Recommendation as Generation: Unifying Personalized Video Generation and Recommendation at Industrial Scale
Extracted source text · arXiv 2606.25496
%%
%% This is file `sample-sigconf.tex',
%% generated with the docstrip utility.
%%
%% The original source files were:
%%
%% samples.dtx (with options: `all,proceedings,bibtex,sigconf')
%%
%% IMPORTANT NOTICE:
%%
%% For the copyright see the source file.
%%
%% Any modified versions of this file must be renamed
%% with new filenames distinct from sample-sigconf.tex.
%%
%% For distribution of the original source see the terms
%% for copying and modification in the file samples.dtx.
%%
%% This generated file may be distributed as long as the
%% original source files, as listed above, are part of the
%% same distribution. (The sources need not necessarily be
%% in the same archive or directory.)
%%
%%
%% Commands for TeXCount
%TC:macro \cite [option:text,text]
%TC:macro \citep [option:text,text]
%TC:macro \citet [option:text,text]
%TC:envir table 0 1
%TC:envir table* 0 1
%TC:envir tabular [ignore] word
%TC:envir displaymath 0 word
%TC:envir math 0 word
%TC:envir comment 0 0
%%
%% The first command in your LaTeX source must be the \documentclass
%% command.
%%
%% For submission and review of your manuscript please change the
%% command to \documentclass[manuscript, screen, review]{acmart}.
%%
%% When submitting camera ready or to TAPS, please change the command
%% to \documentclass[sigconf]{acmart} or whichever template is required
%% for your publication.
%%
%%
% \documentclass[sigconf]{acmart}
% \documentclass[sigconf,anonymous,review,nonacm]{acmart}
\PassOptionsToPackage{table}{xcolor}
\documentclass[sigconf,nonacm]{acmart}
%%
%% \BibTeX command to typeset BibTeX logo in the docs
\AtBeginDocument{%
\providecommand\BibTeX{{%
Bib\TeX}}}
%% Rights management information. This information is sent to you
%% when you complete the rights form. These commands have SAMPLE
%% values in them; it is your responsibility as an author to replace
%% the commands and values with those provided to you when you
%% complete the rights form.
\setcopyright{acmlicensed}
% \copyrightyear{2026}
% \acmYear{2026}
% \acmDOI{XXXXXXX.XXXXXXX}
% %% These commands are for a PROCEEDINGS abstract or paper.
% \acmConference[KDD '26]{Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining}{August 2026}{TBD}
% %%
% %% Uncomment \acmBooktitle if the title of the proceedings is different
% %% from ``Proceedings of ...''!
% %%
% %%\acmBooktitle{Woodstock '18: ACM Symposium on Neural Gaze Detection,
% %% June 03--05, 2018, Woodstock, NY}
% \acmISBN{978-1-4503-XXXX-X/26/08}
%%
%% Submission ID.
%% Use this when submitting an article to a sponsored event. You'll
%% receive a unique submission ID from the organizers
%% of the event, and this ID should be used as the parameter to this command.
%%\acmSubmissionID{123-A56-BU3}
%%
%% For managing citations, it is recommended to use bibliography
%% files in BibTeX format.
%%
%% You can then either use BibTeX with the ACM-Reference-Format style,
%% or BibLaTeX with the acmnumeric or acmauthoryear sytles, that include
%% support for advanced citation of software artefact from the
%% biblatex-software package, also separately available on CTAN.
%%
%% Look at the sample-*-biblatex.tex files for templates showcasing
%% the biblatex styles.
%%
%%
%% The majority of ACM publications use numbered citations and
%% references. The command \citestyle{authoryear} switches to the
%% "author year" style.
%%
%% If you are preparing content for an event
%% sponsored by ACM SIGGRAPH, you must use the "author year" style of
%% citations and references.
%% Uncommenting
%% the next command will enable that style.
%%\citestyle{acmauthoryear}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage{dsfont}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % allow utf-8 input
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % use 8-bit T1 fonts
\usepackage{hyperref} % hyperlinks
\usepackage{url} % simple URL typesetting
\usepackage{booktabs} % professional-quality tables
\usepackage{amsfonts} % blackboard math symbols
\usepackage{nicefrac} % compact symbols for 1/2, etc.
\usepackage{microtype} % microtypography
\usepackage{xcolor} % colors
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage[most]{tcolorbox}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\let\Bbbk\relax
\usepackage{amssymb}
\definecolor{promptbg}{RGB}{245,247,250}
\definecolor{promptframe}{RGB}{70,90,120}
\definecolor{prompttitle}{RGB}{35,45,70}
\newtcbtheorem[number within=section]{promptbox}{Box}{
enhanced,
breakable,
colback=promptbg,
colframe=promptframe,
coltitle=white,
colbacktitle=prompttitle,
fonttitle=\bfseries\small,
fontupper=\footnotesize\ttfamily,
boxrule=0.4pt,
arc=2pt,
left=4pt,
right=4pt,
top=3pt,
bottom=3pt,
}{box}
% \settopmatter\renewcommand{\receivedhistory}{}
\usepackage{caption}
\captionsetup[figure]{skip=3pt}
\captionsetup[table]{skip=3pt}
\setlength{\textfloatsep}{6pt}
\setlength{\floatsep}{6pt}
\setlength{\intextsep}{6pt}
\usepackage[table]{xcolor}
\definecolor{lightgray}{gray}{0.93}
%%
%% end of the preamble, start of the body of the document source.
\begin{document}
%%
%% The "title" command has an optional parameter,
%% allowing the author to define a "short title" to be used in page headers.
\title{Recommendation as Generation: Unifying Personalized Video Generation and Recommendation at Industrial Scale}
%%
%% The "author" command and its associated commands are used to define
%% the authors and their affiliations.
%% Of note is the shared affiliation of the first two authors, and the
%% "authornote" and "authornotemark" commands
%% used to denote shared contribution to the research.
