Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

Killing Two Birds with One Stone: Unifying Retrieval and Ranking with a Single Generative Recommendation Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that retrieval and ranking in recommender systems can be unified inside one generative model, with a ranking-driven enhancer and a gradient-guided adaptive weighter, and that this design beats separately trained…

desk verdict A plausible unification of retrieval and ranking into a single generative model, but the undefined inference-time scoring path for the ranking head and the self-referential enhancer need fixing before the reported AUC can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16454 v1 pith:QUWU3624 submitted 2025-04-23 cs.IR

Luankang Zhang , Kenan Song , Yi Quan Lee , Wei Guo , Hao Wang , Yawen Li , Huifeng Guo , Yong Liu
show 2 more authors
Defu Lian Enhong Chen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords generativerecommendationretrievalrankingunifiedframeworkhardnegativesamplingadaptivelossweightingsequentialmodel-agnostic
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

Recommender systems usually split work into a retrieval stage that narrows the item pool and a ranking stage that scores the survivors, and information is lost in the handoff. This paper tries to eliminate that loss by making one autoregressive generative model do both jobs at once: for each user, the same transformer predicts the next item (retrieval) and the click probability for the item just seen (ranking), distinguished only by output position. To make the two stages help each other, the paper adds a ranking-driven enhancer that turns ranking scores into harder negative samples and relabels likely-favorite items as positive, and a gradient-guided adaptive weighter that balances the two task losses so neither stage converges at the expense of the other. On MovieLens-1M, MovieLens-20M, and Amazon-Books, the framework reports consistent gains over separately trained retrievers and rankers, with the largest improvements in ranking accuracy. Because the design only specifies a position convention and two loss adjustments, the authors argue it can wrap any autoregressive generative backbone, demonstrating it with HSTU and Llama.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the position-split sequence formulation: one autoregressive transformer is fed alternating item and feedback embeddings, and its output positions are read twice—feedback positions feed a small ranking head $f_\phi$ with binary cross-entropy, item positions feed sampled softmax retrieval against the item pool. Two mechanisms do the work of making the stages collaborate: the ranking-driven enhancer uses Eq. (5) to convert ranking scores into hard-to-detect disliked negatives and an $\alpha$ threshold to relabel potential favorite items as positive, and the gradient-guided adaptive weighter computes the ratio of successive losses for each stage and softmax-weights the two losses so retrieval's slower convergence does not starve ranking. The whole argument turns on these mechanisms operating inside one shared-parameter model, so any retrieval improvement feeds ranking and any ranking precision sharpens retrieval's training signal.

What would settle it

Take UniGRF trained on MovieLens-1M, fix a held-out user, and for a candidate item that does not appear in that user's history, feed its embedding through the same ranking-scoring path used in Eq. (3) to obtain a score; then compute AUC over the full item pool. If the scoring head cannot be applied to unseen candidates, or if the AUC on those candidates is near chance while the reported AUC only uses history items, the claim that one shared generative model ranks arbitrary candidates is falsified; a complementary ablation on Amazon-Books, removing the potential-favorite relabeling and the hard-negative miner one at a time, would show whether the enhancement loop is genuinely joint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

UniGRF's central claim is that retrieval and ranking need not be two models or two training runs: they can be two positions in one sequence-generation output. The user history is encoded as alternating item and interaction-type embeddings; a transformer emits contextualized vectors at every position, and the framework reads the item-position vectors as next-item predictions for retrieval and the feedback-position vectors as click scores for ranking. Retrieval is constrained by sampled softmax loss against the true next item and randomly sampled negatives, while ranking is a small head $f_\phi$ trained with binary cross-entropy on the feedback vectors. The ranking-driven enhancer then computes a relative score $s_{retrieval} \cdot (s_{retrieval}/s_{ranking} - 1)$ to mine hard-to-detect disliked items and flags items with ranking score above $\alpha$ as potential favorites, relabeling them positive in the next epoch, so the ranking stage shapes the retrieval training data. The gradient-guided adaptive weighter measures convergence speed by the ratio of successive losses for each stage and sets softmax weights to slow or fast tasks accordingly. The reported result is that this one-model design outperforms separate HSTU/Llama retrievers and rankers and traditional cascade frameworks on all three datasets, with ranking AUC showing the clearest gains.

