Generative recommendation (GR) of social media platforms commonly retrieves items by autoregressively decoding discrete Semantic IDs (SIDs) with finite-width beam search. This work examines how this output interface constrains whether held-out targets enter finite returned lists, while distinguishing catalog-wide scoreability from empirical top-K support. We introduce two continuous-query paradigms: CQG-Single generates one retrieval query in a single pass, and CQG-AR autoregressively generates continuous residual updates, retaining step-wise decoding while removing the SID item-token vocabulary, code lookup, and discrete beam expansion. These designs thereby eliminate the SID-specific reachability constraint induced by finite-beam decoding and avoid the technical challenge of aligning a discrete SID vocabulary with the pretrained backbone's vector space. Both methods make every encoded item directly scoreable through dense or approximate-nearest-neighbor retrieval. Under a unified protocol with valid-prefix constrained decoding, CQG-Single exceeds the TIGER-style baseline in all seven runs while using 55.3% as many trainable parameters. CQG-AR remains comparable on ML-1M and is numerically stronger on Beauty and Sports datasets. A controlled depth ablation further shows that additional continuous refinement does not monotonically improve shallow accuracy. These findings motivate decoupling output representation, autoregressive modeling, and retrieval budget when evaluating generative recommendation systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Training and inference pipelines for SID retrieval, CQG-Single, and CQG-AR. SID-based GR is trained to predict clustered code sequences, whereas CQG generates continuous queries in item-embedding space. SID retrieval autoregressively generates discrete code tokens and explores catalog-valid paths with finite-prefix beam search. CQG-Single produces one continuous query in a single forward pass, whereas CQG-AR autoregressively generates residual updates that refine a continuous query. Both CQG variants retrieve from the same frozen item embedding index by dense scoring or ANN, without an item-token vocabulary or code-to-item lookup.
Dataset
Users
Items
Interactions
Density
ML-1M
6,040
3,416
999K
4.84%
Beauty
22,363
12,101
198K
0.07%
Sports
21,519
10,693
∼ 178K
0.08%
Table 1: Dataset statistics. Item counts exclude the padding row. Density is defined as ∣R∣/(∣U∣∣I∣) , where R is the set of observed interactions, U the users, and I the non-padding items. Higher density indicates that users interact with a larger fraction of the catalog, whereas lower density indicates sparser interactions and a more pronounced long tail. Bold marks the largest value in each numerical column.
Figure 2: ML-1M TargetInOutput@100 by target-popularity quartile (seed 42). Finite returned lists exhibit strongly popularity-skewed target support, while CQG-Single matches or exceeds TIGER across all popularity quartiles at the reported precision. All methods produce matched Top-200 lists; TargetInOutput@100 is evaluated on their first 100 positions; TIGER uses valid-prefix constrained decoding. Bars are user weighted, whereas Table 2 reports item-balanced quartile values.
Figure 3: Measured per-quartile Recall@ K curves on ML-1M, seed 42. Dashed lines show finite-output target-support ceiling of TIGER’s user-weighted TargetSupport@200 within each quartile. All three methods return exactly 200 valid, distinct, history-filtered items per user. The X-axis represents retrieval depth K , the number of top-K items generated, while the Y-axis reports the fraction of users whose held-out target appears within the Top- K list. CQG-Single outperforms TIGER in 38 of the 48 popularity–depth comparisons, particularly on Q2–Q3. TIGER remains stronger for some rare Q1 targets at shallow depths. These results indicate that CQG’s advantage is affected by both target-item popularity and retrieval depth. This diagnostic uses a separately selected CQG-Single checkpoint (aggregate R@10 =0.3063 ); the primary seed-42 checkpoint in Table 3 has R@10 =0.3036 . Full values for all 12 depths and paired-bootstrap intervals appear in Appendix C.1.
User-weighted TargetInOutput@100
Item-balanced TargetInOutput@100
TargetItemSupport @200
Method
Overall
Q1 rare
Q2
Q3
Q4 popular
Distinct targets
TIGER
66.7%
25.8%
45.2%
54.0%
68.6%
78.1%
CQG-Single
67.3%
26.4%
46.9%
56.3%
70.0%
78.9%
CQG-AR
66.4%
24.4%
45.4%
54.8%
69.6%
78.8%
Table 2: ML-1M finite-output support (seed 42). Overall is user weighted; Q1–Q4 average distinct target items within training-frequency quartiles, and the final column is the fraction of distinct targets retrieved at least once by Top-200. Returned-list sizes and filtering are matched across methods. Bold denotes the best value in each column.