% \author{Ben Trovato}
% \authornote{Both authors contributed equally to this research.}
% \email{trovato@corporation.com}
% \orcid{1234-5678-9012}
% \author{G.K.M. Tobin}
% \authornotemark[1]
% \email{webmaster@marysville-ohio.com}
% \affiliation{%
% \institution{Institute for Clarity in Documentation}
% \city{Dublin}
% \state{Ohio}
% \country{USA}
% }
% \author{Lars Th{\o}rv{\"a}ld}
% \affiliation{%
% \institution{The Th{\o}rv{\"a}ld Group}
% \city{Hekla}
% \country{Iceland}}
% \email{larst@affiliation.org}
% \author{Valerie B\'eranger}
% \affiliation{%
% \institution{Inria Paris-Rocquencourt}
% \city{Rocquencourt}
% \country{France}
% }
% \author{Aparna Patel}
% \affiliation{%
% \institution{Rajiv Gandhi University}
% \city{Doimukh}
% \state{Arunachal Pradesh}
% \country{India}}
% \author{Huifen Chan}
% \affiliation{%
% \institution{Tsinghua University}
% \city{Haidian Qu}
% \state{Beijing Shi}
% \country{China}}
% \author{Charles Palmer}
% \affiliation{%
% \institution{Palmer Research Laboratories}
% \city{San Antonio}
% \state{Texas}
% \country{USA}}
% \email{cpalmer@prl.com}
% \author{John Smith}
% \affiliation{%
% \institution{The Th{\o}rv{\"a}ld Group}
% \city{Hekla}
% \country{Iceland}}
% \email{jsmith@affiliation.org}
% \author{Julius P. Kumquat}
% \affiliation{%
% \institution{The Kumquat Consortium}
% \city{New York}
% \country{USA}}
% \email{jpkumquat@consortium.net}
\author{Yanhua Cheng$^{\ast}$\textsuperscript{1},
Bo Wang$^{\ast}$\textsuperscript{1},
Haotian Zhang$^{\ast}$$^{\S}$\textsuperscript{2},
Xinyuan Gao$^{\ast}$\textsuperscript{1},
Zhihui Yin\textsuperscript{1},
Ben Xue\textsuperscript{1},
Yongzhi Li\textsuperscript{1},
Jieting Xue\textsuperscript{1},
Ye Ma\textsuperscript{1},
Minquan Wang\textsuperscript{1},
Jiahui Li\textsuperscript{1},
Tianyu Xu\textsuperscript{1},
Zhiqiang Liu\textsuperscript{1},
Xiao Lin\textsuperscript{1}, \\
Shiyang Wen\textsuperscript{1},
Changcheng Li\textsuperscript{1},
Liu Liu\textsuperscript{2},
Quan Chen\textsuperscript{1},
Peng Jiang$^{\dag}$\textsuperscript{1},
Kun Gai\textsuperscript{1}}
\affiliation{
\institution{
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.35\textwidth}
\centering
\textsuperscript{1}Kuaishou Technology\\
Beijing, China
\end{minipage}
\hspace{1cm} % 替换掉原来的 \hfill，这里填具体的距离
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.35\textwidth}\centering
\textsuperscript{2}Beihang University\\
Beijing, China\end{minipage}
}
\country{}
}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{\textsuperscript{1}Kuaishou Technology}
% \streetaddress{}
% \city{Beijing}
% \country{China}
% }
% \affiliation{
% \institution{\textsuperscript{2}Beihang University}
% \streetaddress{}
% \city{Beijing}
% \country{China}
% }
\thanks{
$^{\ast}$Equal contribution.\\
$^{\S}$Work done during an internship at Kuaishou Technology.\\
$^{\dag}$Corresponding author.
}
% \renewcommand{\footnotetext}{\let\thefootnote\relax\footnotetext[0]{\dagger Equal contribution. \ddagger Corresponding author. Work done during an internship at Kuaishou Technology.}}
% \author{Bo Wang\footnote{Equal contribution.}}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{wangbo24@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Haotian Zhang\footnote{Equal contribution.}\footnote{Work done during an internship at Kuaishou Technology.}}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Beihang University}
% }
% \email{zhtian@buaa.edu.cn}
% \author{Xinyuan Gao\footnote{Equal contribution.}}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{gaoxinyuan@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Zhihui Yin\footnote{Equal contribution.}}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{yinzhihui@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Ben Xue\footnote{Equal contribution.}}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{xueben@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Yongzhi Li\footnote{Equal contribution.}}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{liyongzhi03@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Jieting Xue}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{xuejieting@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Ye Ma}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{maye@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Mingquan Wang}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{wangminquan@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Jiahui Li}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{lijiahui11@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Xiao Lin}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{linxiao05@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Shiyang Wen}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{wenshiyang@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Changcheng Li}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{lichangcheng@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Yanhua Cheng}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{chengyanhua@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Liu Liu}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Beihang University}
% }
% \email{liuliubh@buaa.edu.cn}
% \author{Quan Chen}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{chenquan06@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Peng Jiang}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{jiangpeng@kuaishou.com}
% \author{Kun Gai}
% \affiliation{
% \institution{Kuaishou Technology}
% }
% \email{kun.gai@qq.com}
%%
%% By default, the full list of authors will be used in the page
%% headers. Often, this list is too long, and will overlap
%% other information printed in the page headers. This command allows
%% the author to define a more concise list
%% of authors' names for this purpose.
\renewcommand{\shortauthors}{Yanhua Cheng et al.}
%%
%% The abstract is a short summary of the work to be presented in the
%% article.
\begin{abstract}
% Traditional recommendation systems are inherently constrained by the available pool of human-generated content, often leading to content fatigue and suboptimal matching for niche user interests.
% This paper presents a novel, unified framework that bridges Generative Recommendation with AI-Generated Content (AIGC) to enable on-demand, personalized video production at scale.
% Traditional recommendation systems rely on a vast pool of human-generated content, with the system distributing material based on user interests. However, the existing pool of pre-created content could limit the effectiveness of personalized delivery.
% In this paper, we propose a novel framework that integrates Generative Recommendation with AIGC (AI-Generated Content) to transcend these boundaries through the on-demand generation of personalized video materials.
% At the core of our approach is a Uni-Embedding Model based on Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), which explicitly decouples advertising videos into distinct product and creative feature spaces. These features are quantized into Semantic IDs (SIDs), enabling a generative recommendation model to not only predict user interests but also propose novel compositions of product-creative pairs that do not yet exist in the current library.