Load-bearing premise

At the heart of the method is the assumption that the ranking head $f_\phi$, trained on contextualized vectors for items that already appear in the user's history, can also score arbitrary candidate items from the pool in the same way; the paper never specifies how candidates are fed into the model at test time when computing AUC, so if that transfer fails the reported ranking gains do not follow from the stated design.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One training run produces a retriever and a ranker from the same parameters, so serving both stages costs roughly half the time and space of two separately trained generative models.
  • Ranking accuracy improves more than retrieval accuracy, which matters because the ranking stage directly determines the final list the user sees.
  • Sparse datasets benefit most: Amazon-Books shows the largest gains, suggesting cross-stage information transfer is most valuable when per-user evidence is thin.
  • The framework inherits scaling-law behavior: increasing transformer layers lowers both losses and improves both retrieval and ranking metrics.
  • Cascade frameworks that glue separately trained retrieval and ranking models generally underperform the unified model, and on generative backbones they can even degrade performance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the ranking head can be applied to arbitrary candidate embeddings at test time, the same scoring function could in principle rank the whole item pool, turning the retriever's candidate generation into an optional shortcut rather than a necessity; the paper does not explore this.
  • The relative-score mining rule in Eq. (5) is a generic recipe: any pair of tasks where a precise scorer and a broad scorer share a model could use the same ratio to mine hard examples, so the mechanism may transfer beyond retrieval and ranking to prerank/rerank or other cascade settings.
  • Because the adaptive weighter uses only successive loss ratios, it is a crude proxy for optimization speed; a direct gradient-norm monitor would be a natural robustness check and could behave differently on noisy or small batches.
  • The sparse-dataset pattern suggests a testable prediction: the potential-favorite relabeling component (the $\alpha$ threshold) should matter more on Amazon-Books than on MovieLens, since noisy negatives are more likely in sparse regimes; ablating the two enhancer components separately would reveal which module drives the reported gain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes UniGRF, a framework that unifies retrieval and ranking in a single autoregressive generative recommendation model. It treats next-item prediction (retrieval) and click prediction (ranking) as two output positions of one Transformer, trains with sampled softmax and binary cross-entropy losses, and adds a ranking-driven enhancer that generates hard negatives and potential-favorite pseudo-positives, plus a gradient-guided adaptive weighter. Experiments on MovieLens-1M, MovieLens-20M, and Amazon-Books instantiate the framework with HSTU and Llama and report consistent gains over baselines in retrieval metrics and AUC.

