GR2 Technical Report

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Industrial recommendation systems serve billions of users through a multi-stage funnel -- retrieval, early-stage ranking, and re-ranking -- where the final re-ranking step disproportionately shapes user engagement and downstream performance, particularly for carousel and grid display formats. Despite growing enthusiasm for Large Language Models (LLMs) in recommendation, three gaps hinder industrial adoption: (1) most efforts target retrieval and ranking, leaving re-ranking -- the stage closest to the final user experience -- largely underexplored; (2) LLMs are typically deployed zero-shot or via supervised fine-tuning, underutilizing the reasoning capabilities unlocked by reinforcement learning (RL) on verifiable rewards; (3) deployed catalogs index billions of items with non-semantic identifiers that lie outside any base-LLM vocabulary. We present GR2 (Generative Reasoning Re-Ranker), an end-to-end framework that combines (i) mid-training on semantic IDs produced by a tokenizer with >=99% uniqueness, (ii) reasoning-trace distilled from a stronger teacher via targeted prompting and rejection sampling, and (iii) RL with verifiable rewards purpose-built for re-ranking. To make GR2 resource-viable, we further (iv) introduce a context compressor that amortizes training cost, On-Policy Distillation (OPD) as a scalable alternative to SFT -- which we find collapses at industrial scale -- and reasoning distillation for low-latency serving. GR2 delivers +18.7% R@1, +7.1% R@3, and +9.6% N@3 over legacy baselines on industrial-scale traffic. We further find that reward design is critical in re-ranking: LLMs often hack rewards by preserving the incoming order or exploiting position bias, motivating conditional verifiable rewards as essential industrial components.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page
• PDF from original source

Comments