recommendation system builders

Abstract: Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) minimizes empirical risk over observed preference comparisons, implicitly assuming that the training preference distribution matches the deployment preference distribution. In practice, this i.i.d. assumption often fails, as preference distribution shift exhibits a natural hierarchical structure across three levels: group-level shift, prompt-level shift, and preference-level shift. Such multi-level distributional mismatch poses a critical challenge for safe LLM deployment, yet existing robust DPO methods typically either model uncertainty over the joint preference distribution or focus on individual sources of shift, leaving the hierarchical structure of OOD preference shifts underexplored. We propose TPO, a tri-level distributionally robust framework for OOD preference alignment, which jointly models all three levels of distributional uncertainty through a hierarchically structured rectangular ambiguity set. By instantiating it with Wasserstein distance, we derive a tractable and interpretable objective that combines a closed-form preference-level margin penalty, prompt-level adversarial embedding perturbation, and worst-case group reweighting, each governed by an independent radius. We establish finite-sample convergence guarantees and empirically validate the effectiveness of TPO over existing robust DPO methods.

Abstract: Conversational Recommender Systems (CRSs) require reliable user simulators for cost-effective evaluation. LLM-based simulators have made realistic simulation possible but typically condition on profiles derived from explicit ratings, demographics, and static sources capturing surface preferences while omitting implicit behavioral characteristics such as decision-making style, aspect-level preferences, and domain expertise. We propose SimInter, a pipeline that elicits these attributes via synthetic interviews between two LLM agents, grounded in the user's statistical profile and historical conversational evidence. Before profile enrichment, an audit agent explicitly flags potential fabrication and stereotyping at the turn level. We instantiate and evaluate SimInter on movie recommendation. We simulate 300 ReDial users and, on a matched subset of 100 users, compare SimInter with a statistics-only baseline: SimInter significantly increases the diversity of expressed preference aspects (filtered aspect entropy: 1.619 vs. 0.859; paired d = 0.96, Holm-adjusted p < 0.001). This gain persists when the simulator converses with two trained recommenders, KBRD and UniCRS, under two independent evaluation judges (+0.28 to +0.56 nats; all p < 0.001). Human evaluation finds 94.3% of enriched-attribute claims supported or partially supported, while human judgments agree with 95.2% of the auditor's binary filtering decisions on a stratified sample.

Abstract: A common practice in instance retrieval is to grow the gallery size to improve a benchmark's discrimination capability. One prominent example is ILIAS, which adds up to 100 million distractor images. The prevailing assumption is that faithful evaluation demands web scale, and that indexing all 100M images through the backbone is the unavoidable price of a comparable number. That price is steep: hundreds of GPU-hours and ~200 GB of descriptors per model, paid again for every method or ablation. We show the web-scale indexing price is largely avoidable: evaluation itself obeys a scaling law. The number of distractors that outrank a positive is Binomial in the gallery size. We define the per-query retrieval hardness, a gallery-scale agnostic quantity that yields a retrieval metric at any scale, and demonstrate it can be derived from a small random sample. The underlying sampled-rank machinery is long established in recommender-system and biometric evaluation, but to our knowledge has never been adapted to visual retrieval. We make the law per-query and estimable, and validate it at true 100M scale on ILIAS and INSTRE, and on the full 759k-distractor Google Landmarks v2 pool. Concretely, within a 5% sample (a flat 20x less indexing), every backbone's tail-aware (EVT) estimate has converged onto the large-scale mAP, to within ~0.01 (mean absolute error 0.005), across five backbones, three benchmarks, and two distractor pools (mAP@1000 at 100M on ILIAS/INSTRE; the official mAP@100 at the full 759k pool on GLDv2); the recommender-systems count baseline over-predicts everywhere (+0.037 to +0.068). This is an order of magnitude better than naively reporting the metric on the same subset (+0.08 to +0.13). We release code and the per-query hardness to facilitate faster, cheaper, and greener retrieval evaluation.

Abstract: Learning from human feedback has become a central paradigm for training modern AI systems, where models of human utility are used as reward models in policy learning. Existing methods typically assume a \emph{universal utility} function shared across a population and treat disagreement between annotators as stochastic variation. While suitable for objective tasks, this assumption breaks down in subjective domains where preferences vary systematically across individuals. We study the problem of subjective preference learning, in which observed choices arise from heterogeneous but internally consistent utility functions. Drawing upon rational choice theory, RCT \parencite{tversky1981framing}, we introduce \emph{individuated utility} functions conditioned on both the individual and their decision context, and propose a novel multi-stage architecture for estimating them from multi-modal data. We evaluate our framework on a newly collected dataset of more than $575{,}000$ pairwise aesthetic judgments from $2{,}398$ participants comparing automotive wheel designs. Our experiments show that individuated utility models substantially outperform universal utility models including foundation model baselines. Our results demonstrate that disagreement reflects meaningful preference heterogeneity rather than annotation noise. More broadly, our findings highlight the importance of collecting annotator attributes and learning individuated utility functions, enabling reward models that explicitly account for whose preferences they represent and faithfully capture human decision diversity.