Significance. If the proposed inference protocol is well-defined, the paper offers a conceptually appealing unification of retrieval and ranking in generative recommenders, with a lightweight enhancer and an adaptive weighting scheme. Strengths include the model-agnostic design, the two-architecture instantiation, the ablation study, and the scaling-law analysis. However, the central ranking claim depends on an underspecified candidate-scoring procedure, and the enhancer introduces a self-training loop whose safeguards are not analyzed. The significance is therefore conditional on resolving these points.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1.2 and Sec. 4.2, Eqs. (2)-(3), Table 3] The paper never specifies how the ranking head f_phi scores arbitrary candidate items at inference. Eq. (2) trains f_phi on contextualized latents e'_b_k produced by the Transformer for items in the user's history, but Eq. (3) applies f_phi to eS, described as 'the embedding of the negative sample set S,' and no test-time procedure is given for obtaining a contextualized representation for a candidate not in the history. As written, the reported AUC in Table 3 and the enhancer's hard-negative scores rest on an undefined or distributionally mismatched scoring path; please specify the exact inputs (raw embeddings vs. Transformer outputs), the additional forward passes if any, and reconcile the procedure with the claim of no additional computational cost.
  2. [Sec. 4.2.2] The potential favorite generator relabels items as positive solely because the model's own ranking score exceeds the threshold alpha; because the same model (through shared parameters) then trains on these labels, the pseudo-labels are not independent of the model and can reinforce systematic errors. The paper provides no analysis of label precision, no comparison with alternatives such as using future interactions or a held-out oracle, and no sensitivity study for alpha; please add such analysis or explicitly justify why this self-training loop cannot lead to confirmation bias.
  3. [Sec. 4.2.1, Eq. (5)] The relative score defined in Eq. (5) can be negative when the ranking score exceeds the retrieval score, and the text's characterization of selecting 'high retrieval, low ranking' items is not guaranteed by taking the top-m of this quantity. Please clarify whether negative-scoring items can enter the hard-negative set, whether the formula's behavior for sigmoid-valued scores matches the intended meaning, and how the score is made stable when the ranking score is near zero.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (1)] The indexing in Eq. (1) and the retrieval loss appears inconsistent: the Transformer output is written as e_i'_{k+1} for the predicted next item, while L_retrieval is written in terms of e_i'_k; please align the notation.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 4.2] The abstract claims 'without additional computational costs,' while Sec. 4.2 states the overhead is 'minimal'; please reconcile these statements and state the exact computation added by the enhancer.
  3. [Tables 2 and 3] Table captions and column headers mix 'MovieLens-1M' and 'ML-1M' and state 'p-value < 0.05' without describing the test, the alternative hypothesis, or the number of runs; please clarify.
  4. [Sec. 5.1.4] The parameter settings state that ranking-only models train for 20 epochs with early stopping while other models train for 100 epochs, but it is unclear whether early stopping is applied to the unified models and whether the same candidate protocol is used for the ranking AUC evaluation of all baselines.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The module is called 'Gradient-Guided Adaptive Weighter' in the heading and 'weightier' in one sentence in Sec. 4.3; please use a single consistent name.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the enhancer is a self-training loop with external held-out evaluation, not a definitional tautology.

full rationale

UniGRF's central derivation is self-contained and not circular. The retrieval loss (Sampled Softmax on the predicted next-item embedding) and ranking loss (BCE on f_phi(e_b'_k)) are standard objectives, and no parameter is fitted to the reported NDCG/HR/MRR/AUC metrics. The ranking-driven enhancer does create a feedback loop—P is defined by f_phi's score exceeding alpha and then reused as positive labels—but this is pseudo-labeling/self-training, not a definitional equivalence: the reported gains are evaluated on held-out last interactions, the original positive item and random negatives continue to provide external supervision, and the selection function (ranking head) is not the same as the retrieval objective being trained. The gradient-guided adaptive weighter is a loss-ratio scheduler, not a fitted predictor of the evaluation metrics. Self-citations in the related work (e.g., [11], [49]) are contextual and not load-bearing. The main manuscript-level gap is that Eq. (3) applies f_phi to the 'embedding of the negative sample set S' without specifying whether eS is a raw item embedding or a contextualized latent, and no inference-time candidate-scoring protocol is given for the Table 3 AUC; that is an omitted reproducibility and correctness detail, but not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger contains six assumptions and five tunable quantities. The most load-bearing assumption is that the ranking head transfers to arbitrary candidate embeddings, which the paper never verifies. The enhancer introduces pseudo-labels generated by the model itself, so they count as a circular training signal rather than independent evidence. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • m (number of hard-to-detect disliked items) = 5 for MovieLens-1M; increasing trend for MovieLens-20M
    Tuned in Sec 5.4; performance peaks at m=5 on ML-1M and rises with m on ML-20M.
  • alpha (potential favorite threshold) = not reported
    Threshold in Sec 4.2.2 for relabeling negative samples as positive; no value or selection procedure is given.
  • T (temperature in adaptive weighter) = not reported
    Controls weight difference in Eqs. (8)-(9); smaller values amplify inter-stage weight differences.
  • lambda_a, lambda_b (loss scaling weights) = not reported
    Hyperparameters in Eqs. (8)-(10) that scale retrieval and ranking losses to the same magnitude.
  • number of random negative samples = 128 for MovieLens-1M; 256 for MovieLens-20M and Amazon-Books
    Fixed per dataset in Sec 5.1.4; changes retrieval loss difficulty and the enhancer selection pool.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Sampled softmax with random negatives approximates full-softmax retrieval over the item pool.
    Used in the retrieval loss in Sec 4.1.1; a standard approximation with known bias for large item vocabularies, not quantified here.
  • domain assumption Chronological item and click or no-click sequences contain enough signal to predict the next item and click behavior.
    Core sequential recommendation assumption stated in Sec 3.
  • ad hoc to paper The ranking head trained on contextualized latents e_b'_k can be applied to embeddings of arbitrary candidate items to produce valid click scores.
    Needed for Eq. (3) in the enhancer and for any test-time candidate ranking; the paper does not demonstrate this transfer.
  • ad hoc to paper Items with ranking score above alpha are likely favorites and can safely be relabeled as positive training examples.
    Sec 4.2.2 pseudo-labeling rule; no external validation that relabeled items are truly liked.
  • domain assumption The loss ratios r_a and r_b are a valid proxy for convergence speed, and exponentiating them improves joint optimization.
    Sec 4.3 heuristic; no theoretical or empirical proof beyond the reported curves.
  • domain assumption A single shared-parameter generative model can optimize retrieval and ranking jointly without harmful interference.
    Central to the unified framework; supported only by the three benchmark experiments, not by analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Killing Two Birds with One Stone: Unifying Retrieval and Ranking with a Single Generative Recommendation Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QUWU3624

