Generative recommendation with semantic IDs (SIDs) represents each item as a sequence of discrete tokens and autoregressively predicts the next item's SID. Despite strong recommendation performance, repeated decoding over multiple SID positions incurs substantial inference cost. Knowledge distillation transfers knowledge from a powerful generative teacher to a lightweight student, yet conventional objectives do not fully account for multi-token SID generation. We identify two limitations: item-level distribution alignment may not adequately preserve the teacher's ranking of candidate groups sharing SID prefixes, while uniform alignment across SID positions may affect final item ranking differently. We propose MuSID-KD, which combines Hierarchical Candidate Distribution Alignment (HCDA) and Ranking Impact Guided Levelwise Distillation (RIGD). HCDA aggregates item probabilities according to shared SID prefixes and aligns candidate distributions at successive levels, from candidate groups to individual items. RIGD evaluates the reduction in pairwise ranking surrogate loss when one student score contribution is replaced with the teacher's contribution, and allocates supervision accordingly. Experiments on real-world recommendation datasets using three lightweight student architectures demonstrate improved recommendation accuracy and better alignment of prefix marginal distributions and pairwise item rankings, without modifying the student's online inference architecture. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/m7k2-review-83f9/.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Two supervision problems in distillation with SIDs, illustrated by teacher and student predictions. (a) Teacher and student may rank candidate groups formed by shared SID prefixes differently. (b) For a fixed item pair, differences between teacher and student pairwise score contributions may have opposite signs across SID positions. Two panel diagram comparing teacher and student candidate group orderings and score contributions at individual SID positions of a pair of video game items.
Figure 2. Candidate group misordering rates at intermediate SID positions when distillation aligns only candidate item probabilities. For each comparison, four groups share their preceding prefix and differ at the current token. A comparison is incorrect when the student reverses any strictly teacher ordered group pair or predicts a tie. Grouped bars reporting candidate group misordering at the first three intermediate SID levels on three recommendation datasets.
Figure 3. Proportion of item pairs ordered by the teacher whose residual rd is positive at some SID positions and negative at others, measured for pairs crossing the top K recommendation boundary. Three groups of bars showing the fraction of item pairs with residuals of opposite signs across SID levels.
Figure 4. Overview of MuSID-KD. HCDA aligns distributions over candidate groups induced by shared SID prefixes, culminating in the candidate item distribution. RIGD estimates the reduction in pairwise ranking loss when replacing each student score contribution with the teacher’s value and uses positive reductions to weight Huber alignment. Both components are absent during online inference. Framework with teacher and student candidate generation on the left, hierarchical candidate distribution alignment in the center, and ranking impact guided levelwise distillation on the right.
Category
Method
MLP
GRU
CNN
R@5
N@5
R@10
N@10
R@5
N@5
R@10
N@10
R@5
N@5
R@10
N@10
Beauty
Teacher reference
TIGER (Teacher)
0.0428
0.0283
0.0677
0.0363
0.0428
0.0283
0.0677
0.0363
0.0428
0.0283
0.0677
0.0363
RD
0.0423
0.0274
0.0656
0.0350
0.0433 0.0433
0.0284
0.0671 0.0671
0.0362 0.0362
0.0418
0.0274
0.0647
0.0348
RRD
0.0431
0.0285
0.0658
0.0354
0.0422
0.0275
0.0663
0.0354
0.0420 0.0420
0.0281 0.0281
0.0649
0.0352
Traditional Recommendation KD
RCE-KD
0.0433
0.0280
0.0664
0.0361
0.0431
0.0279
0.0669
0.0356
0.0408
0.0276
0.0651 0.0651
0.0354 0.0354
Table 1. Amazon results (0–1 scale; mean over seeds 42–44). R@K/N@K denote Recall@K/NDCG@K. Gain vs. Base and Gain vs. best are relative percentage improvements over SID-MLP (Base KD) and the strongest other student, respectively, computed from the displayed means; TIGER is a teacher reference and excluded from student comparisons. SD is the standard deviation of MuSID-KD over three seeds. Bold/light-red denote the best student; gray denotes the strongest other student (including ties). VG is Video Games.
Beauty
Toys
Video Games
Variant
MLP
GRU
CNN
MLP
GRU
CNN
MLP
GRU
CNN
R
N
R
N
R
N
R
N
R
N
R
N
R
N
R
N
R
N
CE-only
0.0660
0.0359
0.0388
0.0215
0.0288
0.0161
0.0591
0.0303
0.0333
0.0189
0.0261
0.0140
0.0925
0.0492
0.0646
0.0342
0.0375
0.0196
Base KD
0.0660
0.0356
0.0656
0.0358
0.0580
0.0319
0.0626
0.0315
0.0565
0.0296
0.0533
0.0276
0.0922
0.0488
0.0935
0.0499
0.0870
0.0460
HCDA-only
0.0666
0.0361
0.0666
0.0361
0.0609
0.0335
0.0631
0.0321
0.0594
0.0309
0.0565
0.0291
0.0929
0.0493
0.0939
0.0503
0.0895
0.0477
RIGD-only
0.0667
0.0360
0.0667
0.0362
0.0617
0.0336
0.0632
0.0320
0.0596
0.0308
0.0573
0.0296
0.0928
0.0495
0.0939
0.0504
0.0894
0.0476
Table 2. Amazon ablations (R@10 and N@10). HCDA-only and RIGD-only isolate each loss while retaining cross entropy. Bold: MuSID-KD; gray: strongest competing variant.