% To transform these recommendation signals into high-quality content, we introduce a two-stage generation pipeline: (1) a Personalized Creative Decoder (PCD) that translates latent SIDs into structured ad scripts, and (2) an Agentic Video Generation System (AVGS). The AVGS utilizes a ReAct-based planning agent to orchestrate hierarchical editing tasks—including visual, audio, and effect tracks—optimized via a hybrid reward mechanism that ensures both structural adherence and semantic consistency. By closing the loop between "predicting what a user wants" and "generating exactly what is predicted," our system significantly elevates the ceiling for personalized traffic matching in large-scale commercial advertising.
Traditional short-video recommendation systems match user interest to a fixed pool of pre-produced videos, which limits their ability to capture fine-grained and dynamic preferences. We propose \textbf{Recommendation-as-Generation} (\textbf{RaG}), a new paradigm that generates personalized videos on demand from inferred user interest. Our framework unifies generative recommendation and video generation through shared semantic IDs (SIDs), which disentangle video representation into content semantics and creative style semantics, enabling both fine-grained modeling of user interest and controllable generation of interest-aligned videos. We further develop \textbf{Video Generation Agents} (\textbf{VGAs}) that are conditioned on inferred SIDs to drive hierarchical planning and refinement for video creation, including visual composition, audio alignment, and artistic effect enhancement. To optimize the framework, we effectively introduce a synergistic cross-domain reward learning mechanism that jointly enforces interest alignment, user feedback, and video quality assessment.
We deploy RaG~\footnote{Project page: \url{https://recommendation-as-generation.github.io/}} on an industrial-scale platform with over 400 million daily active users and evaluate it in a revenue-critical advertising scenario. Online A/B tests show up to \textbf{1.87\%} ad revenue improvement compared to a strong production GRM baseline, demonstrating its effectiveness in driving further revenue gains beyond generative recommendation.
Our results highlight a closed-loop generative system as a promising paradigm for integrating personalized video generation into recommendation.
\end{abstract}
%%
%% The code below is generated by the tool at http://dl.acm.org/ccs.cfm.
%% Please copy and paste the code instead of the example below.
%%
% \begin{CCSXML}
% <ccs2012>
% <concept>
% <concept_id>10002951.10003317.10003347.10003350</concept_id>
% <concept_desc>Information systems~Recommender systems</concept_desc>
% <concept_significance>500</concept_significance>
% </concept>
% <concept>
% <concept_id>10010147.10010178.10010224</concept_id>
% <concept_desc>Computing methodologies~Computer vision</concept_desc>
% <concept_significance>300</concept_significance>
% </concept>
% <concept>
% <concept_id>10010147.10010178.10010179.10010182</concept_id>
% <concept_desc>Computing methodologies~Natural language generation</concept_desc>
% <concept_significance>300</concept_significance>
% </concept>
% </ccs2012>
% \end{CCSXML}
% \ccsdesc[500]{Information systems~Recommender systems}
% \ccsdesc[300]{Computing methodologies~Computer vision}
% \ccsdesc[300]{Computing methodologies~Natural language generation}
%%
%% Keywords. The author(s) should pick words that accurately describe
%% the work being presented. Separate the keywords with commas.
\keywords{Generative Recommendation, Personalized Video Generation, \\Agents, Semantic Quantization, Reward Learning}
% A "teaser" image appears between the author and affiliation
% information and the body of the document, and typically spans the
% page.
% \begin{teaserfigure}
% \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sampleteaser}
% \caption{Seattle Mariners at Spring Training, 2010.}
% \Description{Enjoying the baseball game from the third-base
% seats. Ichiro Suzuki preparing to bat.}
% \label{fig:teaser}
% \end{teaserfigure}
% \received{20 February 2007}
% \received[revised]{12 March 2009}
% \received[accepted]{5 June 2009}
%%
%% This command processes the author and affiliation and title
%% information and builds the first part of the formatted document.
\maketitle
% \begin{figure}[t]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Figures/intro_figure.pdf}
% \vspace{-6mm}
% \caption{Illustration of paradigm shift from selecting pre-created existing items to generating personalized content on demand.}
% \vspace{-6mm}
% \label{fig:intro}
% \end{figure}
\input{kdd/1Introduction}
\input{kdd/paradigm}
\input{kdd/3Method}
\input{kdd/Deployment}
\input{kdd/4Experiment}
\input{kdd/2RelatedWork}
\input{kdd/6Conclusion}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\bibliography{sample-base}
%%
%% If your work has an appendix, this is the place to put it.
\clearpage
\appendix
\input{AppendixText/Appendix_full}
\end{document}
\endinput
%%
%% End of file `sample-sigconf.tex'.
% \vspace{-0.2in}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% Over the past decade, recommendation systems have followed a classical paradigm in which content is produced by humans and distributed to target users through cascaded deep learning-based recommendation models (DLRMs) ~\cite{covington2016deep, cheng2016wide, zhou2018din, zhu2018learning}.
% While this paradigm has achieved remarkable success, it fundamentally relies on a fixed pool of human-generated content, limiting the system’s ability to adapt to users’ rapidly evolving and long-tail interests.
% As a result, DLRMs powered recommendation systems are inherently constrained to retrieving and ranking existing content, rather than generating content tailored to users’ real-time needs.
% Recent generative recommendation models~\cite{deng2025onerec, xue2026gr4ad} have achieved substantial gains across various real-world applications, benefiting from favorable scaling laws in both model size and data.
% However, these systems continue to depend on predicting semantic IDs~\cite{rajput2023recommender} to retrieve user-relevant items from a fixed set of human-generated content.
% We argue that since users’ interests are both dynamic and long-tailed, relying on a fixed pool of human-generated content to retrieve could frequently result in suboptimal personalized experiences due to limited content coverage and timeliness.
% Over the past decade, video recommendation systems have followed a classical paradigm in which videos are produced by humans and distributed to target users through deep learning-based recommendation models (DLRMs)~\cite{covington2016deep, cheng2016wide, zhou2018din, zhu2018learning}. While this paradigm has achieved remarkable success, it fundamentally relies on a limited set of human-generated videos, limiting the system’s ability to adapt to users’ rapidly evolving and long-tail interests. Consequently, DLRM-based systems are constrained to retrieving and ranking existing videos rather than generating videos tailored to users’ real-time needs.
% Over the past decade, video recommendation systems have followed a classical paradigm in which humans produce videos and deep learning-based recommendation models (DLRMs)~\cite{covington2016deep, cheng2016wide, zhou2018din, zhu2018learning} distribute them to target users. While this paradigm has achieved great success, it relies on a limited set of human-generated videos, limiting the system's ability to keep up with users' rapidly evolving and long-tail interests. As a result, DLRM-based systems can only retrieve and rank existing videos rather than generating videos tailored to users' dynamic needs.
