Aligning generative recommender systems to user preferences via post-training is critical for closing the gap between next-item prediction and actual recommendation quality. Existing post-training methods are ill-suited for production-scale systems: RLHF methods reward hack due to noisy user feedback and unreliable reward models, offline RL alternatives require propensity scores that are unavailable, and online interaction is infeasible. We identify exponential reward-weighted SFT with weights w=exp(r/λ) as uniquely suited to this setting, and provide the theoretical and empirical foundations that explain why. By optimizing directly on observed rewards without querying a learned reward model, the method is immune to reward hacking, requires no propensity scores, and is fully offline. We prove the first policy improvement guarantees for this setting under noisy rewards, showing that the gap scales only logarithmically with catalog size and remains informative even for large item catalogs. Crucially, we show that temperature λ explicitly and quantifiably controls the robustness-improvement tradeoff, providing practitioners with a single interpretable regularization hyperparameter with theoretical grounding. Experiments on three open-source and one proprietary dataset against four baselines confirm that exponential reward weighting is simple, scalable, and consistently outperforms RLHF-based alternatives.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of policy learning methods along two axes: best achievable policy performance and dependency on a good reward model.
Dataset
Users
Items
Avg. Interactions/User
Test Cases ( r≥4.5 )
ML-1M
6,040
3,706
165.60
1,530
ML-20M
138,493
26,744
144.41
40,667
Amazon Books
811,227
695,762
14.47
424,271
Netflix
O(Millions)
O(Thousands)
O(Tens)
O(Thousands)
Table 1: Dataset Statistics
Figure 2: Figure showing the dramatic collapse of PPO and DPO due to reward-hacking.
Figure 3: NDCG@10 for different values of λ for all three datasets.
Dataset
Metric
User Mean
Item Mean
Global Mean
Trained RM
ML-1M
MSE
1.0784
0.9179
1.2394
1.2166
MAE
0.8232
0.7619
0.9268
0.8680
ML-20M
MSE
0.9550
0.8898
1.0939
0.8963
MAE
0.7588
0.7320
0.8423
0.7307
Amazon Books
MSE
1.1578
0.7290
1.1868
1.1067
MAE
0.7411
0.5651
0.8636
0.8140
Table 2: Reward model prediction performance compared to naive baselines. The trained reward model fails to outperform the simple Item Mean baseline on most metrics. Best results per row are bolded .
Method
NDCG@10
NDCG@50
HR@10
HR@50
MRR
Avg Reward
BC
0.1304
0.1866
0.2405
0.4967
0.1116
3.8672
DPO
0.0091 (-93.0%)
0.0231 (-87.6%)
0.0163 (-93.2%)
0.0824 (-83.4%)
0.0122 (-89.1%)
3.3737 (-12.8%)
PPO
0.0303 (-76.8%)
0.0617 (-66.9%)
0.0673 (-72.0%)
0.2124 (-57.2%)
0.0285 (-74.5%)
4.4775 (+15.8%)
RSFT
0.1437 (+10.2%)
0.2003 (+7.3%)
0.2608 (+8.4%)
0.5163 (+3.9%)
0.1230 (+10.2%)
3.6558 (-5.5%)
Exp-RSFT
0.1465 (+12.3%)
0.2029 (+8.7%)
0.2712 (+12.8%)
0.5261 (+5.9%)
0.1235 (+10.7%)
3.6933 (-4.5%)
Table 3: Recommendation performance on ML-1M (rating ≥4.5 ). Best results per metric are bolded . Percentages indicate relative change from BC baseline.
Method
NDCG@10
NDCG@50
HR@10
HR@50
MRR
Avg Reward
BC
0.1753
0.2313
0.3035
0.5569
0.1510
3.7388
DPO
0.0196 (-88.8%)
0.0342 (-85.2%)
0.0372 (-87.7%)
0.1052 (-81.1%)
0.0195 (-87.1%)
4.4008 (+17.7%)
PPO
0.1164 (-33.6%)
0.1688 (-27.0%)
0.2141 (-29.5%)
0.4536 (-18.6%)
0.1008 (-33.2%)
3.7547 (+0.4%)
RSFT
0.1847 (+5.4%)
0.2403 (+3.9%)
0.3161 (+4.2%)
0.5677 (+1.9%)
0.1593 (+5.5%)
3.7904 (+1.4%)
Exp-RSFT
0.1912 (+9.1%)
0.2462 (+6.4%)
0.3238 (+6.7%)
0.5726 (+2.8%)
0.1651 (+9.3%)
3.8611 (+3.3%)
Table 4: Recommendation performance on ML-20M (rating ≥4.5 ). Best results per metric are bolded . Percentages indicate relative change from BC baseline.
