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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Challenges in explicitly modeling inter-item semantic and collaborative relations in a standard GR framework: (A) semantic similarity relations arising from item text, (B) directed transition relations from the previous to the current item in the interaction history, and (C) ranking relations among candidate items induced by user preferences.
Figure 2. The overall framework of REGER.
Methods
Beauty
Sports
Toys
R@5
R@10
N@5
N@10
R@5
R@10
N@5
N@10
R@5
R@10
N@5
N@10
Discriminative Recommendation
SASRec
0.0411 ± 0.24
0.0641 ± 0.27
0.0260 ± 0.16
0.0333 ± 0.17
0.0224 ± 0.09
0.0354 ± 0.08
0.0146 ± 0.07
0.0188 ± 0.08
0.0497 ± 0.11
0.0727 ± 0.21
0.0333 ± 0.11
0.0408 ± 0.13
FDSA
0.0240 ± 0.17
0.0397 ± 0.26
0.0152 ± 0.08
0.0202 ± 0.11
0.0153 ± 0.18
0.0255 ± 0.27
0.0101 ± 0.13
0.0133 ± 0.15
0.0321 ± 0.05
0.0479 ± 0.18
0.0217 ± 0.09
0.0268 ± 0.13
BERT4Rec
0.0272 ± 0.06
0.0429 ± 0.03
0.0176 ± 0.06
0.0226 ± 0.05
0.0118 ± 0.01
0.0202 ± 0.07
0.0073 ± 0.01
0.0101 ± 0.03
0.0224 ± 0.13
0.0360 ± 0.19
0.0147 ± 0.09
0.0191 ± 0.11
S 3 -Rec
0.0378 ± 0.09
0.0634 ± 0.19
0.0236 ± 0.08
0.0319 ± 0.11
0.0235 ± 0.12
0.0379 ± 0.21
0.0155 ± 0.12
0.0201 ± 0.15
0.0362 ± 0.26
0.0584 ± 0.34
0.0229 ± 0.18
0.0300 ± 0.19
Table 1. Performance comparison on the Amazon Reviews 2014 benchmarks. Results are reported as mean ± (100 × sample standard deviation) over three random seeds. Bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best results, respectively. DuoRec serves as the frozen teacher for HCPD. Results on the Amazon Reviews 2023 benchmarks are reported in Appendix B .
Method
Beauty
Sports
Toys
R@5
R@10
N@5
N@10
R@5
R@10
N@5
N@10
R@5
R@10
N@5
N@10
TIGER
0.0435 ± 0.09
0.0673 ± 0.16
0.0291 ± 0.09
0.0367 ± 0.11
0.0283 ± 0.17
0.0432 ± 0.26
0.0183 ± 0.12
0.0231 ± 0.15
0.0422 ± 0.45
0.0659 ± 0.57
0.0279 ± 0.32
0.0355 ± 0.35
+ TCA
0.0431 ± 0.13
0.0633 ± 0.24
0.0295 ± 0.08
0.0360 ± 0.12
0.0256 ± 0.17
0.0386 ± 0.19
0.0170 ± 0.10
0.0212 ± 0.10
0.0472 ± 0.22
0.0703 ± 0.23
0.0317 ± 0.07
0.0391 ± 0.07
+ TCA-Aux
0.0480 ± 0.29
0.0721 ± 0.35
0.0325 ± 0.20
0.0403 ± 0.21
0.0289 ± 0.07
0.0455 ± 0.05
0.0188 ± 0.08
0.0241 ± 0.05
0.0475 ± 0.19
0.0738 ± 0.28
0.0315 ± 0.19
0.0400 ± 0.22
+ APAO-pointwise
0.0436 ± 0.18
0.0661 ± 0.21
0.0294 ± 0.15
0.0366 ± 0.16
0.0271 ± 0.10
0.0430 ± 0.08
0.0177 ± 0.09
0.0228 ± 0.08
0.0427 ± 0.29
0.0674 ± 0.49
0.0284 ± 0.21
0.0363 ± 0.27
+ GFlowGR-DB
0.0443 ± 0.22
0.0677 ± 0.32
0.0297 ± 0.11
0.0373 ± 0.14
0.0279 ± 0.08
0.0435 ± 0.09
0.0183 ± 0.05
0.0234 ± 0.06
0.0452 ± 0.20
0.0697 ± 0.23
0.0296 ± 0.12
0.0375 ± 0.13
Table 2. Comparison of training methods applied to TIGER on the Amazon Reviews 2014 benchmarks. Methods using a collaborative model adopt the same DuoRec. Bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Variants
Beauty
Sports
Toys
R@5
N@5
R@5
N@5
R@5
N@5
w/o GSR
0.0537 ± 0.17
0.0359 ± 0.09
0.0346 ± 0.09
0.0228 ± 0.07
0.0557 ± 0.07
0.0357 ± 0.05
w/o ITSA
0.0566 ± 0.07
0.0375 ± 0.04
0.0340 ± 0.07
0.0223 ± 0.04
0.0579 ± 0.13
0.0369 ± 0.08
w/o HCPD
0.0514 ± 0.10
0.0357 ± 0.07
0.0318 ± 0.08
0.0214 ± 0.03
0.0502 ± 0.19
0.0336 ± 0.09
REGER
0.0594 ± 0.05
0.0395 ± 0.08
0.0357 ± 0.06
0.0235 ± 0.07
0.0612 ± 0.13
0.0392 ± 0.08
Table 3. Ablation Study. w/o GSR skips semantic pretraining. w/o ITSA replaces ITSA with bidirectional self-attention using the same number of heads. w/o HCPD removes preference distillation during recommendation training.