% Recently, generative recommendation models (GRMs)~\cite{deng2025onerec, xue2026gr4ad} have demonstrated great gains across diverse real-world applications, benefiting from favorable scaling laws in both model size and data. However, these approaches still rely on predicting semantic IDs~\cite{rajput2023recommender} to retrieve videos from limited human-generated corpus, leaving video generation and recommendation fundamentally decoupled and preventing end-to-end optimization.
% Recently, generative recommendation models (GRMs)~\cite{deng2025onerec, xue2026gr4ad} have shown strong gains across diverse real-world applications, driven by favorable scaling laws in both model size and data. However, these methods still generate Semantic IDs (SIDs) ~\cite{rajput2023recommender} to retrieve videos from a limited human-generated corpus, keeping video generation and recommendation decoupled and preventing end-to-end optimization.
%, leaving them inherently limited in their ability to fully capture dynamic and long-tail user interests.
% Modern recommendation systems excel at information distribution, yet they remain fundamentally constrained by a structural limitation: they operate strictly within a retrieval-then-ranking paradigm tied to a finite, predefined set of contents. While recent generative recommendation models~\cite{deng2025onerec,zhou2025onerecv2technicalreport} attempt to directly predict target content, they remain inherently bounded by this fixed inventory and cannot synthesize novel, out-of-catalog variants. Consequently, as user interests become increasingly dynamic, highly personalized, and long-tail, this finite item pool creates an intrinsic supply-demand bottleneck: even the most sophisticated algorithms cannot satisfy a user's specific intent if the ideal content does not yet exist.
% Driven by the rapid advancements in generative models,
% AI generated content (AIGC) tools ~\cite{sora2_system_card,veo3_model_card,team2025kling}
% are reshaping video generation at an unprecedented pace.
% It is promising to integrate AIGC with recommendation into an end-to-end generative framework to enhance personalized experiences.
% However, deploying such a system at scale in real-world applications faces two key challenges.
% \begin{figure}[t]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/intro.pdf}
% % \vspace{-0.08in}
% \caption{\small
% % Illustration of the paradigm shift from retrieval-based recommendation to recommendation as generation. Traditional DLRMs and GRMs are confined to a static catalog, while the proposed encoder-latent-decoder (RaG) paradigm breaks this boundary by unifying recommendation and content creation—directly synthesizing personalized content from interests predicted by LIM.
% Illustration of the Recommendation-as-Generation paradigm.
% (a) Conventional systems retrieve videos from a fixed content pool, leading to suboptimal matches when user intent is unmet.
% (b) Our approach generates personalized videos conditioned on Semantic IDs (SIDs), with an end-to-end reward system jointly optimizing interest alignment, video quality, and user feedback.}
% \label{fig:rag}
% \vspace{-0.2in}
% \end{figure}
% % \textit{First, how to integrate real-time user interest estimation with video generation in an end-to-end manner?}
% % Real-world recommendation models are required to accurately infer users’ dynamic and fine-grained interests in real time from historical interaction signals (e.g., clicks and conversions). To enable personalized video generation, AIGC models need to condition on such individualized interests to produce relevant content. However, unifying these two components into an end-to-end manner is non-trivial,
% % % aligning these two components is non-trivial,
% % as they differ fundamentally in both data organization and probabilistic modeling. Recommendation models are typically trained as discriminative models over highly heterogeneous and discrete data, such as user/item IDs and interaction behaviors, whereas AIGC models are generative in nature and are trained on multimodal data, including text, visual, and audio signals.
% % Moreover, Transforming hundreds of thousands of real-time user interest predictions per second into personalized video generation poses significant engineering challenges.
% \textit{First, how to integrate dynamic user interests with video generation in an end-to-end manner?}
% Real-world recommendation models need to accurately infer users' dynamic and fine-grained interests from historical interaction signals (e.g., clicks and conversions). To enable personalized video generation, AIGC models need to condition on such interests to produce relevant content. However, unifying these two components is non-trivial, as they differ fundamentally in both data organization and modeling. Most recommendation models are trained as discriminative models over heterogeneous, discrete data such as user/item IDs and interaction behaviors, whereas AIGC models are generative and trained on multimodal data including text, visual, and audio signals.
% This mismatch prevents seamless alignment between user interest representations and generative conditioning, hindering end-to-end optimization.
% % Moreover, translating hundreds of thousands of real-time user interest predictions per second into personalized video generation poses significant engineering challenges.
% % Previous works~\cite{wang2023generec,xu2026nextads} attempt to convert user behavioral data into textual descriptions and then feed them into large language models (LLMs) to infer user interests, which are then used to condition downstream AIGC models.
% % While this strategy circumvents the mismatch between recommendation and AIGC paradigms, it is inherently inefficient~\cite{jia2025learn}, because LLM-based offline interest summarization lacks effective training on large-scale behavioral data and cannot leverage real-time online features.
% % As a result, these methods struggle to deliver accurate personalization and are difficult to deploy effectively in real-world recommendation systems.
% % \textit{Second, how to achieve large-scale and high-quality video generation while keeping costs under control?} State-of-the-art video generation models ~\cite{team2025kling,wan2025,seedance2025seedance}
% % typically rely on manually crafted prompts to produce short clips (e.g., 5–10 seconds) at high computational and time cost.
% % For example, generating a satisfactory one-minute video often requires hours of human–model interaction, along with manual editing using professional video editing tools. Moreover, the cost of invoking visual generation models alone can exceed \$20, even without accounting for additional processing and editing overhead.
% % However, real-world recommendation systems typically require content supply at the scale of tens of millions or even billions of videos. Therefore, directly leveraging existing AIGC tools is insufficient to meet the industrial demands of personalized video generation and recommendation in terms of automation, timeliness, and cost efficiency.
% \textit{Second, how to enable scalable, high-quality video generation with computational efficiency?}
% State-of-the-art video generation models~\cite{sora2_system_card, veo3_model_card, team2025kling, wan2025, seedance2025seedance} typically rely on manually crafted prompts to produce short clips (e.g., 5–10 seconds) at high computational cost and latency. For example, generating a satisfactory one-minute video often requires hours of human–model interaction and manual editing with professional tools, as well as a cost of tens of dollars. Yet real-world recommendation systems require content at the scale of tens of millions or even billions of videos. Directly using existing AIGC tools is therefore insufficient to meet industrial demands in terms of automation, timeliness, and cost efficiency.