@misc{pith2026250416454,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Killing Two Birds with One Stone: Unifying Retrieval and Ranking with a Single Generative Recommendation Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QUWU3624}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16454}
}
read the original abstract

In recommendation systems, the traditional multi-stage paradigm, which includes retrieval and ranking, often suffers from information loss between stages and diminishes performance. Recent advances in generative models, inspired by natural language processing, suggest the potential for unifying these stages to mitigate such loss. This paper presents the Unified Generative Recommendation Framework (UniGRF), a novel approach that integrates retrieval and ranking into a single generative model. By treating both stages as sequence generation tasks, UniGRF enables sufficient information sharing without additional computational costs, while remaining model-agnostic. To enhance inter-stage collaboration, UniGRF introduces a ranking-driven enhancer module that leverages the precision of the ranking stage to refine retrieval processes, creating an enhancement loop. Besides, a gradient-guided adaptive weighter is incorporated to dynamically balance the optimization of retrieval and ranking, ensuring synchronized performance improvements. Extensive experiments demonstrate that UniGRF significantly outperforms existing models on benchmark datasets, confirming its effectiveness in facilitating information transfer. Ablation studies and further experiments reveal that UniGRF not only promotes efficient collaboration between stages but also achieves synchronized optimization. UniGRF provides an effective, scalable, and compatible framework for generative recommendation systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16454 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of UniGRF. This framework unifies retrieval and ranking into a generative recommendation model, with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Effect of parameter expansion on model loss and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of synchronized stage optimization on unified [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. FuXi-\beta: Towards a Lightweight and Fast Large-Scale Generative Recommendation Model

    cs.IR 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FuXi-β shows that removing query-key attention and using a functional relative time bias makes generative recommendation Transformers faster and, on industrial datasets, more accurate.

  2. Request-Only Optimization for Recommendation Systems

    cs.IR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A request-level training data format eliminates duplicate user features, increasing storage efficiency and training throughput while enabling larger recommendation architectures.

  3. DiscRec: Disentangled Semantic-Collaborative Modeling for Generative Recommendation

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Item-level position embeddings plus a gated dual-branch module that separates semantic and collaborative signals improve generative recommender accuracy on four Amazon datasets.

  4. OneSug: The Unified End-to-End Generative Framework for E-commerce Query Suggestion

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A unified encoder-decoder model with prefix representation enhancement and reward-weighted DPO outperforms Kuaishou's online multi-stage query suggestion system in offline and live A/B evaluations.

  5. UniGD: A Unified Generative-Discriminative Framework for Industrial Retrieval

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    UniGD couples generative retrieval with explicit relevance scoring in one model, reporting +5.78% ad revenue, 33.1% lower latency at Kuaishou, and improved Recall@10 on NQ320K and MS300K.

