Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 7, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
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.