Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.23510

LSNR: Learned Sparse News Recommendations with Attentive User Modeling

Abstract

Current learned sparse approaches for recommender systems, such as STAR, represent a user by concatenating their interaction history into a single query string. For news, this creates two bottlenecks: concatenation collapses a user's distinct reading interests into one flat query, and, because news articles are long-form text, concatenating several news articles quickly overruns the context window of the language model used as backbone and forces quality-degrading truncation. To address both bottlenecks, we introduce learned sparse news recommendations (LSNR). LSNR encodes each article independently and constructs a sparse user vector by combining learned, attention-based weighting of the per-article sparse representations with a dense-projected expansion at the user level. Experiments on the MIND and EBNeRD datasets show that LSNR significantly outperforms STAR, with these gains holding even in short-history settings where truncation is not a factor. Compared to state-of-the-art dense recommenders, LSNR is competitive in standard settings and it outperforms them when the user history is short. An ablation of the user encoder confirms that learned attention-based aggregation outperforms simpler pooling alternatives. Beyond effectiveness, an additional advantage of LSNR is that it serves from an index an order of magnitude smaller than an uncompressed dense baseline.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David Vos, Andrew Yates, Maarten de Rijke. 2026-10-16. LSNR: Learned Sparse News Recommendations with Attentive User Modeling. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.23510

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Advertising to Agents: Measuring Description-Framing Bias in LLM Tool Selection

AI agents often pick tools from registries, where each provider writes its tool's description; we ask whether sales language there changes which tool an agent picks. We built pairs of listings that differ in one way (praise, a verifiable specification, or list order) and asked two OpenAI models to call one tool. In a preregistered study, stacked praise (four kinds) raised a tool's pick rate by about 43 percentage points, matching or beating a verifiable specification. Praise also pulled some picks toward tools whose numeric limit was too small. With identical listings, the first-listed tool was picked about 72 points more often. Structured fields helped agents pick the capable tool; sales text beside them reduced or erased that gain. An exploratory study of five models shows the same direction; a "Sponsored" label dampened it, and a system-prompt warning moved one model. Registries could list limits as fields, hide sales text from agents, and randomize order. Stacked praise replicated on held-out domains; no single kind did after correcting for multiple tests. Preregistered results are provisional until blind phrase ratings are complete, and cover two small models.

cs.IR↗

UniRec: Cross-stage Multi-Task Fusion with Preference Optimization for Cascaded Recommender Systems

Industrial recommender systems use cascaded stages with different candidate spaces, data distributions, and latency constraints. Independently optimizing their multi-task fusion (MTF) modules can cause cross-stage preference inconsistency, while existing cross-stage methods mainly transfer supervision to upstream scoring models and leave fusion modules jointly unoptimized. We propose UniRec, a Unified Cross-stage Recommendation Fusion framework that jointly optimizes pre-ranking and ranking fusion agents. UniRec employs a coupled dual-agent architecture with partially shared embeddings and stage-specific fusion functions. It further introduces Dual-Axis Preference Optimization to combine stage-local preferences with downstream-to-upstream preference transfer. Attribute Group-Relative Regularization (AGRR) mitigates reward-induced distribution drift by normalizing preference advantages within attribute groups. To improve efficiency, Compact Pairwise Preference Aggregation (CPPA) reduces the objective-dependent pairwise complexity, while Confidence-Aware Pair Pruning (CAPP) further reduces the evaluated pair space. Extensive offline and online experiments on a production short-video system demonstrate consistent gains over single-stage fusion and cross-stage coordination baselines. In a nine-week online A/B test, UniRec improves total watch time by $0.675\%$ and app usage time by $0.616\%$, and has been fully deployed in production.

cs.IR↗

Reasoning Reranking with Semantic IDs as the Sole Item Representation

Reasoning rerankers write a rationale before ranking a candidate slate, and existing systems read item metadata to do so, even though generative recommenders increasingly represent items as compact Semantic IDs (SIDs). Ranking from SIDs alone has two appeals: SID prompts are far shorter than the matched item text, and although item codes are fixed from content, the backbone learns their token embeddings in part from user-item interaction sequences, so the tokens can carry behavioral signal that item text lacks. That training targets next-item generation, and whether it supports ranking a supplied slate from SIDs alone is untested. We build ReRankID, a controlled testbed in which models reason and rank from a history and slate shown only as SIDs, varying item rendering, history length, and slate size one at a time. On this testbed, such models often copy the input order instead of reranking, and readable metadata does not repair the failure. We compare supervised fine-tuning, rejection-sampled self-training, on-policy distillation, and verifier-based reinforcement learning as post-training methods and find that they elicit the missing behavior. The strongest post-trained model, the 8B model trained with a graded ranking reward, gives the best SID-only ranking and matches strong text-reading LLMs whose prompts are about 20x longer. It ranks above random with no history at all, where a caption-reading reference does not, and it keeps its gains at long histories, where text prompts pass 50k tokens and the caption-reading reference stops improving. In a paired rationale audit, this model argues trade-offs better than that reference but describes items less accurately. The common post-training methods we test thus elicit ranking from SIDs but not faithful item descriptions, which calls for post-training that improves the reasoning itself, not only the ranking it produces.

cs.IR↗