Reasoning Reranking with Semantic IDs as the Sole Item Representation
cs.IR, cs.CL, cs.LG
Submitted: 2026-10-16
Updated: 2026-10-16
Comments: 30 pages, 3 figures. Code: https://github.com/lilv98/ReRankID ; data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/lilvjosephtang/ReRankID
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Reasoning rerankers write a rationale before ranking a candidate slate, and existing systems read item metadata to do so, even though generative recommenders increasingly represent items as compact
Abstract
Reasoning rerankers write a rationale before ranking a candidate slate, and existing systems read item metadata to do so, even though generative recommenders increasingly represent items as compact Semantic IDs (SIDs). Ranking from SIDs alone has two appeals: SID prompts are far shorter than the matched item text, and although item codes are fixed from content, the backbone learns their token embeddings in part from user-item interaction sequences, so the tokens can carry behavioral signal that item text lacks. That training targets next-item generation, and whether it supports ranking a supplied slate from SIDs alone is untested. We build ReRankID, a controlled testbed in which models reason and rank from a history and slate shown only as SIDs, varying item rendering, history length, and slate size one at a time. On this testbed, such models often copy the input order instead of reranking, and readable metadata does not repair the failure. We compare supervised fine-tuning, rejection-sampled self-training, on-policy distillation, and verifier-based reinforcement learning as post-training methods and find that they elicit the missing behavior. The strongest post-trained model, the 8B model trained with a graded ranking reward, gives the best SID-only ranking and matches strong text-reading LLMs whose prompts are about 20x longer. It ranks above random with no history at all, where a caption-reading reference does not, and it keeps its gains at long histories, where text prompts pass 50k tokens and the caption-reading reference stops improving. In a paired rationale audit, this model argues trade-offs better than that reference but describes items less accurately. The common post-training methods we test thus elicit ranking from SIDs but not faithful item descriptions, which calls for post-training that improves the reasoning itself, not only the ranking it produces.
Related papers
- The Price of Isolation: Estimating the Ecosystem Cost of Symmetric Two-Sided A/B Testing
- SCAR: Semantic Continuity-Aware Retrieval for Efficient Context Expansion in RAG
- MixLoRA-DSI: Dynamically Expandable Mixture-of-LoRA Experts for Rehearsal-Free Generative Retrieval over Dynamic Corpora
- How Do LLM-Generated Texts Impact Term-Based Retrieval Models?
- MemSyco-Bench: Benchmarking Sycophancy in Agent Memory
- From a Large-Scale Teacher to Efficient Multimodal Students for Search Relevance Prediction