mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Training with Missed Targets in Generative Recommendation: Separating Supervision from Probability Competition

arXiv 2610.10124 ↗First posted 7 Oct 2026cs.IR cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Generative recommenders return a limited candidate set and may omit observed targets before reranking. A training strategy appends these missed targets to reranker training lists, although inference still ranks only original candidates. This operation simultaneously changes retrieved-target weight, adds supervision over appended targets, and makes the two groups compete for probability. An append/no-append comparison therefore cannot explain changes in returned-item rankings. We construct three matched losses that hold retrieved-target weight fixed while introducing appended-target supervision and group competition separately. The intermediate loss trains within both groups but normalizes them separately, preventing training-only targets from competing with inference candidates. Experiments with a released OneRec model and locally trained Amazon generators show that this competition can harm returned-item ranking. In four prespecified Amazon Video Games comparisons, removing it improved full-target normalized discounted cumulative gain (FT-NDCG) by 7.8--22.2%; 95% intervals over users and three of four intervals over training runs excluded zero. A conservative development-set rule selected appended-target training for two of three generators in one held-out category and rejected it for all three in another, avoiding a 1.7% loss. Candidate completion should therefore be evaluated for each generator rather than applied automatically.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2026.

Builds on

12 of 40 references.

References · 12

  1. 2025OpenOneRec Technical Reportcited by 16
  2. 2026Understanding Semantic IDs: From Item Representation to Item Selection in Generative Recommendationcited by 3
  3. 2026Can Generative Recommendation Reach Cold Items? A Temporal Perspective on Semantic-ID Generationcited by 2
  4. 2026UniRec: Bridging the Expressive Gap between Generative and Discriminative Recommendation via Chain-of-Attributecited by 1
  5. 2026Fine-Tuned LLM as a Complementary Predictor Improving Ads Systemcited by 1
  6. 2026UniSGR: Unified Framework for Semantic ID Generation and Rankingcited by 1
  7. 2026Reward Guided Decoding for Generative Recommendationcited by 1
  8. 2026PSG: Pair-Space Generation for Efficient Generative Rerankingcited by 1
  9. 2026Difficulty-Aware Semantic-ID Optimization for Generative Recommendationcited by 1
  10. 2026Off-Policy Evaluation for Semantic ID Recommenders: Does the Model's Own Code Hierarchy Help?cited by 1
  11. 2026History-Conditioned Joint-Prefix Alignment for Generative Recommendationcited by 1
  12. 2026Recommendation Retrievers Need Verifiers: Universal Generative Reranking for Sequential Recommendationscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.