MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407953538 · doi:10.1145/3701551.3703485

Tutorial on Recommendation with Generative Models (Gen-RecSys)

2025· article· en· W4407953538 on OpenAlexaff
Yashar Deldjoo, Zhankui He, Julian McAuley, Anton Korikov, Scott Sanner, Arnau Ramisa, René Vidal, Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, Silvia Milano

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRecommender systemArtificial intelligenceGenerative modelGenerative grammarComputational biologyMachine learningBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This intermediate-level tutorial, titled "Gen-RecSys", merges both industrial and academic perspectives on recent advances in Generative AI for recommender systems (beyond LLMs). It aims to highlight the transformative role of generative models in modern recommender systems, which have significantly impacted the AI field-particularly with the rise of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT-and have contributed to a rapid convergence of the fields of search, data mining, and recommendation. By providing attendees with a modern perspective on GenAI applications in recommendation, the tutorial will emphasize how generative models can drive recommendation by unlocking and interacting with rich data representations, including behavioral, textual, and multi-modal data-knowledge highly transferable across many applications of interest to the WSDM community. Participants will learn about the categorization of generative models in recommender systems based on underlying data modalities: (i) ID-based collaborative models, (ii) text-driven models such as LLMs, and (iii) multi-modal models. Within each category, various deep generative model paradigms (e.g., AR, GAN, diffusion models) will be introduced, along with insights into their application areas. The tutorial will also cover evaluation aspects, including benchmarks, metrics, and assessments of social and ethical impacts and harms. This tutorial presents a condensed version of the industrial and academic work featured in the forthcoming book at FntIR 2024-25, titled "Recommendation with Generative Models [7]," and a shorter version prepared, and presented by the team, see GenRecSys-Survey [6].

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207