Can Wang

Weiqin Yang, Jiawei Chen, Xin Xin et al.

Softmax Loss (SL) is widely applied in recommender systems (RS) and has demonstrated effectiveness. This work analyzes SL from a pairwise perspective, revealing two significant limitations: 1) the relationship between SL and conventional ranking metrics like DCG is not sufficiently tight; 2) SL is highly sensitive to false negative instances. Our analysis indicates that these limitations are primarily due to the use of the exponential function. To address these issues, this work extends SL to a new family of loss functions, termed Pairwise Softmax Loss (PSL), which replaces the exponential function in SL with other appropriate activation functions. While the revision is minimal, we highlight three merits of PSL: 1) it serves as a tighter surrogate for DCG with suitable activation functions; 2) it better balances data contributions; and 3) it acts as a specific BPR loss enhanced by Distributionally Robust Optimization (DRO). We further validate the effectiveness and robustness of PSL through empirical experiments. The code is available at https://github.com/Tiny-Snow/IR-Benchmark.

Yu Cui, Feng Liu, Jiawei Chen et al.

Click-through rate (CTR) prediction is a fundamental task in modern recommender systems. In recent years, the integration of large language models (LLMs) has been shown to effectively enhance the performance of traditional CTR methods. However, existing LLM-enhanced methods often require extensive processing of detailed textual descriptions for large-scale instances or user/item entities, leading to substantial computational overhead. To address this challenge, this work introduces LLaCTR, a novel and lightweight LLM-enhanced CTR method that employs a field-level enhancement paradigm. Specifically, LLaCTR first utilizes LLMs to distill crucial and lightweight semantic knowledge from small-scale feature fields through self-supervised field-feature fine-tuning. Subsequently, it leverages this field-level semantic knowledge to enhance both feature representation and feature interactions. In our experiments, we integrate LLaCTR with six representative CTR models across four datasets, demonstrating its superior performance in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency compared to existing LLM-enhanced methods. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LLaCTR-EC46.

Can Wang, Yiqun Chen

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial progress in biomedical and clinical applications, motivating rigorous evaluation of their ability to answer nuanced, evidence-based questions. We curate a multi-source benchmark drawing from Cochrane systematic reviews and clinical guidelines, including structured recommendations from the American Heart Association and narrative guidance used by insurers. Using GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5, we observe consistent performance patterns across sources and clinical domains: accuracy is highest on structured guideline recommendations (90%) and lower on narrative guideline and systematic review questions (60--70%). We also find a strong correlation between accuracy and the citation count of the underlying systematic reviews, where each doubling of citations is associated with roughly a 30% increase in the odds of a correct answer. Models show moderate ability to reason about evidence quality when contextual information is supplied. When we incorporate retrieval-augmented prompting, providing the gold-source abstract raises accuracy on previously incorrect items to 0.79; providing top 3 PubMed abstracts (ranked by semantic relevance) improves accuracy to 0.23, while random abstracts reduce accuracy (0.10, within temperature variation). These effects are mirrored in GPT-4o-mini, underscoring that source clarity and targeted retrieval -- not just model size -- drive performance. Overall, our results highlight both the promise and current limitations of LLMs for evidence-based clinical question answering. Retrieval-augmented prompting emerges as a useful strategy to improve factual accuracy and alignment with source evidence, while stratified evaluation by specialty and question type remains essential to understand current knowledge access and to contextualize model performance.