REVIEW 2 cited by
Cross-Batch Negative Sampling for Training Two-Tower Recommenders
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Cross-Batch Negative Sampling for Training Two-Tower Recommenders
read the original abstract
The two-tower architecture has been widely applied for learning item and user representations, which is important for large-scale recommender systems. Many two-tower models are trained using various in-batch negative sampling strategies, where the effects of such strategies inherently rely on the size of mini-batches. However, training two-tower models with a large batch size is inefficient, as it demands a large volume of memory for item and user contents and consumes a lot of time for feature encoding. Interestingly, we find that neural encoders can output relatively stable features for the same input after warming up in the training process. Based on such facts, we propose a simple yet effective sampling strategy called Cross-Batch Negative Sampling (CBNS), which takes advantage of the encoded item embeddings from recent mini-batches to boost the model training. Both theoretical analysis and empirical evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness and the efficiency of CBNS.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
The Case Against Generation for Retrieval: Discriminative Language Models as Effective Retrievers
LLM-native two-tower retrieval with EOS pooling, cross-dataset transfer, distillation from a cross-encoder, and latent user reasoning reaches SoTA-comparable recall on Amazon benchmarks.
-
The Case Against Generation for Retrieval: Discriminative Language Models as Effective Retrievers
A shared-encoder two-tower retriever built from a 0.6B LLM matches or beats an 8B generative recommender on Recall@10 across three Amazon datasets.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.