Generative retrieval has demonstrated strong performance by directly generating product semantic identifiers (SIDs). Extending this paradigm to image search, however, is nontrivial because real-world query images contain diverse information, including the search target, useful auxiliary evidence, and irrelevant visual content. This requires the model to identify and focus on the search target while selectively utilizing auxiliary evidence. In this paper, we propose PailitaoGR, a Latent Think-with-Images method for generative image retrieval, which internalizes target-focused perception and selective auxiliary-evidence utilization into a the generative retrieval model, enabling Zooming without Cropping and Reading without OCR. Specifically, we design a target-focused perception mechanism that identifies and enhances visual tokens of the search target, consisting of a target Enhancer and a learning strategy based on on-policy distillation and attention guidance loss, enabling the model to focus on search-target regions. We also design a selective auxiliary-evidence utilization mechanism that identifies and enhances visual tokens of auxiliary evidence, including an auxiliary enhancer and an in-capacity incremental contrastive distillation strategy, enabling the model to exploit auxiliary evidence. We construct training and validation sets sampled from real-world online image-search logs. Experiments show that our method outperforms existing baselines by an average of 13.8%, validating its effectiveness.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Comparison of direct, tool-assisted, and latent Think-with-Images paradigms for generative image retrieval. Our approach internalizes tool-enabled visual capabilities without extra inference latency.
Figure 2. Framework of our method.
Method
Input
CLICK
PURCHASE
H@1
H@5
H@10
R@5
R@10
H@1
H@5
H@10
R@5
R@10
Traditional Retrieval
DINOv3
Crop
36.38
58.61
64.36
32.60
39.87
14.64
36.98
44.35
35.84
43.27
CLIP
Crop
30.57
53.90
61.69
28.83
36.73
12.24
32.57
41.11
31.54
40.05
Existing Generative Retrieval
IRGen
Crop
29.72
55.02
60.06
28.87
36.03
11.54
32.81
39.85
32.00
39.14
Table 1. Comparison of retrieval performance (%) on the test set.
ROT Ratio
Method
CLICK
PURCHASE
H@1
H@5
H@10
R@5
R@10
H@1
H@5
H@10
R@5
R@10
0–5%
SFT Baseline
18.01
36.53
42.42
19.12
26.44
6.23
20.71
29.12
20.51
28.85
Ours
36.53
65.49
72.05
37.82
49.92
15.32
42.59
54.38
41.83
53.85
Δ
+18.52
+28.96
+29.63
+18.71
+23.49
+9.09
+21.89
+25.25
+21.31
+25.00
5–10%
SFT Baseline
26.02
50.52
57.25
26.86
35.88
9.85
29.06
38.11
28.71
37.81
Ours
42.11
75.18
81.18
45.20
57.25
17.29
50.68
62.05
49.66
61.30
Table 2. Retrieval performance (%) under different search-target ROT area ratios. Δ denotes the absolute improvement of our method over the SFT Baseline.
OCR
Method
CLICK
PURCHASE
H@1
H@5
H@10
R@5
R@10
H@1
H@5
H@10
R@5
R@10
With OCR
SFT Baseline
24.50
49.84
57.40
25.69
34.87
9.45
28.76
38.04
27.87
37.20
Crop Teacher
32.95
63.66
70.07
34.88
45.61
12.53
39.96
49.76
38.92
48.93
Ours
37.95
70.84
77.22
40.56
52.19
15.37
46.54
57.71
45.46
56.73
ΔSFT
+13.44
+21.00
+19.82
+14.87
+17.32
+5.92
+17.78
+19.68
+17.59
+19.53
ΔCrop
+5.00
+7.18
+7.15
+5.67
+6.58
+2.84
+6.58
+7.96
+6.54
+7.80
Table 3. Retrieval performance (%) on queries with and without OCR information. ΔSFT and ΔCrop denote the absolute improvements of our method over the SFT Baseline and Crop Teacher, respectively.
Figure 3. Visualization of answer-to-visual attention. From left to right: query image, attention map of the SFT Baseline, and attention map of our model.
Method
Components
CLICK
PURCHASE
Target
Auxiliary
H@10
R@10
H@10
R@10
SFT Baseline
63.24
40.74
44.57
44.05
+ Focusing Internalization
✓
76.53
52.93
57.33
56.75
PailitaoGR
✓
✓
79.19
55.27
60.12
59.48
Table 4. Ablation study of the core components in PailitaoGR.
Method
Objective
CLICK
PURCHASE
OPD
ROT
Entropy
H@10
R@10
H@10
R@10
w/o OPD
✓
✓
73.05
49.40
53.94
53.25
w/o ROT
✓
✓
73.47
50.22
54.91
54.27
w/o Entropy
✓
✓
75.64
52.07
56.72
55.98
Full
✓
✓
✓
76.51
52.93
57.52
56.86
Table 5. Ablation of target-focused perception mechanism.
Method
Criterion
CLICK
PURCHASE
Utility
Accessibility
H@10
R@10
H@10
R@10
Direct Auxiliary Transfer
77.04
53.05
57.84
57.08
+ Utility
✓
78.71
54.91
59.70
59.06
+ Accessibility
✓
✓
79.19
55.27
60.12
59.48
Table 6. Ablation of selective auxiliary-evidence utilization mechanism