% In contrast to prior works ~\cite{wang2023generec,xu2026nextads} that largely overlook these challenges, inspired by the design philosophy of latent diffusioin model ~\cite{rombach2022high} and generative recommendation ~\cite{xue2026gr4ad}, in this paper, we propose a novel Encoder-Latent-Decoder (RaG) architecture that unifies personalized video generation and recommendation for large-scale advertising.
% In contrast to prior works~\cite{wang2023generec,xu2026nextads} that largely overlook these challenges, we draw inspiration from video generation models~\cite{rombach2022high, yan2021videogpt} and generative recommendation models~\cite{xue2026gr4ad} to propose a novel encoder–latent–decoder architecture that unifies personalized video generation and recommendation under a Recommendation-as-Generation (RaG) paradigm, as shown in Figure.~\ref{fig:rag}.
% Specifically, RaG first leverages a large multimodal language model to encode input content into disentangled, semantically rich embeddings.
% These embeddings are then quantized into semantic IDs, forming a multimodal discrete latent space.
% Within this space, RaG models users’ compositional interests by predicting the next Semantic IDs based on historical interactions.
% Finally, conditioned on the predicted compositional interests, RaG employs a carefully designed Agentic Video Generation System (Agentic VGS) as the decoder to generate personalized videos in real time at scale and low cost.
% Benefiting from the RaG architecture, we could convert the conventional retrieval based recommendation paradigm, where videos are produced offline by humans and subsequently matched to users’ interests by recommendation models, into an end-to-end generative paradigm, where videos are generated and recommended on demand according to users' evolving interests.
% In contrast to prior works~\cite{wang2023generec, xu2026nextads} that largely overlook these challenges, we draw inspiration from latent diffusion model~\cite{rombach2022high} and generative recommendation model~\cite{xue2026gr4ad} to propose a novel architecture that unifies personalized video generation and recommendation under a Recommendation-as-Generation (RaG) paradigm, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:rag}.
% Specifically, RaG first uses a multimodal large language model to encode input content into semantically rich embeddings. These embeddings are then quantized into Semantic IDs, forming a multimodal discrete latent space.
% Within this space, RaG models users' dynamic interests by generating Semantic IDs based on historical interactions. Finally, conditioned on the Semantic IDs, RaG employs a carefully designed Agentic Video Generation System (Agentic VGS) as the decoder to generate personalized videos at scale.
% Within the RaG framework, we convert the conventional retrieval-based paradigm, where humans produce videos offline and recommendation models match them to users, into an end-to-end generative paradigm where videos are generated on demand according to users' evolving interests.
% The Agentic VGS is the core component of our framework, and its design directly determines whether the framework can be reliably deployed at scale. Inspired by how human creators produce videos using a variety of tools, the Agentic VGS is built to produce large-scale high quality videos while keeping cost under control. Specifically, it first uses a fine-tuned LLM, namely the Creative Instruction Model, to translate latent interests~(SIDs) into a personalized creative instruction that specifies how to express those interests through suitable narrative and visual tone. This instruction is then passed to an LLM-based agent that produces a concrete video production plan. Since relying solely on video generation models is prohibitively costly and unreliable for large-scale deployment, Agentic VGS decomposes video generation into three core capabilities: perceiving available assets, generating necessary content, and applying global edits. In practice, when existing assets already satisfy the target semantics, the agent precisely identifies and reuses high-quality video clips to reduce latency and cost; when assets fall short, it calls generative models~\cite{yao2026narrative} to fill the semantic gaps.
% To this end, we apply resource-aware training with a dual-granularity reinforcement learning strategy that combines step-level local constraints, which enforce correctness of asset selection and the feasibility of execution, with global faithfulness rewards that prevent semantic drift from the user's original interests. This allows the agent to produce videos at low cost while accurately meeting users' fine-grained and long-tail interests.
% the Agentic VGS effectively realizes low-cost video production while precisely satisfying users' fine-grained, long-tail interests.
% The Agentic VGS serves as a critical component in personalized video generation and recommendation, and its design fundamentally determines whether such a system can be reliably deployed at scale in real-world applications.
% Our experiments show that directly using existing video generation models ~\cite{sora2_system_card,veo3_model_card,team2025kling,wan2025,seedance2025seedance} suffers from limited controllability over generation quality, high latency, and substantial computational cost.
% Inspired by how human creative experts ideate and produce videos using diverse tools, we design the Agentic VGS to minic this workflow by leveraging LLMs as the central reasoning engine, which performs multimodal planning conditioned on user interests and orchestrates digital assets, advanced generative models, and editing tools to produce personalized videos.
% Specifically, Agentic VGS first employs an instruction-tuned LLM to translate users’ latent interests into a personalized creative instruction, which specifies how these interests should be expressed through appropriate video creative strategies.
% The personalized creative instruction is subsequently processed by a hierarchical LLM-based planner that unifies perception, generation, and editing, which autonomously orchestrates the selection of digital assets, generation models, and editing tools to enable efficient personalized video production.
% It is worth noting that
% we design a novel Agentic VGS that takes full advantage of existing digital assets and tools.
% Specifically,
% In order to achieve this while keeping costs under control, we design a novel Agentic VGS that takes full advantage of existing digital assets and tools.
% Our experiments show that directly using existing video generation models suffers from limited controllability over generation quality, high latency, and substantial computational cost. To handle this, we
% We have deployed this framework on a leading short-video platform, demonstrating its capability to handle massive traffic while generating and delivering highly personalized content at scale.
% To the best of our knowledge, this is the first framework that can be deployed at scale in real-world recommendation scenarios.
% Our main contributions are:
%typically rely on manually crafted prompts to produce short clips (e.g., 5–10 seconds) at high computational cost, and their output quality often requires iterative human refinement.
% Driven by the rapid advancements in Generative AI
% % ~\cite{tiktok2025_aigc,kapwing2025_ai_slop_report,douyin2025_tech_ecosystem_scribd}
% ~\cite{sora2_system_card,veo3_model_card,wan2025wan},
% AI-Generated Content (AIGC) has emerged as a transformative solution, offering theoretically infinite supply. Yet, the current industry landscape treats recommendation and content generation as completely disjoint stages. Content creators use AIGC tools to produce videos offline, which are then injected into the recommendation pool for distribution. This \emph{decoupled} architecture introduces two fundamental problems.