  6. DLF: Enhancing Explicit-Implicit Interaction via Dynamic Low-Order-Aware Fusion for CTR Prediction

    cs.IR 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    DLF is a CTR prediction architecture that combines low-rank, high-rank, and implicit interaction blocks with layer-wise attention fusion, reporting state-of-the-art results on Criteo, Avazu, Movielens, and Frappe.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [41]

    Jinbo Song, Ruoran Huang, Xinyang Wang, Wei Huang, Qian Yu, Mingming Chen, Yafei Yao, Chaosheng Fan, Changping Peng, Zhangang Lin, et al. 2022. Re- thinking Large-scale Pre-ranking System: Entire-chain Cross-domain Models. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 4495–4499

    work page 2022

  2. [73]

    Luankang Zhang, Hao Wang, Suojuan Zhang, Mingjia Yin, Yongqiang Han, Jiaqing Zhang, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen. 2024. A Unified Framework for Adaptive Representation Enhancement and Inversed Learning in Cross-Domain Recommendation. In International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications. Springer, 115–130

    2024

  3. [1]

    Linas Baltrunas, Bernd Ludwig, and Francesco Ricci. 2011. Matrix factorization techniques for context aware recommendation. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems . 301–304

    work page 2011

  4. [2]

    T. B. Brown. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  5. [3]

    J. Chen, L. Chi, B. Peng, et al. 2024. HLLM: Enhancing Sequential Recommenda- tions via Hierarchical Large Language Models for Item and User Modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.12740 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  6. [4]

    Tong Chen, Hongzhi Yin, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, Wen-Chih Peng, Xue Li, and Xiaofang Zhou. 2020. Sequence-aware factorization machines for temporal pre- dictive analytics. In 2020 IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 1405–1416

    work page 2020

  7. [5]

    Kyunghyun Cho. 2014. On the Properties of Neural Machine Translation: Encoder- decoder Approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1259 (2014)

    arXiv 2014

  8. [6]

    Kyunghyun Cho, Bart Van Merriënboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Learning phrase representations using RNN encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.1078 (2014)

    arXiv 2014

Show all 77 references
  1. [7]

    Luciano Floridi and Massimo Chiriatti. 2020. GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines 30 (2020), 681–694

    2020

  2. [8]

    Luke Gallagher, Ruey-Cheng Chen, Roi Blanco, and J Shane Culpepper. 2019. Joint optimization of cascade ranking models. In Proceedings of the twelfth ACM international conference on web search and data mining . 15–23

    2019

  3. [9]

    Binzong Geng, Zhaoxin Huan, Xiaolu Zhang, Yong He, Liang Zhang, Fajie Yuan, Jun Zhou, and Linjian Mo. 2024. Breaking the Length Barrier: LLM-Enhanced CTR Prediction in Long Textual User Behaviors. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Dev...

    2024

  4. [10]

    Huifeng Guo, Ruiming TANG, Yunming Ye, Zhenguo Li, and Xiuqiang He. 2017. DeepFM: A Factorization-Machine based Neural Network for CTR Prediction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2017). International Joint Con...

    2017 doi

  5. [11]

    Wei Guo, Hao Wang, Luankang Zhang, Jin Yao Chin, Zhongzhou Liu, Kai Cheng, Qiushi Pan, Yi Quan Lee, Wanqi Xue, Tingjia Shen, et al . 2024. Scal- ing New Frontiers: Insights into Large Recommendation Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00714 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Yongqiang Han, Hao Wang, Kefan Wang, Likang Wu, Zhi Li, Wei Guo, Yong Liu, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Efficient noise-decoupling for multi-behavior sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 . 3297–3306

    2024

  7. [13]

    Yongqiang Han, Likang Wu, Hao Wang, Guifeng Wang, Mengdi Zhang, Zhi Li, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen. 2023. Guesr: A global unsupervised data- enhancement with bucket-cluster sampling for sequential recommendation. In International conference on database systems for advanced app...

