Large-scale personalization is shifting from embedding-table retrieval to LLM-based recommenders that generate the Semantic ID (SID) of the item to recommend, where each SID is a short sequence of discrete hierarchical content codes. A single instruction-tuned model can then unify retrieval, content understanding, and language, and recommend brand-new titles from their content alone using SID; then, how should the model generate the SID? Traditionally, models rely on a single language modeling head that generates tokens autoregressively, typically using constrained beam search. In contrast, an emerging body of work explores multi-token prediction (MTP), where dedicated heads predict all tokens in parallel, substantially reducing the decoding latency associated with beam search. We report an industry-scale, apples-to-apples comparison of these two generation paradigms: single-head autoregressive decoding vs. MTP. We introduce a new auxiliary ranking loss, defined over the joint SID score, to train the MTP objective. We evaluate the SID training objectives on both quality and training/inference cost, inside a multi-task LLM that jointly does personalized retrieval, content question-answering (QA), and instruction following over a large streaming-media catalog. Our experiments show single-head beam search consistently beats MTP on most product-critical metrics: ranking and content QA, and trains at roughly 2.6x lower dollar cost on Qwen3-8B scale; MTP wins only on raw inference throughput. Around this finding, we detail an efficient training and inference stack and report end-to-end gains over the previous non-SID baseline equipped with an auxiliary ranking head: +77% item cold-start ranking, +22% content-QA accuracy, +2.8x faster training, with language metric regression traced to SID vocabulary expansion. We address the language regression by reinforcement learning post training.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Multi-token-prediction (MTP) training. While the single-head approach uses a LM head with a next-token loss (Eq. 2 ), MTP adds L parallel sid heads trained with per-code cross-entropy and our auxiliary ranking loss over the joint sid score (Eq. 5 ).
Task family
Metric
Qwen3-8B
Qwen3-0.6B
Ranking
Overall ranking (nMRR)
↑ +2.0%
↑ +3.5%
Discovery (nMRR)
↑ +7.3%
↑ +12.6%
New user (nMRR)
↑ +2.1%
↑ +4.2%
New item (nMRR)
↓ -0.8%
↑ +6.8%
Content Understanding
QA Accuracy
↑ +2.0%
↑ +12.7%
Language
IFEval (accuracy)
↑ +3.3%
↑ +2.3%
Table 1: Single-head beam search vs. multi-token prediction. Relative quality change of the single-head over the MTP ; positive values favor the single-head. Metrics are grouped by task family.
Backbone
Training Runtime ↓
MFU ↑
Tokens/sec ↑
Dollar Cost ↓
Inference/sec ↑
Qwen3-8B
0.37×
1.15×
1.18×
0.38×
0.57×
Qwen3-0.6B
0.50×
1.21×
1.20×
0.97×
0.18×
Table 2: Single-head vs. MTP: training and inference system metrics. Relative quality change of the single-head over the MTP . Single-head trains cheaper; MTP only wins inference throughput.
Task family
Metric
Single-head with sid vs. Non- sid baseline
Ranking
Overall ranking (nMRR)
↑ +4.7%
Discovery (nMRR)
↑ +5.3%
New user (nMRR)
↑ +4.7%
New item (nMRR)
↑ +77.3%
Content Understanding
QA Accuracy
↑ +21.7%
Language
IFEval (accuracy)
↓ -7.3%
Table 3: Overall metric comparison ( Qwen3-8B ) of the single-head with sid vs. the non- sid baseline with an auxiliary ranking head. Relative quality change of the sid model over the baseline ; positive values favor the sid model. Metrics are grouped by task family. We observe enhanced ranking and content understanding, while language regression due to sid vocab extension. We confirm the language regression can be recovered by RL post training (e.g., IFEval ↑ +12.8% ).
Model
Runtime ↓
MFU ↑
Tokens/sec ↑
Dollar Cost ↓
Single-head with sid
0.36 ×
4.75 ×
4.0 ×
0.27 ×
Table 4: Training system metrics between the single-head with sid vs. the non- sid baseline, where both models are based on Qwen3-8B . Multipliers are relative to the non- sid baseline.
Task family
Metric
Qwen3-8B
Qwen3-0.6B
Ranking
Overall ranking (nMRR)
↑ +0.3%
↑ +0.1%
Discovery (nMRR)
↑ +1.9%
0.0%
New user (nMRR)
↑ +0.9%
0.0%
New item (nMRR)
↑ +6.2%
↑ +4.5%
Content Understanding
QA Accuracy
0.0%
0.0%
Language
IFEval (accuracy)
↓ -5.2%
↑ +3.3%
Table 5: LoRA vs. full fine-tuning on the single-head setup. Relative quality change of LoRA over full fine-tuning ; positive values favor LoRA. Metrics are grouped by task family. We choose LoRA by default because of better ranking metrics, especially the cold-start item recommendation.
Backbone
Variant
Runtime ↓
MFU ↑
Tokens/sec ↑
Dollar Cost ↓
Qwen3-8B
Full FT
1.0×
1.13×
1.02×
1.0×
Qwen3-0.6B
Full FT
0.87×
1.12×
1.17×
0.9×
Table 6: System metrics for the LoRA FT vs. full FT ablation. Multipliers are relative to LoRA of the same backbone. Full FT is on-par-or-better than LoRA across all system metrics and model sizes, as it avoids the runtime memory overhead and kernel launch latencies introduced by LoRA.
Task family
Metric
Muon vs. AdamW
All tasks vs. no Content QA
Ranking
Overall ranking (nMRR)
↓ -0.1%
↓ -0.2%
Discovery (nMRR)
↓ -0.9%
0.0%
New user (nMRR)
↑ +0.1%
↓ -0.1%
New item (nMRR)
↑ +5.2%
↑ +4.0%
Content QA
Accuracy
↑ +0.1%
↑ +211.4%
Language
IFEval (accuracy)
↓ -1.9%
↓ -3.2%
Table 7: Optimizer and content-QA-data ablations against single-head LoRA training. The columns report Muon relative to AdamW and all tasks relative to all tasks without content QA, respectively; positive values favor the first variant. Metrics are grouped by task family.
Large language model-based recommendation uses language models to personalize ranking, retrieval, and conversational suggestions from text and behavior.
University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia · Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China · Griffith University Gold Coast, Australia