Figure 5. Nine diagnostics of candidate distribution alignment and item ranking across Amazon Beauty, Toys, and Video Games with MLP, GRU, and CNN. H1/H2 denote HDrift-1/2; TGD1/TGD2 denote TGD-1/2; Pair denotes Pair Softplus; and Hub-D/Hub-I denote Huber-D/I. Each metric is normalized within each dataset and student setting; darker colors indicate lower error. Nine heatmaps across Beauty, Toys, and Video Games and MLP, GRU, and CNN, with seven training objectives and nine diagnostic metrics each. Darker colors indicate lower error within each dataset, student, and metric.
Figure 6. Results using residual K-means (R-KMeans) SIDs instead of the main RQ-VAE tokenizer. Teacher and students use the same R-KMeans SIDs. Values are Recall@10 and NDCG@10 in percent; bold marks the best student per dataset and architecture. Two heatmaps of Recall at 10 and NDCG at 10 on Steam, Beauty, Toys, and Video Games for MLP, GRU, and CNN students. Columns are Base KD, SmartGR, and MuSID-KD. MuSID-KD is highest in all rows for both metrics.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Category
Method
MLP
GRU
CNN
R@5
N@5
R@10
N@10
R@5
N@5
R@10
N@10
R@5
N@5
R@10
N@10
Teacher
TIGER (Teacher)
4.25
2.43
6.15
3.03
4.25
2.43
6.15
3.03
4.25
2.43
6.15
3.03
RD
4.17
2.36
5.59
2.86
3.93
2.32
5.58
2.82
3.68
2.14
5.34
2.64
RRD
4.15
2.39
5.65
2.84
4.05
2.34
5.54
2.83
3.72
2.13
5.32
2.64
Traditional Recommendation KD
RCE-KD
4.01
2.33
5.61
2.83
3.92
2.32
5.50
2.78
3.74
2.17
5.40
2.65
GKD
3.82
2.26
5.62
2.80
3.81
2.32
5.48
2.81
3.69
2.12
5.38
2.62
Appendix
Table S1 . Steam-100K baseline comparison (%). TIGER is a teacher reference and is excluded from student best/second-best highlighting. Bold and gray indicate the best and second-best student results, including ties.
Figure A1 . Beauty–MLP hyperparameter sensitivity: relative Recall@10 and NDCG@10 gains (%) over the MuSID-KD reference result; dashed horizontal lines mark zero relative change. Four line charts of Recall at 10 and NDCG at 10 against candidate count M, RIGD weight lambda R, rank cutoff B, and temperature tau.
Setting
MLP
GRU
CNN
R@5
N@5
R@10
N@10
R@5
N@5
R@10
N@10
R@5
N@5
R@10
N@10
CE-only
3.62
2.26
5.54
2.82
3.68
2.27
5.46
2.79
3.51
2.11
5.39
2.69
Base KD
3.80
2.25
5.66
2.84
3.72
2.27
5.49
2.83
3.45
2.08
5.31
2.69
Leaf-only
4.03
2.35
5.55
2.86
3.93
2.30
5.60
2.82
3.71
2.13
5.28
2.67
Leaf+Pair
4.11
2.38
5.56
2.80
3.92
2.30
5.51
2.76
3.64
2.12
5.41
2.70
Leaf+RIGD
4.12
2.37
5.63
2.85
4.10
2.33
5.52
2.75
3.71
2.15
5.37
2.63
Appendix
Table S2 . Steam-100K ablations on all four metrics (%). Base KD and MuSID-KD provide reference results for the ablation comparisons. Bold indicates best student results and gray denotes second-best (ties included).