    2023

  8. [14]

    F Maxwell Harper and Joseph A Konstan. 2015. The movielens datasets: History and context. Acm transactions on interactive intelligent systems (tiis) 5, 4 (2015), 1–19

    2015

  9. [15]

    Ruining He, Wang-Cheng Kang, and Julian McAuley. 2017. Translation-based recommendation. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM conference on recommender systems. 161–169

    2017

  10. [16]

    Xiangnan He, Lizi Liao, Hanwang Zhang, Liqiang Nie, Xia Hu, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2017. Neural collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web . 173–182

    2017

  11. [17]

    Balázs Hidasi, Massimo Quadrana, Alexandros Karatzoglou, and Domonkos Tikk. 2016. Parallel recurrent neural network architectures for feature-rich session-based recommendations. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on recommender systems. 241–248

    2016

  12. [18]

    Junjie Huang, Jizheng Chen, Jianghao Lin, Jiarui Qin, Ziming Feng, Weinan Zhang, and Yong Yu. 2024. A Comprehensive Survey on Retrieval Methods in Recommender Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21022 (2024)

    2024

  13. [19]

    P. S. Huang, X. He, J. Gao, et al. 2013. Learning deep structured semantic models for web search using clickthrough data. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Inter- national Conference on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . ACM, 481–490

    2013

  14. [20]

    Xu Huang, Defu Lian, Jin Chen, Liu Zheng, Xing Xie, and Enhong Chen. 2023. Cooperative Retriever and Ranker in Deep Recommenders. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 (Austin, TX, USA) (WWW ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1150–1161. doi:1...

    2023 doi

  15. [21]

    Jannach and M

    D. Jannach and M. Ludewig. 2017. When Recurrent Neural Networks Meet the Neighborhood for Session-Based Recommendation. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 306–310

    2017

  16. [22]

    Sébastien Jean, Kyunghyun Cho, Roland Memisevic, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. On using very large target vocabulary for neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.2007 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2018. Self-attentive sequential recom- mendation. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 197–206

    2018

  18. [24]

    Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2019. Candidate generation with binary codes for large-scale top-n recommendation. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management . 1523–1532

    2019

  19. [25]

    Alexandros Karatzoglou, Linas Baltrunas, and Yue Shi. 2013. Learning to rank for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Recommender Killing Two Birds with One Stone: Unifying Retrieval and Ranking with a Single Generative Recommendation ModelConferenc...

    2013

  20. [26]

    Walid Krichene and Steffen Rendle. 2020. On sampled metrics for item recom- mendation. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 1748–1757

    2020

  21. [27]

    J. Li, P. Ren, Z. Chen, et al. 2017. Neural Attentive Session-Based Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 1419–1428

    2017

  22. [28]

    Weiwen Liu, Wei Guo, Yong Liu, Ruiming Tang, and Hao Wang. 2023. User Behavior Modeling with Deep Learning for Recommendation: Recent Advances. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 1286–1287

    2023

  23. [29]

    Zihan Liu, Yupeng Hou, and Julian McAuley. 2024. Multi-Behavior Generative Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16871 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [30]

    X. Ma, P. Wang, H. Zhao, et al . 2021. Towards a Better Tradeoff between Ef- fectiveness and Efficiency in Pre-Ranking: A Learnable Feature Selection Based Approach. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrie...

    2021

  25. [31]

    Julian McAuley and Jure Leskovec. 2013. Hidden factors and hidden topics: understanding rating dimensions with review text. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems . 165–172

    2013

  26. [32]

    Larry R Medsker, Lakhmi Jain, et al. 2001. Recurrent neural networks. Design and Applications 5, 64-67 (2001), 2

    2001

  27. [33]

    Qi Pi, Guorui Zhou, Yujing Zhang, Zhe Wang, Lejian Ren, Ying Fan, Xiaoqiang Zhu, and Kun Gai. 2020. Search-based User Interest Modeling with Lifelong Sequential Behavior Data for Click-Through Rate Prediction. InProceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Informati...

    2020

  28. [34]

    J. Qin, J. Zhu, B. Chen, et al. 2022. RankFlow: Joint Optimization of Multi-Stage Cascade Ranking Systems as Flows. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 814–824

    2022

  29. [35]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, et al . 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog 1, 8 (2019), 9

    2019

  30. [36]

    Xubin Ren, Wei Wei, Lianghao Xia, Lixin Su, Suqi Cheng, Junfeng Wang, Dawei Yin, and Chao Huang. 2024. Representation learning with large language models for recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 . 3464– 3475

    2024

  31. [37]