Method
Train memory
Time/epoch
Best
Test
(MB)
(s)
epoch
(s)
TIGER
3072
19
104
16
+ TCA
3104
22
136
106
+ TCA-Aux
3104
22
117
106
+ APAO-pointwise
3074
21
106
16
+ GFlowGR-DB
3664
228
116
16
Table 4. Training and inference efficiency on Beauty with both training and test batch sizes set to 256. Best epoch is the epoch of peak validation performance, averaged across three seeds. Test denotes the total inference time on the test set.
Figure 3. Inter-item cosine similarities on Beauty. Heatmaps show the same 160 items in the same order across panels. ρall denotes Spearman correlation with the semantic reference over all unique item pairs in the catalog, excluding self-pairs.
Figure 4. Attention patterns of ITSA on Beauty, aggregated at the item level. Position 0 denotes the most recent item.
Figure 5. Effects of (a) the GSR neighborhood size K on pre-training performance and (b) the HCPD weight λ on GR.
Figure 6. Effect of the item-local to token-global head ratio (Local:Global) in ITSA on GR performance .
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
#Users
#Items
#Interactions
Sparsity
Avg. Len.
Beauty (2014)
22,363
12,101
198,502
99.927%
8.88
Sports (2014)
35,598
18,357
296,337
99.955%
8.32
Toys (2014)
19,412
11,924
167,597
99.928%
8.63
Instruments (2023)
57,439
24,587
511,836
99.964%
8.91
Scientific (2023)
50,985
25,848
412,947
99.969%
8.10
Games (2023)
94,762
25,612
814,586
99.966%
8.60
Appendix
Table 5. Dataset statistics after preprocessing.
Method
Instruments
Scientific
Games
R@5
R@10
N@5
N@10
R@5
R@10
N@5
N@10
R@5
R@10
N@5
N@10
Discriminative Recommendation
SASRec
0.0333
0.0523
0.0213
0.0274
0.0259
0.0412
0.0150
0.0199
0.0535
0.0847
0.0331
0.0438
BERT4Rec
0.0307
0.0485
0.0195
0.0252
0.0186
0.0296
0.0119
0.0155
0.0460
0.0735
0.0298
0.0386
FDSA
0.0347
0.0545
0.0230
0.0293
0.0262
0.0421
0.0169
0.0213
0.0544
0.0852
0.0361
0.0448
DuoRec
0.0377 ± 0.02
0.0589 ± 0.04
0.0239 ± 0.01
0.0307 ± 0.01
0.0275 ± 0.04
0.0427 ± 0.05
0.0171 ± 0.02
0.0220 ± 0.01
0.0582 ± 0.05
0.0924 ± 0.05
0.0361 ± 0.04
0.0471 ± 0.03
Appendix
Table 6. Performance comparison on the Amazon Reviews 2023 benchmarks. Published baseline results are taken from Latte ( Hou et al., 2026b ) , OMEGA ( Liu et al., 2026a ) , and the original papers of DECOR ( Liu et al., 2026c ) and TopoTok ( Liu et al., 2026b ) . The published baseline results use the same 5-core filtering and maximum history length of 20 as our experiments.
Method
Beauty
Sports
Toys
N@5
R@5
N@5
R@5
N@5
R@5
REGER w/o HCPD
0.0357 ± 0.07
0.0514 ± 0.10
0.0214 ± 0.03
0.0319 ± 0.08
0.0336 ± 0.09
0.0502 ± 0.19
REGER (SASRec)
0.0289 ± 0.14
0.0465 ± 0.20
0.0167 ± 0.03
0.0285 ± 0.06
0.0288 ± 0.12
0.0498 ± 0.14
REGER (DuoRec)
0.0395 ± 0.08
0.0594 ± 0.05
0.0235 ± 0.07
0.0357 ± 0.07
0.0392 ± 0.08
0.0612 ± 0.13
Method
Beauty
Sports
Toys
N@50
R@50
N@50
R@50
N@50
R@50
Appendix
Table 7. Effect of the distillation teacher on REGER on the 2014 benchmarks. All results use a beam size of 50.
Method
N@5
R@5
N@10
R@10
N@20
R@20
HCPD-Full
0.0382 ± 0.13
0.0580 ± 0.09
0.0475 ± 0.14
0.0867 ± 0.15
0.0574 ± 0.16
0.1241 ± 0.27
HCPD
0.0395 ± 0.08
0.0594 ± 0.05
0.0484 ± 0.13
0.0870 ± 0.19
0.0578 ± 0.12
0.1243 ± 0.18
Appendix
Table 8. Comparison of HCPD variants for REGER on Beauty under the same hyperparameter settings.
Generative recommendation models user histories and item catalogs to generate personalized items, lists, or queries rather than only scoring candidates.