% First, \textbf{interest signal isolation}: the rich, real-time user feedback (clicks, conversions) continuously captured by the recommender never reaches the generative model, leaving content production entirely blind to actual market demand. As a result, videos are created without any awareness of who will watch them or what they truly want.
% Second, \textbf{cascading interest drift}: even when user interest signals are available as input, existing production pipelines lack end-to-end constraints across sequential stages—from script generation to asset selection to final rendering. Without a global feedback mechanism to detect and correct mid-process misalignments, subtle errors accumulate across steps, causing the final video to drift silently yet progressively from the user's original intent.
% To break this bottleneck, we argue that the next step for the industry is to transfer systems that simply distribute existing content, toward systems that actively create personalized experiences on demand.
% To break this bottleneck, we argue the industry should shift from systems distributing existing content to those creating personalized experiences on demand.
% As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:rag}, we propose a new paradigm: \textbf{Recommendation-as-Generation}, which brings recommendation and AIGC together into a single, closed loop — enabling the system to not only predict what a user wants, but to directly synthesize it. However, transitioning from retrieval to joint modeling exposes several fundamental challenges that current methods cannot handle:
% \noindent\emph{Challenge 1: How can a recommender ``imagine'' content that does not yet exist?}
% \vspace{-0.05in}
% Most generative recommendation methods~\cite{geng2022recommendation,cui2022m6,rajput2023recommender,deng2025onerec,zhou2025onerecv2technicalreport} predict content IDs within a fixed inventory and enforce a legality check to ensure every prediction maps to a real, existing content. This hard constraint fundamentally prevents the system from proposing novel combinations—such as ``basketball shoe $\times$ sci-fi style''—which have never appeared in the repository. The root cause lies in how ad videos are represented: conventional approaches entangle product semantics with creative execution into a single, monolithic ID, making it impossible to recombine these two dimensions independently.
% To address this, we introduce a \textbf{Heterogeneous Bi-Factor (HBF) Encoder} that factorizes each ad video into two orthogonal components—product features (what to present) and creative features (how to present)—each quantized into discrete Semantic IDs (SIDs). Because these two SID spaces are independent, a generative model can freely compose any product SID with any creative SID, including combinations that never appeared in the training corpus. This enables \textbf{Latent Interest Modeling (LIM)}: the system autoregressively predicts novel SID compositions, shifting from \emph{retrieving} what exists to \emph{imagining} what users need.
% \noindent\emph{Challenge 2: How to translate abstract latent interests into personalized high quality video?}
% \vspace{-0.05in}
% Even if a recommender could predict a novel latent interest, a critical semantic gap remains between the abstract latent representation (e.g., a predicted SID composition) and the structured information needed to drive video production—such as target audience, narrative style, selling points, and visual tone. Without an explicit bridging mechanism, the generation module lacks grounding in user preferences and tends to produce generic outputs.
% A second challenge lies in asset utilization: purely generative approaches are costly and yiRaG inconsistent quality, while purely retrieval-based approaches fail when no suitable content exists for a specific interest group. What is needed is a flexible system that seamlessly blends asset retrieval with on-demand content synthesis, while remaining faithful to the user's original intent throughout the entire production process.
% To address this challenge, we propose a two-stage \textbf{Conceptual-Physical Agentic (CPA) Decoder} that bridges the full path from abstract latent SIDs to physical video pixels.
% At Stage 1 (Conceptual Decoding), we project predicted SIDs back into continuous product-creative features and generate structured, human-readable ad scripts grounded in retrieved product knowledge, translating abstract latent interests into actionable creative blueprints.
% At Stage 2 (Physical Decoding), an Agentic Video Generation System (AVGS), trained via reinforcement learning with a dual granularity reward mechanism (global interest alignment + step-level constraint), autonomously organizes visual, audio, and effect tracks through iterative \emph{Observation-Thought-Action} cycles.
% By integrating a hybrid paradigm of perception, retrieval, and asset generation, AVGS maximizes the efficient utilization of existing advertising assets while proactively synthesizing novel content when the library is inadequate. This guarantees global interest faithfulness throughout the production process and ultimately enables low-cost, large-scale personalized ad video production.
% In summary, we propose a \textbf{Recommendation as Generation} paradigm that unifies recommendation and personalized content generation.
% To the best of our knowledge, this is the first framework that can be deployed at scale in real-world recommendation scenarios.
% We have deployed this system on Kuaishou, a leading short-video platform, demonstrating its capability to handle massive traffic while delivering highly personalized commercial content. Our main contributions are:
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,itemsep=1pt]
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% \item We propose a unified ``Recommendation-as-Generation'' (\textbf{RaG}) framework adopting an encoder-latent-decoder architecture. By explicitly decoupling product and creative features in the encoder, we enable the recommender to predict novel compositions, which is a fundamental paradigm shift from retrieving existing items to creating non-existent personalized content.
% \item We design the Agentic Video Generation System (Agentic VGS) that bridges the full path from abstract latent SIDs to physical video pixels.
% Trained with a dual-granularity reward enforcing both global interest alignment and local step-level constraints, the agent ensures the generated video remains faithful to the user's intent throughout the entire production process.
% By combining asset retrieval and on-demand generation, the new system achieves a \textbf{70.11\%} win rate over the baseline.
% \item We deploy the full system at industrial scale on Kuaishou, where careful engineering and end-to-end optimization together enable substantial performance gains under large-scale real-world traffic. Online A/B testing demonstrates a \textbf{+5.6\%} revenue lift, validating the superiority of jointly modeling recommendation and personalized content generation in a unified framework. Notably, within this overall improvement, the AIGC-based creative module alone contributes a \textbf{+1.2\%} revenue gain.
% \end{itemize}
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,itemsep=1pt]
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \item We propose the first end-to-end framework that unifies dynamic user interest modeling with personalized video generation under the Recomendation-as-Generation~(RaG) paradigm, marking a fundamental shift from retrieving existing content to creating personalized content on demand.
% \item We present a novel resource aware agentic video generation system, trained with a dual-granularity reward that enforces both global interest alignment and local step-level constraints. Deployed at industrial scale to support massive real-world traffic, it enables cost-efficient and low-latency personalized video generation.