    Rendle, C

    S. Rendle, C. Freudenthaler, Z. Gantner, et al. 2012. BPR: Bayesian Personalized Ranking from Implicit Feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.2618 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, and Lars Schmidt-Thieme. 2010. Factor- izing personalized markov chains for next-basket recommendation. InProceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web . 811–820

    2010

  33. [39]

    Tingjia Shen, Hao Wang, Chuhan Wu, Jin Yao Chin, Wei Guo, Yong Liu, Huifeng Guo, Defu Lian, Ruiming Tang, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Optimizing Sequential Recommendation Models with Scaling Laws and Approximate Entropy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00430 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Weiping Song, Chence Shi, Zhiping Xiao, Zhijian Duan, Yewen Xu, Ming Zhang, and Jian Tang. 2019. AutoInt: Automatic Feature Interaction Learning via Self-Attentive Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Interna- tional Conference on Information and Knowledge Managemen...

    2019

  35. [43]

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

  36. [44]

    Junxiong Tong, Mingjia Yin, Hao Wang, Qiushi Pan, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen

  37. [45]

    Touvron, T

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A Vaswani. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    F. Wang, H. Gu, D. Li, et al. 2023. Towards Deeper, Lighter and Interpretable Cross Network for CTR Prediction. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 2523–2533

    2023

  40. [48]

    Fangye Wang, Hansu Gu, Dongsheng Li, Tun Lu, Peng Zhang, and Ning Gu. 2023. Towards Deeper, Lighter and Interpretable Cross Network for CTR Prediction. arXiv:2311.04635 [cs.IR]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Hao Wang, Wei Guo, Luankang Zhang, Jin Yao Chin, Yufei Ye, Huifeng Guo, Yong Liu, Defu Lian, Ruiming Tang, and Enhong Chen. 2025. Generative Large Recommendation Models: Emerging Trends in LLMs for Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13783 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hao Wang, Yongqiang Han, Kefan Wang, Kai Cheng, Zhen Wang, Wei Guo, Yong Liu, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Denoising Pre-Training and Customized Prompt Learning for Efficient Multi-Behavior Sequential Recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11372 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hao Wang, Defu Lian, Hanghang Tong, Qi Liu, Zhenya Huang, and Enhong Chen. 2021. Decoupled representation learning for attributed networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35, 3 (2021), 2430–2444

    2021

  44. [52]

    Hao Wang, Defu Lian, Hanghang Tong, Qi Liu, Zhenya Huang, and Enhong Chen. 2021. Hypersorec: Exploiting hyperbolic user and item representations with multiple aspects for social-aware recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 40, 2 (2021), 1–28

    2021

  45. [53]

    Hao Wang, Tong Xu, Qi Liu, Defu Lian, Enhong Chen, Dongfang Du, Han Wu, and Wen Su. 2019. MCNE: An end-to-end framework for learning multiple conditional network representations of social network. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge disc...

    2019

  46. [54]

    Hao Wang, Mingjia Yin, Luankang Zhang, Sirui Zhao, and Enhong Chen. 2025. MF-GSLAE: A Multi-Factor User Representation Pre-training Framework for Dual-Target Cross-Domain Recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 43, 2 (2025), 1–28

    2025

  47. [55]

    Kefan Wang, Hao Wang, Kenan Song, Wei Guo, Kai Cheng, Zhi Li, Yong Liu, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen. 2025. A Universal Framework for Compressing Embeddings in CTR Prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.15355 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    R. Wang, R. Shivanna, D. Cheng, et al. 2021. DCN V2: Improved Deep & Cross Network and Practical Lessons for Web-Scale Learning to Rank Systems. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 . 1785–1797

    2021

  49. [57]

    Yunli Wang, Zhiqiang Wang, Jian Yang, Shiyang Wen, Dongying Kong, Han Li, and Kun Gai. 2024. Adaptive Neural Ranking Framework: Toward Maximized Business Goal for Cascade Ranking Systems. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024. 3798–3809

    2024

  50. [58]

