Learning Deep Tree-based Retriever for Efficient Recommendation: Theory and Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although advancements in deep learning have significantly enhanced the recommendation accuracy of deep recommendation models, these methods still suffer from low recommendation efficiency. Recently proposed tree-based deep recommendation models alleviate the problem by directly learning tree structure and representations under the guidance of recommendation objectives. To guarantee the effectiveness of beam search for recommendation accuracy, these models strive to ensure that the tree adheres to the max-heap assumption, where a parent node's preference should be the maximum among its children's preferences. However, they employ a one-versus-all strategy, framing the training task as a series of independent binary classification objectives for each node, which limits their ability to fully satisfy the max-heap assumption. To this end, we propose a Deep Tree-based Retriever (DTR for short) for efficient recommendation. DTR frames the training task as a softmax-based multi-class classification over tree nodes at the same level, enabling explicit horizontal competition and more discriminative top-k selection among them, which mimics the beam search behavior during training. To mitigate the suboptimality induced by the labeling of non-leaf nodes, we propose a rectification method for the loss function, which further aligns with the max-heap assumption in expectation. As the number of tree nodes grows exponentially with the levels, we employ sampled softmax to approximate optimization and thereby enhance efficiency. Furthermore, we propose a tree-based sampling method to reduce the bias inherent in sampled softmax. Theoretical results reveal DTR's generalization capability, and both the rectification method and tree-based sampling contribute to improved generalization. The experiments are conducted on four real-world datasets, validating the effectiveness of the proposed method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".