Hugging Face Trending Papers

Pairwise Ranking Outperforms Single-Action RL for Offline Explanation Selection: A Practical Lesson

Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →

The paper presents a cost‑effective approach for industrial explainable‑recommendation systems by decoupling explanation generation from selection. Explanations are pre‑generated using six prompt styles and two commodity LLMs, then a lightweight CPU‑resident selector (e.g., LambdaRank) chooses the best one at request time, achieving sub‑100 ms latency without GPUs. Experiments on a 2,958‑pair Google Local subset and a 300‑pair MovieLens‑1M split show that pairwise ranking outperforms single‑action RL methods, while KG‑path selectors achieve near‑perfect unique‑output rates, and the overall end‑to‑end build cost is around $15 on commodity hardware.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at Hugging Face Trending Papers.

arXiv AI
Aug 20

Pairwise Ranking Outperforms Single-Action RL for Offline Explanation Selection: A Practical Lesson

The paper presents a cost‑effective approach for industrial explainable‑recommendation systems by decoupling explanation generation from selection. Candidate explanations are pre‑generated using six prompt styles and two commodity LLMs, then a lightweight CPU‑resident selector (e.g., LambdaRank) chooses the best one at request time, achieving sub‑100 ms latency without GPUs. Experiments on a 2,958‑pair Google Local subset and a 300‑pair MovieLens‑1M split show that pairwise ranking methods outperform single‑action RL baselines, while KG‑path selectors achieve near‑perfect user satisfaction scores.

By Tanay Chowdhury, Saeideh Shahrokh Esfahani
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 28

Keeping the Index Open: The Recommendation-Side Cost of Shared Search and Recommendation

The paper investigates the trade‑off of using a shared search‑and‑recommendation index that scores new items purely from features, thereby keeping the index open to unseen items. Experiments on public logs show that a feature‑based tower can match warm‑item performance (Recall@20 0.9595 vs 0.9510) and a lexical baseline, while a full‑catalog check is inconclusive. The study also quantifies the cost of this openness on recommendation quality across several baselines, revealing that exact full‑softmax training improves recall but is impractical at catalog scale.

By Theodore Rogers, Joe Standerfer, Dmitrii Timoshenko, Haoxue Li, Zuhaib Akhtar, Soyoung Yang
arXiv AI
Oct 1

TRACE: Trajectory Selection for Parallel Scaling of Search Agents

TRACE is a lightweight learned selector that ranks completed search trajectories by aggregating cross‑rollout evidence, preserving individual query and evidence occurrences while propagating information across shared content or document identity. Trained with answer‑level supervision over frozen text embeddings, TRACE selects an existing answer without additional search or autoregressive aggregation, and a single selector generalizes across rollout policies and agent backbones. Across six WebQA policies, six long‑horizon dataset‑backbone combinations, and multiple WebQA benchmarks, TRACE outperforms majority voting and generative aggregators, achieving higher accuracy and at least tenfold higher processing throughput.

By Qisheng Zhou, Zhen Xiong, Qiaoyu Tan
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 30

Scores Are Not Decisions: Cost-Aware Stopping for Tool Acquisition in LLM Agents

arXiv:2607. 27083v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM agents increasingly depend on diverse external services such as search engines, databases, and connectors, agent harnesses face a fundamental tool-selection challenge: acquiring too few tools leaves the task under-informed, while too many adds cost, context load, and privacy exposure.

By Yicheng Feng, Yan Zhang, Yan Cheng, Wei Qi
arXiv AI
Jul 14

Coresets Before Score Sets: Evaluation-Unsupervised Prompt Subset Selection for LLM Benchmarks

arXiv:2607. 09739v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We study LLM benchmark coreset selection: selecting a small subset of prompts over multiple benchmarks whose induced model scores and rankings approximate those obtained from the full benchmark suite.

By Jihan Yao, Gantavya Bhatt, Arnav Das, Peter Jin, Ke Bao, Qiaolin Yu, Khushi Bhardwaj, Chang Su, Jialei Wang, Yikai Zhu, Sugam Devare, Damon Mosk-Aoyama, Zhen Dong, Venkat Krishna Srinivasan, Yineng Zhang, Oleksii Kuchaiev, Jiantao Jiao, Banghua Zhu, Jeff Bilmes