Method
Config.
Trainable Params
ML-1M R@10
ML-1M NDCG@10
Beauty R@10
Sports R@10
SASRec
Full-rank
0.32 / 0.88 / 0.79M
0.2797
0.1535
0.0558
0.0390
TIGER
Discrete AR
5.78M
0.2996 ± 0.0072
0.1739 ± 0.0046
0.0477 ± 0.0042
0.0236 ± 0.0028
CQG-Single
One-step
3.2M
0.3104 ± 0.0047
0.1822 ± 0.0044
0.0605 ± 0.0046
0.0363 ± 0.0015
CQG-AR
AR continuous ( L=3 )
5.62M
0.2976 ± 0.0032
0.1735 ± 0.0016
0.0571 ± 0.0043
0.0355 ± 0.0004
Table 3: Cross-dataset primary comparison. TIGER and CQG results are mean ± sample SD over seeds 42–48 on ML-1M and seeds 42–44 on Beauty and Sports; SASRec uses one full-rank checkpoint. SASRec’s trainable parameter counts of 0.32/0.88/0.79M correspond to ML-1M, Beauty, and Sports, respectively, reflecting their different item-embedding table sizes. All methods use aligned full-user evaluation, and TIGER uses valid-prefix constrained decoding. Seed-level results and 95% t intervals are reported in Appendix B. Bold denotes the best value in each dataset/metric column.
Dataset
TIGER Cov.@10
TIGER Cov.@100
CQG-Single Cov.@10
CQG-Single Cov.@100
CQG-AR Cov.@10
CQG-AR Cov.@100
ML-1M
70.1%
97.0%
69.7%
97.6%
68.7%
97.6%
Beauty
74.4%
96.3%
89.5%
99.9%
87.9%
99.8%
Sports
94.0%
99.5%
63.1%
96.9%
71.8%
98.4%
Table 4: Empirical union-of-Top- K catalog coverage under matched returned-list sizes (seed 42). All methods use the same full-user sets and history filtering. Bold denotes the highest item coverage within each dataset and cutoff.
Depth
R@10
NDCG@10
R@100
L=1
0.2924
0.1719
0.6550
L=2
0.2909
0.1688
0.6525
L=3
0.2914
0.1667
0.6619
L=4
0.2944
0.1717
0.6697
Table 5: Single-seed CQG-AR decoding-depth ablation on ML-1M. All rows use seed 42, full-catalog CE, and intermediate-loss weight 0.3. Within this controlled ablation recipe, additional continuous refinements do not yield a monotonic R@10 or NDCG@10 improvement; the final primary recipe instead uses intermediate-loss weight 0.
Catalog group
Coverage@100
Std.
Q1 rare
14.0%
7.6%
Q2
26.1%
13.8%
Q3
47.4%
20.3%
Q4 popular
88.7%
13.0%
Overall
44.0%
13.7%
Table 6: Empirical union-of-top-100 catalog coverage for the closer T5/RQ-VAE Beauty reproduction, averaged over decoder seeds 42–44. Bold denotes the highest quartile coverage.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Beauty
Seed
Method
R@10
NDCG@10
42
TIGER
0.0464
0.0262
CQG-Single
0.0552
0.0342
CQG-AR
0.0527
0.0321
43
TIGER
0.0443
0.0261
CQG-Single
0.0632
0.0389
Appendix
Table 7: Complete Beauty and Sports seed-level results underlying the means and sample standard deviations in main-paper Table 3. Beauty and Sports use 22,363 and 21,519 aligned test users, respectively. TIGER checkpoints are selected with constrained validation and evaluated with valid-prefix decoding; all three methods use the same processed split and history filtering within each dataset. Bold denotes the best value for each dataset–seed pair and metric.
