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.