023

  62. [66]

    InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems

    Evaluating the effects of calibrated popularity bias mitigation: a field study. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 1084–1089

  63. [67]

    Yu-Ting Lan, Yang Huo, Yi Shen, Xiao Yang, and Zuotao Liu. 2025. Next-User Retrieval: Enhancing Cold-Start Recommendations via Generative Next-User Modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15267(2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [68]

    Pigi Kouki, Ilias Fountalis, Nikolaos Vasiloglou, Xiquan Cui, Edo Liberty, and Khalifeh Al Jadda. 2020. From the lab to production: A case study of session-based recommendations in the home-improvement domain. InProceedings of the 14th ACM conference on recommender systems. 140–149

    2020

  65. [69]

    Ran Le, Guo-qing Jiang, Xiufeng Shu, Ruidong Han, Qianzhong Li, Yacheng Li, Xiang Li, and Wei Lin. 2023. CEC: Towards Learning Global Optimized Recommendation through Causality Enhanced Conversion Model. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1879–1883

    2023

  66. [70]

    Pau Perng-Hwa Kung, Zihao Fan, Tong Zhao, Yozen Liu, Zhixin Lai, Jiahui Shi, Yan Wu, Jun Yu, Neil Shah, and Ganesh Venkataraman. 2024. Improving embedding-based retrieval in friend recommendation with ann query expansion. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2930–2934

    2024

  67. [71]

    Fan Li, Xu Si, Shisong Tang, Dingmin Wang, Kunyan Han, Bing Han, Guorui Zhou, Yang Song, and Hechang Chen

  68. [72]

    Lang Lang, Zhenlong Zhu, Xuanye Liu, Jianxin Zhao, Jixing Xu, and Minghui Shan. 2021. Architecture and operation adaptive network for online recommendations. InProceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 3139–3149

    2021

  69. [73]

    Jiang Li, Zhen Zhang, Xiang Feng, Muyang Li, Yongqi Liu, and Lantao Hu. 2024. MODEM: Decoupling User Behavior for Shared-Account Video Recommendations on Large Screen Devices. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 907–911

    2024

  70. [74]

    Chenyi Lei, Yong Liu, Lingzi Zhang, Guoxin Wang, Haihong Tang, Houqiang Li, and Chunyan Miao. 2021. Semi: A sequential multi-modal information transfer network for e-commerce micro-video recommendations. InProceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 3161–3171

    2021

  71. [75]

    Pan Li, Maofei Que, Zhichao Jiang, Yao Hu, and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2020. PURS: personalized unexpected recom- mender system for improving user satisfaction. InProceedings of the 14th ACM conference on recommender systems. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025. 26 Kuan Zou and Aixin Sun 279–288

    2020

  72. [76]

    InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    Contextual distillation model for diversified recommendation. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 5307–5316

  73. [77]

    Houyi Li, Zhihong Chen, Chenliang Li, Rong Xiao, Hongbo Deng, Peng Zhang, Yongchao Liu, and Haihong Tang

  74. [78]

    Yang Li, Kangbo Liu, Ranjan Satapathy, Suhang Wang, and Erik Cambria. 2024. Recent developments in recommender systems: A survey.IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine19, 2 (2024), 78–95

    2024

  75. [79]

    Yujun Li, Xing Tang, Bo Chen, Yimin Huang, Ruiming Tang, and Zhenguo Li. 2023. AutoOpt: automatic hyperparameter scheduling and optimization for deep click-through rate prediction. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 183–194

    2023

  76. [80]

    Nian Li, Xin Ban, Cheng Ling, Chen Gao, Lantao Hu, Peng Jiang, Kun Gai, Yong Li, and Qingmin Liao. 2024. Modeling user fatigue for sequential recommendation. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 996–1005

    2024

  77. [81]

    Jan Malte Lichtenberg, Giuseppe Di Benedetto, and Matteo Ruffini. 2024. Ranking across different content types: The robust beauty of multinomial blending. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 823–825

    2024

  78. [82]

    Wanda Li, Wenhao Zheng, Xuanji Xiao, and Suhang Wang. 2023. Stan: stage-adaptive network for multi-task recommendation by learning user lifecycle-based representation. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 602–612

    2023

  79. [83]

    Wenhao Li, Jie Zhou, Chuan Luo, Chao Tang, Kun Zhang, and Shixiong Zhao. 2024. Scene-wise Adaptive Network for Dynamic Cold-start Scenes Optimization in CTR Prediction. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 370–379

    2024

  80. [84]

    Xiao Lin, Xiaokai Chen, Linfeng Song, Jingwei Liu, Biao Li, and Peng Jiang. 2023. Tree based progressive regression model for watch-time prediction in short-video recommendation. InProceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 4497–4506

    2023

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.