    Z. Wang, L. Zhao, B. Jiang, et al. 2020. Cold: Towards the Next Generation of Pre-ranking System. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.16122 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Wei Wei, Xubin Ren, Jiabin Tang, Qinyong Wang, Lixin Su, Suqi Cheng, Junfeng Wang, Dawei Yin, and Chao Huang. 2024. LLMRec: Large Language Models with Graph Augmentation for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining(M...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Likang Wu, Zhi Zheng, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hao Wang, Hongchao Gu, Tingjia Shen, Chuan Qin, Chen Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Qi Liu, et al . 2024. A survey on large language models for recommendation. World Wide Web 27, 5 (2024), 60

    2024

  53. [61]

    Wenjia Xie, Hao Wang, Luankang Zhang, Rui Zhou, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen

  54. [62]

    Xiang Xu, Hao Wang, Wei Guo, Luankang Zhang, Wanshan Yang, Runlong Yu, Yong Liu, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Multi-granularity Interest Retrieval and Refinement Network for Long-Term User Behavior Modeling in CTR Prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15005 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Yufei Ye, Wei Guo, Jin Yao Chin, Hao Wang, Hong Zhu, Xi Lin, Yuyang Ye, Yong Liu, Ruiming Tang, Defu Lian, et al. 2025. FuXi-𝛼: Scaling Recommendation Model with Feature Interaction Enhanced Transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.03036 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), 22720–22744

    Breaking determinism: Fuzzy modeling of sequential recommendation using discrete state space diffusion model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), 22720–22744

    2024

  57. [65]

    Mingjia Yin, Hao Wang, Wei Guo, Yong Liu, Suojuan Zhang, Sirui Zhao, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Dataset regeneration for sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 3954–3965

    2024

  58. [66]

    Mingjia Yin, Hao Wang, Xiang Xu, Likang Wu, Sirui Zhao, Wei Guo, Yong Liu, Ruiming Tang, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen. 2023. Apgl4sr: A generic framework with adaptive and personalized global collaborative information in sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM ...

    2023

  59. [67]

    Mingjia Yin, Hao Wang, Wei Guo, Yong Liu, Zhi Li, Sirui Zhao, Zhen Wang, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Learning partially aligned item representation for cross-domain sequential recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12473 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Gaowei Zhang, Yupeng Hou, Hongyu Lu, Yu Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji- Rong Wen. 2024. Scaling law of large sequential recommendation models. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 444–453. Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Luan...

    2024

  61. [69]

    Jiaqing Zhang, Mingjia Yin, Hao Wang, Yawen Li, Yuyang Ye, Xingyu Lou, Junping Du, and Enhong Chen. 2025. TD3: Tucker Decomposition Based Dataset Distilla- tion Method for Sequential Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02854 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. Zhai, L. Liao, X. Liu, et al . 2024. Actions speak louder than words: Trillion- parameter sequential transducers for generative recommendations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17152 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Zhang, Y

    Z. Zhang, Y. Huang, D. Ou, et al . 2023. Rethinking the Role of Pre-ranking in Large-scale E-Commerce Searching System. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13647 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  64. [74]

    Guorui Zhou, Na Mou, Ying Fan, Qi Pi, Weijie Bian, Chang Zhou, Xiaoqiang Zhu, and Kun Gai. 2018. Deep Interest Evolution Network for Click-Through Rate Prediction. arXiv:1809.03672 [stat.ML]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [75]

    G. Zhou, X. Zhu, C. Song, et al. 2018. Deep Interest Network for Click-Through Rate Prediction. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining . 1059–1068

    2018

  66. [76]

    Kai Zheng, Haijun Zhao, Rui Huang, Beichuan Zhang, Na Mou, Yanan Niu, Yang Song, Hongning Wang, and Kun Gai. 2024. Full Stage Learning to Rank: A Unified Framework for Multi-Stage Systems. InProceedings of the ACM on Web Conference

    2024

  67. [79]

    Kun Zhou, Hui Wang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Yutao Zhu, Sirui Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Zhongyuan Wang, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2020. S3-rec: Self-supervised learning for se- quential recommendation with mutual information maximization. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on in...

    2020

  68. [2019]

    In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management

    BERT4Rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder rep- resentations from transformer. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . ACM, 1441–1450

  69. [2024]

    In International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering

    MDAP: A Multi-view Disentangled and Adaptive Preference Learning Framework for Cross-Domain Recommendation. In International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering. Springer, 164–178

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.