% \item Extensive experiments, including online A/B testing, demonstrate a +5.6\% overall revenue lift over a strong DLRM-based baseline and a +1.23\% revenue gain over state-of-the-art generative recommendation model~\cite{xue2026gr4ad} that do not incorporate personalized video generation, validating the effectiveness of jointly optimizing recommendation and personalized content generation.
% \end{itemize}
% \section{Related Works}
% \subsection{Multimodal Representation for Interest Encoding}
% Multimodal embedding learning is a fundamental component in cross-modal retrieval and recommendation systems. Early studies primarily adopted text–image contrastive learning paradigms, in which dual-encoder architectures are used to independently encode different modalities and project them into a shared embedding space. Representative methods such as CLIP \cite{radford2021learning} demonstrated the effectiveness of large-scale weakly supervised alignment for zero-shot classification and cross-modal retrieval, enabling the widespread adoption of multimodal representations in practical systems. Subsequent works further extended this paradigm by scaling model capacity and modality coverage, including BLIP-2 \cite{li2023blip2}, SigLIP \cite{siglip}, and CLIP4Clip \cite{clip4clip} for video–text retrieval. Owing to their decoupled structure and high inference efficiency, these methods have long been employed as multimodal encoders in industrial retrieval and recommendation systems. However, due to the lack of explicit interaction between cross-modal features, dual-encoder models exhibit limited capability in fine-grained semantic alignment and complex contextual modeling, a limitation that becomes increasingly evident in more complex multimodal embedding scenarios.
% With the rapid development of vision–language models and multimodal large language models (MLLMs), recent studies have begun to explore multimodal embedding methods based on unified language model frameworks. Such approaches typically project visual modalities into the language token space via learned projections or adapters, and jointly model all modalities within a single Transformer architecture, resulting in semantically more coherent representations. Prior work has shown that MLLM-based approaches demonstrate stronger adaptability than dual-encoder models in cross-modal generalization and complex semantic understanding tasks\cite{Qwen3-VL}. Within this paradigm, several studies directly leverage MLLMs to generate unified embeddings for retrieval and matching, including VLM2Vec and its extensions \cite{jiang2024vlm2vec, meng2025vlm2vec}, as well as Jina-V4\cite{gunther2025jina}, which constructs a cross-modal dense retriever based on MLLMs. In addition, application-oriented optimizations have been explored from multiple perspectives, such as multilingual modeling \cite{chen2025mme5}, continual pretraining \cite{li2026qwen3}, Chain-of-Thought (CoT)–based enhancement for semantic understanding and representation learning \cite{cui2025think}, and knowledge distillation \cite{gu2025breaking}. Collectively, these studies indicate that MLLM-based embedding is gradually emerging as an important approach for learning semantically consistent and general-purpose multimodal representations. However, none of these methods explicitly decouple product semantics from creative execution---a factorization that, as we show in this work, is a \emph{structural prerequisite} for enabling generative recommenders to imagine novel content (C1).
% \subsection{Generative Recommendation}
% In conventional recommendation systems~\cite{naumov2019dlrm, zhou2018din, cheng2016wide&deep, guo2018deepfm}, the focus is typically on retrieving existing items from an item pool and serving them to users.
% This implies a separation between content production and user-interest modeling.
% However, with the recent advances in generative recommendation, this paradigm becomes feasible.
% In the early stage of generative recommendation, a common paradigm was to fine-tune pretrained large language models or align them with user preferences, such as LC-Rec~\cite{zheng2024lcrec}, BBQ-Rec~\cite{li2025bbqrec}, LETTER~\cite{wang2024letter}, MTGRec~\cite{zheng2025mtgrec} and TTDS~\cite{yin2025ttds}.
% Taking TTDS as example, user profile information and item metadata are first discretized into semantic identifiers (SIDs), which are then incorporated as additional tokens into the LLaMa~\cite{touvron2023llama} vocabulary. The model is subsequently fine-tuned using instruction-style prompts: ``\textit{Based on the user history, please predict the most likely next item.}''
% In order to meet the real-time requirements of large-scale online recommendation systems, more recent works have proposed specialized model architectures.
% OneRec~\cite{deng2025onerec} and OneSug~\cite{guo2025onesug} adopt lightweight encoder–decoder architectures, in which user profile features and historical behavior sequences are encoded and compressed into dedicated query tokens. The decoder then conditions on these tokens to generate the final target SID.
% OneRec-V2~\cite{zhou2025onerecv2technicalreport} adopts a lazy-decoder, decoder-only architecture, in which all user features are concatenated into key–value (KV) pairs that are shared across layers. Self-attention is performed only among SIDs, while user feature information is injected via cross-attention over the shared KV pairs. Our latent interest modeling module essentially follows this design.
% Critically, all these methods enforce a \emph{legality check}~\cite{deng2025onerec} after SID generation---discarding any predicted tuple that does not map to an existing item---because their SIDs encode entangled, holistic item semantics where an ``illegal'' combination is semantically meaningless.
% Our work removes this constraint by factorizing SIDs into orthogonal product and creative components (enabled by the decoupled encoder), so that every generated tuple---even one never seen during training---carries well-defined, decomposable semantics. This is the structural key that transforms generative recommendation from retrieval into imagination (C1).
% \subsection{Agent-based Content Generation}
% The evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has catalyzed the development of autonomous agents capable of complex reasoning beyond simple text generation~\cite{xi2023rise}. Early strategies like Chain-of-Thought (CoT)\cite{wei2022chain} and ReAct\cite{yao2023react} established the foundation for iterative problem-solving, which has recently been adapted for visual storytelling. In this domain, works such as Vlogger~\cite{zhuang2024vlogger} and StoryAgent~\cite{hu2024storyagent} focus on generating temporally consistent image sequences, while editing-centric agents like LAVE~\cite{wang2024lave} and VideoDirectorGPT~\cite{lin2023videodirectorgpt} assist users in arranging existing clips. However, these approaches remain predominantly either fragmented or unimodal: visual generation models often neglect the narrative synchronization of audio and dialogue, while editing agents typically lack the generative capacity to bridge asset gaps. More importantly, relying solely on prompting often fails to meet the stringent demands of advertising, where visual style, voice timbre, and background atmosphere must be strictly unified under a specific creative brief. To overcome the stochastic limitations of standard prompting and ensure rigorous adherence to these constraints, we propose a unified agentic framework driven by reinforcement learning alignment. Unlike isolated solvers, our Physical Decoder system performs holistic planning across multiple dimensions—visual composition, speech synthesis, and audio atmosphere—while simultaneously leveraging proprietary asset retrieval and generative tools. By optimizing the planner via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO)~\cite{guo2025deepseek}, our model can effectively decode conceptual scripts into professional-grade advertisements.