Seed
TIGER
CQG-Single
CQG-AR
R@10
NDCG@10
R@10
NDCG@10
R@10
NDCG@10
42
0.2992
0.1756
0.3036
0.1736
0.2972
0.1720
43
0.3038
0.1751
0.3161
0.1874
0.3028
0.1750
44
0.2841
0.1644
0.3144
0.1831
0.2945
0.1711
45
0.3028
0.1768
0.3103
0.1830
0.3010
0.1755
46
0.3045
0.1781
0.3139
0.1849
0.2969
0.1739
Appendix
Table 8: Seven-seed ML-1M results under valid-prefix constrained TIGER decoding. Each TIGER row uses the checkpoint reselected by constrained validation and evaluates all 6,040 test users with the same history filtering. All metrics use the standard NDCG@10 notation. Bold denotes the best result for each seed/metric and for the mean row.
Quartile
Method
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
120
150
Q1 rare
Single
.0622
.1192
.1451
.1658
.1865
.1917
.2124
.2435
.2850
.2953
.3161
.3575
( n=193 )
AR
.0829
.1088
.1451
.1606
.1762
.1969
.2280
.2487
.2591
.2642
.3057
.3368
TIGER
.0674
.1036
.1347
.1658
.1917
.2021
.2228
.2591
.2642
.2798
.3057
.3161
Q2
Single
.1773
.2719
.3236
.3614
.3959
.4320
.4509
.4802
.4923
.5112
.5508
.5835
( n=581 )
AR
.1497
.2530
.3098
.3528
.3907
.4182
.4372
.4613
.4819
.4974
.5284
.5645
TIGER
.1756
.2547
.3133
.3528
.3873
.4234
.4423
.4647
.4871
.4991
.5250
.5611
Appendix
Table 10: Recall at the 12 depths in main-paper Figure 3, evaluated on the same 6,040 users using paired seed-42 checkpoints and matched Top-200 outputs. This CQG-Single checkpoint has R@10 0.3063 , rather than 0.3036 in the primary seven-seed Table 8 . CQG-Single–TIGER differences at K=10,50,90 are 0.0071,0.0093,0.0040 ; all paired-bootstrap 95% CIs include zero (10,000 resamples). Bold denotes the best method; ties are bolded.
Figure 4: Transformer-level architectures of CQG-Single and CQG-AR. Both methods consume history-item embeddings from the same frozen item table E . CQG-Single produces one continuous query in a single forward pass, whereas CQG-AR autoregressively appends projected residual tokens and retrieves with the final cumulative query. Both use the frozen table as the full-catalog classifier and exact/ANN retrieval index.
Method
Item d
Hidden
Layers
Heads
SASRec item encoder
64
64
2
2
CQG-Single MSE
64
256
4
4
CQG-Single InfoNCE
64
256
4
4
CQG-Single CE
64
256
4
4
CQG-AR
64
384
4
6
CQG-AR sampled CE
64
384
4
6
Appendix
Table 11: Training hyperparameters for the three datasets. “Hidden” is the Transformer width; all continuous queries remain 64-dimensional. The Qwen2.5-7B probe uses its 3,584-dimensional, 28-layer, 28-attention-head backbone and a 64-dimensional projection head. SASRec uses at most 200 epochs on ML-1M/Beauty and 400 on Sports. Sequence length is 50 for ML-1M and 20 for Beauty/Sports; “max.” denotes early-stopped training.
Figure 5: Unified ML-1M objective diagnostics. (a) Full-catalog CE gives the highest R@10 for both continuous decoders in the shared frozen item space. (b) Replacing full-catalog CE with 256 sampled negatives reduces CQG-AR mean R@10 by 0.0087. Error bars denote sample SD over seeds 42–44. (c) Lower softmax temperatures improve R@10 for both continuous decoders in the evaluated range; the dashed line is the CQG-Single MSE reference.
Figure 6: LLM backbone diagnostics. Pretrained language backbones do not automatically align with the frozen collaborative item space; the best text-aware Qwen hybrid still trails the single-run, MSE-frozen scratch query Transformer used in this diagnostic (R@10 = 0.248). This checkpoint is separate from the three-seed CQG-Single MSE result in Figure 5 . In the figure, v3/v4 are jointly trained dual-tower variants, v5h is an MSE-warm-started dual tower, v6 trains only the query side against a frozen item table, and v7 is the frozen-item text-aware hybrid. The first three collapse the item space; v6/v7 instead exhibit loss–metric decoupling. These are single-run diagnostics, not primary baselines.
