Intent-Driven Semantic ID Generation for Grounded Conversational News Recommendation

Hongyang Su, Beibei Kong, Lei Cheng, Chengxiang Zhuo, Zang Li, Chenyun Yu · May 8, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Conversational news recommendation requires grounding each suggestion in a rapidly evolving article corpus while addressing implicit user intents that lack explicit retrievable keywords. To characterize this scenario, we identify 6 intent types from production dialogues: five are implicit and pose fundamental challenges to standard RAG pipelines, forming a critical retrieve-first bottleneck. To address these issues, we introduce intent-driven Semantic ID (SID) generation under a Generate-then-Match paradigm. With two-stage training that consists of multi-task SID alignment and GPT-4 Chain-of-Thought distillation, an LLM maps diverse intents to hierarchical SID prefixes, which are then fuzzy-matched to the current news pool to guarantee fully grounded recommendations. Profile-Aware Dual-Signal Reasoning (PADR) further enables cold-start users to obtain valid recommendations using only profiles. On a mainstream Chinese news platform, our 7B model achieves 0% hallucination and 12.4% L1 match in the 152K open-generation SID space (4x random baseline). It matches GPT-4+Hybrid RAG on L1 while surpassing it on finer-grained metrics (L2 2x, Category +1.2pp) at ~100x lower cost. Cold-start users, where existing baselines score 0%, achieve 18.0% L1 (6x random), the highest among all user groups.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.