Is Personalized Modality Weighting Actually Personalized? A Controlled Audit of Per-User Weighting Claims in Multimodal Recommenders
Per-user modality weighting is deployed at billion-user scale in multimodal recommenders, through user modality-strength vectors, attention gates, meta-weight hypernetworks, and low-rank guided weights, each claiming a ranking gain from user-specific modality preference. Yet, to our knowledge, prior evaluations do not isolate a genuinely user-specific signal from a global modality weight plus model capacity. We audit this family with a two-contrast audit principle, reducing six implementations onto one shared collaborative backbone and measuring a utility gap (real-GM) against a single global modality weight and an identifiability gap (real-shuf) against an eval-time permutation of the user-weight binding. Across three independent short-video corpora, a single global weight already delivers nearly all of the content gain (+1.9/+3.6/+3.5pp over a no-modality baseline, p < .001). Making the weight per-user adds no consistent utility: no implementation wins on all corpora and metrics, and the few positive gaps are small (<=0.9pp) and flip. The shuffle control is necessary but not sufficient, since real-shuf reaches +128% of the content gain for heads that simultaneously lose to the global weight. We trace this dissociation to gates reading the shared collaborative embedding: decoupling the gate input collapses the inflated real-shuf to near zero while the utility conclusion stands. A monotone signal-implant dose-response (capture AUROC rising from 0.57 to 0.89 and from 0.64 to 1.00) verifies the harness would detect user-specific structure if present, and every finding replicates on a fourth, cross-domain e-commerce corpus. We propose reporting real-GM alongside real-shuf as a minimum evidentiary standard for personalization claims.