Model
R@5
R@10
R@20
R@50
R@70
R@90
Scratch Transformer (LLM diagnostic)
0.172
0.248
0.345
0.498
0.555
0.595
Qwen text-aware hybrid
0.134
0.212
0.308
0.460
0.517
0.564
Appendix
Table 12: Single-run recall curve comparison between the MSE-frozen scratch Transformer used in the LLM diagnostic and the best tested LLM hybrid configuration. The scratch row is not the three-seed CQG-Single MSE aggregate reported in Figure 5 . Bold denotes the best value in each column.
Generative recommendation models user histories and item catalogs to generate personalized items, lists, or queries rather than only scoring candidates.
Semantic IDs (SIDs) are now a central component of generative recommendation. Current SID-based systems assign three roles to the same token sequence. Shared prefixes are intended to organize related items, the complete SID identifies an individual item, and each generated token narrows the items that can still be returned. We systematically investigate SIDs from item encoding and SID construction to autoregressive generation and final recommendation. We examine how SID construction changes item representations and how those changes affect generation. Across three Amazon domains and eight SID constructions, SID neighborhoods recover only 32.2% of the encoder's ten nearest neighbors on average. Alternative item descriptions still retrieve the corresponding item first in 99.57% of controlled cases, yet change 38.4% of exact SIDs. These results show that SIDs retain broad organization but lose much of the encoder's fine local structure, while their exact tokens are not determined by item meaning alone. This loss becomes consequential during generation. After the final semantic token, TIGER retains only 29.9% of held-out targets that were plausible recommendations before SID filtering. Motivated by these findings, we propose Item-Supported Decoding (ISD), a lightweight inference-time method that allows a user-specific item ranking to support corresponding SID prefixes before beam search discards them. The same ranking then orders the generated items. ISD requires no additional parameters or retraining of the SID constructor or decoder. We empirically show that ISD improves NDCG@10 over the corresponding SID backbone in every evaluated setting, with relative gains of up to 31.2%. Our results show that SIDs provide useful coarse item organization, but their fine boundaries should not alone determine which items remain available during generation.
Junting Wang, Xinrui He, Yunzhe Li +1
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Urbana, Illinois, USA
Personalized recommendation depends on learning semantic and collaborative relations among items from online content and user interactions. Generative recommendation (GR) offers a promising paradigm by autoregressively generating discrete semantic IDs (SIDs) of items. However, randomly initialized SID token embeddings and GR models trained from scratch do not directly inherit the semantic relations inherent in items, while inter-item collaborative relations are learned largely implicitly through token-level attention and next-token supervision. To address this limitation, we propose REGER, a unified framework that explicitly incorporates inter-item relations into semantic pretraining, history encoding, and SID generation. We pretrain the GR model through generative semantic retrieval, enabling it to inherit inter-item semantic similarity by learning to generate semantic neighbors' SIDs. We combine global attention with local attention aligned with SID boundaries to capture historical context and directed transitions between adjacent items. We further develop a theoretical framework for hierarchical preference decomposition over the SID prefix tree, proving an exact factorization of collaborative preference distributions and a weighted decomposition of item-level KL divergence into prefix-conditional KL divergences. Building on this analysis, we distill a discriminative teacher's full conditional distributions over all legal next tokens at ground-truth prefixes along the target SID path, jointly optimizing this objective with cross-entropy. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate consistent improvements over existing GR baselines and support the effectiveness of the proposed preference distillation.
Yuxi Huang, Silin Zhou, Chenhao Wang +5
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
Semantic-ID-based generative recommendation represents items as sequences of shared semantic tokens, enabling token recombination beyond isolated item IDs. However, closed-world recombination does not necessarily imply temporal open-token cold-start induction, where new items enter the item catalog with unseen atomic tokens or weakly supported SID paths. In this work, we revisit SID-based generative recommendation under an absolute-time temporal protocol that separates seen and unseen targets and diagnoses the cold item reachability at the token level. Through seen/unseen-hit analysis, coldness taxonomy, and oracle-prefix probing, we show that current SID-based models can occasionally reach future items supported by observed tokens and prefixes, but struggle with unseen atomic tokens and unsupported SID paths. We further explain this boundary by interpreting SID generation as hierarchical semantic bucketing: early tokens select coarse semantic regions, while later tokens refine item-specific paths. These findings show that SID generation is compositional but not fully open-ended, and suggest future directions in more independent SID spaces, scoring-based interfaces, and dynamic textual context.
Jie Peng, Yanping Zheng, Zhewei Zhe +3
Renmin University of China · Beijing, China · Alibaba