Organizations: Taobao & Tmall Group of Alibaba, Hangzhou, China · Nankai University, Tianjin, China · University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
Generative retrieval assigns each item a discrete semantic identifier (SID) and retrieves items by autoregressively generating SID sequences. In dynamic environments such as e-commerce, new items arrive continuously, requiring periodic updates to the SID-to-Item mapping and model to maintain retrieval timeliness. Each update, however, can invalidate search paths already learned by the retriever, and the quantitative relationship between mapping change and retrieval quality has not been systematically characterized. We study this problem with extensive controlled experiments over 67 days of large-scale e-commerce search logs and obtain three core findings. (1) SID semantic drift causes severe retrieval degradation that may be masked by large beam sizes: mapping updates reduce HitRate by 41.78-62.05% at beam size 1 but only 8.33-10.85% at beam size 1000, as redundant candidate generation conceals the true severity of drift. (2) The fraction of changed SIDs is strictly monotonically related to retrieval quality: as the remapped fraction increases from 0% to 72.75%, HitRate decreases monotonically, dropping up to 42.66% at beam size 1. Full remapping remains substantially worse than the preservation policy under warm-start training, indicating that short-budget continued training alone cannot repair topology disruption. (3) The SID topology-preserving principle makes even the simplest warm-start strategy highly effective: fixing old-item SIDs, inserting new-items, and warm-starting from the previous model improves old-item HitRate by 10% and new-item HitRate by 109%, validated across two non-overlapping update cycles. These findings distill into a concise deployment principle: insert new-items, freeze old-items; warm-start when possible, otherwise freeze; never change SIDs the model has already learned. A three-week online A/B test on TmallAPP shows UCTCVR +0.29% and GMV +1.16%.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Framework overview. Top: Three-level SID construction, two semantic layers from RQ-VAE with QI contrastive learning produce prefix (s1,s2) ; a business-value layer appends s3 by ranking items with engagement signals. Bottom: Retrieval pipeline from embedding through SID construction, LLM autoregressive generation, beam search, and SID-to-item map resolution. There are two divergent types of update paths: the red paths rewrite old item SIDs and use a soup model (combining old and new models), which degrades metrics; the green paths freeze old SIDs, insert new items, and directly apply the new model fine-tuned from the old one, improving performance on both old and new items.
Retrieval Quality
Resolved Items
SID
HR@1
HR@10
HR@100
HR@1000
MRR
Avg@B1
Med@B1
Avg@B1000
Med@B1000
FS
0.0584
0.2409
0.5134
0.7175
0.1181
1
1
925
966
HC
0.0589
0.2457
0.5215
0.7183
0.1199
1
1
1200
986
Table 1. Day1 comparison of FS and HC identifiers: HitRate, MRR, and resolved items per query.
SID
Map
Feat
HR@1
HR@10
HR@100
HR@1000
MRR
FS
×
×
0.0585
0.2324
0.4927
0.7002
0.1158
FS
✓
✓
0.0319
0.1268
0.3262
0.6333
0.0647
FS
✓
×
0.0222
0.0982
0.2890
0.6242
0.0492
HC
×
×
0.0584
0.2344
0.5005
0.7035
0.1164
HC
✓
✓
0.0340
0.1394
0.3535
0.6449
0.0706
HC
✓
×
0.0226
0.1056
0.3172
0.6373
0.0519
Table 2. Old-item metrics on Day30 without adding new items. ✓ : refreshed; × : frozen.
Policy
HR@1
HR@10
HR@100
HR@1000
MRR
Full-Re
0.0187
0.0828
0.2499
0.5133
0.0417
Frozen
0.0180
0.0835
0.2507
0.5127
0.0415
Table 3. New-item HitRate and MRR (Day30).
Policy
γ
HR@1
HR@10
HR@100
HR@1000
MRR
Full-Re
72.75%
0.0332
0.1368
0.3523
0.6455
0.0692
t=10
29.08%
0.0507
0.1996
0.4332
0.6568
0.1004
t=100
7.36%
0.0553
0.2196
0.4694
0.6712
0.1097
t=500
1.65%
0.0557
0.2217
0.4749
0.6769
0.1106
Frozen
0%
0.0579
0.2343
0.5011
0.7043
0.1160
Table 4. Old-item metrics versus the remapped fraction γ .
Figure 2. Monotonic remapping effect. Metric decline rate (%) relative to the frozen baseline as the remapping threshold becomes more aggressive.
Items
Policy
HR@1
HR@10
HR@100
HR@1000
MRR
Old
Full-Re
0.0466
0.1867
0.4309
0.6923
0.0941
Frozen
0.0637
0.2597
0.5355
0.7272
0.1276
New
Full-Re
0.0330
0.1474
0.3684
0.6193
0.0711
Frozen
0.0376
0.1590
0.3833
0.6200
0.0779
Table 5. Warm-start comparison after the 30-day cycle.
Figure 3. Warm-start training improvement over frozen baseline (Day-30). Relative change (%) for Full-Re and Frozen compared with the frozen (no-retraining) policy.
Items
α
HR@1
HR@10
HR@100
HR@1000
MRR
Old
0.0
0.0637
0.2597
0.5355
0.7272
0.1276
0.1
0.0631
0.2590
0.5321
0.7270
0.1276
0.5
0.0628
0.2502
0.5228
0.7193
0.1243
1.0
0.0579
0.2343
0.5011
0.7043
0.1160
New
0.0
0.0376
0.1590
0.3833
0.6200
0.0779
0.1
0.0339
0.1503
0.3744
0.6153
0.0727
Table 6. Weight-mixing ablation for Frozen after 30 days.
Items
α
HR@1
HR@10
HR@100
HR@1000
MRR
Old
0.0
0.0687
0.2754
0.5490
0.7328
0.1357
0.1
0.0686
0.2756
0.5491
0.7329
0.1356
0.5
0.0674
0.2714
0.5443
0.7306
0.1335
0.9
0.0647
0.2631
0.5348
0.7248
0.1291
New
0.0
0.0492
0.2114
0.4468
0.6551
0.1021
0.1
0.0466
0.2043
0.4434
0.6535
0.0983
Table 7. Weight-mixing ablation for Frozen after an additional 7-day cycle (Day37).
Figure 4. Asymmetric sensitivity to model mixing: HR@1000. Day-30 (left) and Day-37 (right) weight-mixing ablations. The horizontal axis is the new-model weight (1−α) . Solid lines show HR@1000 (left axis), dashed lines show MRR (right axis). Both metrics rise monotonically with the new-model weight, confirming that the pure new checkpoint ( 1−α=1 ) is optimal or near-optimal.