Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the impact of appending missed targets during generative recommender training, a common practice that conflates supervision signal with probability competition. By disentangling these effects through three novel matched losses, the authors demonstrate that the competition inherent in appending missed targets can degrade returned-item ranking performance. Experiments reveal that removing this competition significantly improves FT-NDCG, suggesting candidate completion should be generator-specific rather than a default strategy.
Generative recommender training strategies that append missed targets can actively harm ranking performance by introducing detrimental probability competition.
Generative recommenders return a limited candidate set and may omit observed targets before reranking. A training strategy appends these missed targets to reranker training lists, although inference still ranks only original candidates. This operation simultaneously changes retrieved-target weight, adds supervision over appended targets, and makes the two groups compete for probability. An append/no-append comparison therefore cannot explain changes in returned-item rankings. We construct three matched losses that hold retrieved-target weight fixed while introducing appended-target supervision and group competition separately. The intermediate loss trains within both groups but normalizes them separately, preventing training-only targets from competing with inference candidates. Experiments with a released OneRec model and locally trained Amazon generators show that this competition can harm returned-item ranking. In four prespecified Amazon Video Games comparisons, removing it improved full-target normalized discounted cumulative gain (FT-NDCG) by 7.8--22.2\%; 95\% intervals over users and three of four intervals over training runs excluded zero. A conservative development-set rule selected appended-target training for two of three generators in one held-out category and rejected it for all three in another, avoiding a 1.7\% loss. Candidate completion should therefore be evaluated for each generator rather than applied automatically.