Setting
Beauty
Toys
Video Games
MLP
GRU
CNN
MLP
GRU
CNN
MLP
GRU
CNN
CE-only
4.34/2.87
2.53/1.72
1.78/1.26
3.70/2.32
2.19/1.52
1.72/1.11
5.87/3.83
4.05/2.65
2.32/1.50
Base KD
4.29/2.82
4.16/2.81
3.80/2.54
3.74/2.35
3.67/2.33
3.28/2.10
5.88/3.83
5.91/3.89
5.53/3.58
Leaf-only
4.31/2.85
4.23/2.83
3.97/2.65
3.82/2.41
3.73/2.36
3.52/2.22
5.91/3.87
5.93/3.93
5.70/3.71
HCDA-only
4.34/2.83
4.24/2.84
3.96/2.63
3.85/2.43
3.73/2.37
3.51/2.21
5.90/3.87
5.97/3.90
5.71/3.71
Leaf+Pair
4.35/2.83
4.25/2.85
4.05/2.67
3.85/2.42
3.75/2.42
3.54/2.23
5.93/3.88
5.96/3.90
5.72/3.73
Appendix
Table S3 . Complementary Amazon ablations at @5 (%). Each entry reports Recall@5 / NDCG@5 ; the corresponding @10 results are in the main text. Bold denotes MuSID-KD.
Run
200 epochs min
Peak GPU GB
MLP Base KD
27
7.4
MLP MuSID-KD
49
9.2–9.5
CNN MuSID-KD
65
–
Appendix
Table B1 . Training, GPU memory, cache export, and serving costs. Times are minutes or ms/request (serving); training includes beam validation.
Dataset
Student
Method
Item KL
HDrift-1
HDrift-2
TGD-1
TGD-2
POV
Pair Softplus
Huber-D
Huber-I
Beauty
MLP
Base KD
0.100670
0.045033
0.082126
16.79
35.75
10.93
0.393655
0.076414
0.053440
Leaf-only
0.051456
0.021539
0.042083
12.46
26.80
7.26
0.391118
0.050309
0.032503
HCDA-only
0.045387
0.018498
0.036893
11.83
25.88
6.76
0.395989
0.051863
0.032359
HCDA+Uniform
0.044023
0.019050
0.036987
11.93
26.05
6.33
0.388316
0.037520
0.023753
HCDA+Pair
0.045503
0.018693
0.037182
11.89
26.35
6.54
0.395344
0.054633
0.033297
RIGD-only
0.070771
0.031490
0.058785
14.42
29.17
6.68
0.343984
0.042486
0.026364
Appendix
Table D1 . Beauty diagnostics (lower is better). TGD and POV are percentages; other metrics are unscaled. Bold marks the minimum; definitions are in Appendix B.2 .
Generative recommendation with semantic IDs represents each item as a sequence of discrete codes derived from its semantic representation and predicts these codes to generate recommendations. Existing semantic-ID recommenders are typically trained with hard labels for the observed next item. Although such supervision identifies the target, it provides no explicit distributional information about alternative items conditioned on the same user history. Sequential recommenders can supply this item-level predictive knowledge, but transferring it to semantic-ID generation is challenging because the teacher and student operate in item and code spaces, respectively. We propose two complementary knowledge-distillation objectives for parallel semantic-ID recommenders, which predict all code positions simultaneously without autoregressive prefix conditioning. Item Distribution Matching (IDM) reconstructs a catalogue-level item distribution from the student's parallel code predictions and aligns it with the teacher's item distribution. Code Marginal Matching (CMM) projects the teacher's item probabilities onto each code position using fixed item-to-code assignments, then matches the resulting code marginals to the corresponding student heads. Both objectives transfer the teacher's soft distributional knowledge while preserving the student's parallel prediction structure. Experiments on benchmark datasets show that both methods consistently outperform existing state-of-the-art approaches. On average, IDM improves Recall@10 by 15.39%, while CMM improves NDCG@10 by 8.28%. These results demonstrate that distillation in either reconstructed item space or code-marginal space can substantially strengthen hard-label supervision for parallel generative recommendation.
Yixuan Xu, Hailin Liu, Linxiang Peng +1
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China · University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, China
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
Semantic ID (SID) generative recommendation predicts the next item by generating a short tuple of discrete tokens. Recent masked-diffusion methods improve this process through bidirectional context and flexible decoding, yet recommendation ultimately requires selecting among complete catalog items. At each denoising step, a partial SID can correspond to multiple feasible items, while existing methods primarily reason through position-wise token predictions. We propose Explicit Posterior Item Conditioning (EPIC), which introduces explicit item-level competition into SID denoising. EPIC constructs a personalized posterior over feasible candidate items using the current generation context and the user's recent interactions, then projects this distribution back to unresolved SID positions to guide subsequent token decisions. The pretrained backbone remains frozen and requires no additional decoder forward pass. Experiments on four Amazon benchmarks show consistent improvements over strong baselines, while diagnostic analyses indicate that the gains primarily arise from personalized transition evidence that preserves promising item hypotheses during denoising.
Tuan-Binh Tran, Thanh Tam Nguyen, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen +3
College of Engineering and Computer Science VinUniversity Hanoi, Vietnam · School of Information and Communication Technology Griffith University Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia · Department of Computer Science Aalborg University Copenhagen, Denmark