Method
NDCG@10
NDCG@50
HR@10
HR@50
MRR
Avg Reward
BC
0.0328
0.0478
0.0589
0.1279
0.0296
4.2824
DPO
0.0008 (-97.6%)
0.0020 (-95.8%)
0.0019 (-96.8%)
0.0075 (-94.1%)
0.0013 (-95.6%)
4.8615 (+13.5%)
PPO
0.0094 (-71.3%)
0.0156 (-67.4%)
0.0184 (-68.8%)
0.0469 (-63.3%)
0.0088 (-70.3%)
4.4549 (+4.0%)
RSFT
0.0349 (+6.4%)
0.0514 (+7.5%)
0.0630 (+7.0%)
0.1388 (+8.5%)
0.0314 (+6.1%)
4.3350 (+1.2%)
Exp-RSFT
0.0356 (+8.5%)
0.0520 (+8.8%)
0.0641 (+8.8%)
0.1397 (+9.2%)
0.0319 (+7.8%)
4.3374 (+1.3%)
Table 5: Recommendation performance on Amazon Books (rating ≥4.5 ). Best results per metric are bolded . Percentages indicate relative change from BC baseline.
Algorithm
NDCG@10
NDCG@50
HR@10
HR@50
MRR
Reward
RSFT
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Exp-RSFT
106.20%
69.71%
98.07%
49.58%
86.31%
17.27%
DPO
-99.30%
-96.77%
-99.14%
-95.52%
-95.34%
19.21%
PPO
-4.88%
-24.01%
-14.66%
-35.71%
-8.60%
13.39%
Table 6: Recommendation performance on Netflix data (high reward trajectories). Best results per metric are bolded . Percentages indicate relative change from R-SFT baseline.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Distribution of ratings in all three test datasets.
A recommendation request on Reddit draws several replies, each naming different titles. When an LLM recommender is trained on such threads with reinforcement learning (RL), which replies should a generated list be rewarded against? The state-of-the-art recipe, Rank-GRPO, picks one reply per training example, so the advantage mostly records which reply was drawn (85% of its variance) rather than how good the list is. We argue that RL should train on the request, not on each answer, and propose ReMaRk: it scores every list once against the union of all replies' titles and samples each request equally. This makes RL cheaper. On seven backbones and three datasets, ReMaRk reaches the validation recall of 2,000 per-reply RL steps in 25 to 53% of the steps and leads at that budget; trained until neither improves, it is never significantly behind Rank-GRPO and in four of seven pairs reaches Rank-GRPO's best with fewer GPU-hours. The same reward helps on ProtoQA, where about 100 people answer each question, which points to a simple rule for RL with several valid human answers: reward them jointly.
Modern recommender systems must adapt to dynamic, need-specific objectives for diverse recommendation scenarios, yet most traditional recommenders are optimized for a single static target and struggle to reconfigure behavior on demand. Recent advances in reinforcement-learning-based post-training have unlocked strong instruction-following and reasoning capabilities in LLMs, suggesting a principled route for aligning them to complex recommendation goals. Motivated by this, we study closed-set autoregressive ranking, where an LLM generates a permutation over a fixed candidate set conditioned on user context and an explicit need instruction. However, applying RL to this setting faces two key obstacles: (i) sequence-level rewards yield coarse credit assignment that fails to provide fine-grained training signals, and (ii) interaction feedback is sparse and noisy, which together lead to inefficient and unstable updates. We propose FlexRec, a post-training RL framework that addresses both issues with (1) a causally grounded item-level reward based on counterfactual swaps within the remaining candidate pool, and (2) critic-guided, uncertainty-aware scaling that explicitly models reward uncertainty and down-weights low-confidence rewards to stabilize learning under sparse supervision. Across diverse recommendation scenarios and objectives, FlexRec achieves substantial gains: it improves NDCG@5 by up to 59% and Recall@5 by up to 109.4% in need-specific ranking, and further achieves up to 24.1% Recall@5 improvement under generalization settings, outperforming strong traditional recommenders and LLM-based baselines.
Yijun Pan, Weikang Qiu, Qiyao Ma +4
Yale University · University of California, Davis · Snap Inc.
Reinforcement learning (RL) presents a promising avenue for enhancing generative recommendation beyond supervised imitation, leveraging reward signals to guide policy improvement. However, its efficacy is critically contingent on the trustworthiness of the reward model for the samples it evaluates. In practice, production rankers, the widely adopted reward models, are trained on exposure-biased logs, leading to sample-dependent inaccuracies that violate this assumption. Our stratified analysis uncovers a consistent pattern: reward guidance is most beneficial when the policy exhibits uncertainty and the ranker can effectively discriminate the ground-truth item from rollout negatives. On other samples, the reward signal is either negligible or detrimental, highlighting the risk of uniform RL application. To address such an issue, we introduce AdaGRPO, a novel framework that treats reward-guided optimization as selective admission rather than uniform pressure. Training is anchored in supervised negative log-likelihood, while the GRPO objective is gated by a binary, per-sample clip determined by two rollout diagnostics: policy-side difficulty and reward discriminability. Instances failing either diagnostic default to pure supervision, ensuring stability and mitigating the amplification of noisy gradients. We validate AdaGRPO on a large-scale e-commerce dataset. At the best intermediate checkpoint, it elevates HR@10 from 11.01% to 12.18% while constraining hallucination below 0.22%, and maintains robustness at the final checkpoint (HR@10 11.63%, hallucination 0.27%), outperforming fixed NLL--GRPO mixtures across the retrieval--validity frontier. In production A/B tests, AdaGRPO achieves statistically significant gains in click-through rate and dwell time, confirming its practical utility.
Kewei Xu, Junbo Qi, Yanyan Zou +3
Waseda University Tokyo, Japan · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China Chengdu, China