% \subsection{Personalized AI-Generated Content}
% Advertising production is fundamentally shifting from static retrieval to dynamic synthesis, driven by Large Language Models (LLMs) and Diffusion Models that enable hyper-personalized creative assets \cite{meguellati2025llm}. To address industrial scalability and "one-size-fits-all" limitations, hierarchical frameworks like HLLM-Creator \cite{chen2025hllm} and interest-augmented generators \cite{wang2024iamg} efficiently aggregate interaction histories for large-scale modeling. In the visual domain, techniques such as Personalized Preference Fine-tuning (PPD) \cite{dang2025ppd} and unified frameworks for conversational visual content \cite{wang2025pcg} ensure alignment with individual beliefs and situational context. While research demonstrates that AI-generated ads can match or even exceed the persuasive performance of human-made creatives \cite{meguellati2025llm}, existing efforts primarily focus on text and static imagery. In contrast, our framework is the first to integrate large-scale generative recommendation with real-time personalized video advertisement production in an industrial setting.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{Figures/introduction2.pdf}
% \vspace{-0.08in}
\caption{\small
% Illustration of the paradigm shift from retrieval-based recommendation to recommendation as generation. Traditional DLRMs and GRMs are confined to a static catalog, while the proposed encoder-latent-decoder (RaG) paradigm breaks this boundary by unifying recommendation and content creation—directly synthesizing personalized content from interests predicted by LIM.
Recommendation paradigm shift.
(a) DLRMs retrieve videos from a fixed content pool, leading to suboptimal matches when user interests fall outside the pool;
(b) Our paradigm generates personalized videos on demand that both align with the user interests predicted by a GRM and are driven by real user feedback in a closed loop, breaking the fixed-pool limit.
}
\label{fig:rag}
% \vspace{-0.2in}
\end{figure}
Over the past decade, industrial video recommendation systems have followed a content-first paradigm, where videos are produced offline and recommendation models retrieve and rank items from a fixed pool. Deep learning recommendation models (DLRMs)~\cite{covington2016deep, cheng2016wide, zhou2018din, zhu2018learning} improve matching accuracy under this setting. More recently, generative recommendation models (GRMs)~\cite{deng2025onerec, xue2026gr4ad} extend this paradigm by modeling user interest through large-scale autoregressive generation over semantic IDs (SIDs)~\cite{rajput2023recommender}.
Despite these advances, existing systems remain fundamentally constrained by a static pool of pre-produced videos. Recommendation models can only retrieve the best available content from the existing pool, even when user interests fall outside the pool. This limitation is particularly severe in modern short-video platforms, where user interests are more dynamic, long-tailed, and diverse. As a result, retrieval-based systems are inherently limited in faithfully capturing fine-grained user interest.
Meanwhile, recent breakthroughs in AI-generated content (AIGC)\\~\cite{sora2_system_card, veo3_blog, team2025kling, wan2025, seedance2025seedance} have demonstrated unprecedented capabilities in open-domain video creation. Modern video generation models can produce cinematic-quality visual content with strong semantic controllability, opening up a new opportunity for recommendation:
\textit{Can recommendation systems move beyond retrieving existing videos to directly generate personalized videos from inferred user interests?}
Answering this question requires addressing two key challenges in recommendation and generation systems.
\textbf{The first challenge is how to bridge recommendation and generation into a unified framework.}
Recommendation models are trained on heterogeneous and discrete data, including user profiles, item features, and user behaviors, aiming to predict user interests. In contrast, video generation models operate on multimodal continuous signals, such as text, images, audio, and motion, focusing on generating coherent and high-fidelity videos. Given such fundamental differences in data representation and learning objectives, recommendation and generation are typically developed as two separate tasks, making it difficult to translate predicted user interests into controllable video generation. This separation also blocks user feedback from flowing back into the generation process, limiting the diversity and interest-alignment of the produced content.
\textbf{The second challenge is how to generate high-quality and interest-aligned videos at industrial scale.}
Although recent state-of-the-art video generation models~\cite{sora2_system_card, veo3_blog, team2025kling, wan2025, seedance2025seedance} achieve strong visual quality, they remain difficult to deploy in large-scale recommendation systems. These models often rely on manual prompting, multi-stage refinement and post-processing with professional tools, resulting in high latency and computational cost to produce a single user-satisfactory video. Personalizing across the diverse and long-tailed interests of hundreds of millions of users further amplifies these costs, making it infeasible to deploy such models directly in production.
To address these challenges, we propose \textbf{Recommendation-as-Generation} (\textbf{RaG}), a new paradigm that unifies recommendation and personalized video generation in a closed-loop framework, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:rag}. Instead of retrieving from a fixed pool, RaG generates personalized videos directly from inferred user interests.
% The key idea of RaG is to use \textbf{Semantic IDs} (\textbf{SIDs}) as a unified interface between recommendation and generation. Videos are encoded into semantic embeddings by a multimodal large language model and quantized into discrete SIDs. These SIDs represent compositional content and creative semantics in a shared latent space. The recommendation model autoregressively predicts the SIDs corresponding to user interests. The predicted SIDs are then decoded into personalized videos, enabling a unified framework that connects interest modeling with controllable generation.
% A key idea of RaG is to use \textbf{Disentangled Semantic IDs} (\textbf{D-SIDs}) as a unified interface between recommendation and generation. Videos are encoded by a multimodal large language model into two factorized semantic embeddings---one capturing \emph{content} (entities, topics) and the other capturing \emph{creative} attributes (style, rhythm, atmosphere)---and are independently quantized into discrete \emph{content SIDs} and \emph{creative SIDs} that jointly form a video's D-SIDs in a shared latent space. The recommendation model autoregressively predicts the D-SIDs corresponding to user interests, which are then decoded into personalized videos, enabling a unified framework that connects fine-grained interest modeling with controllable generation.
% A key idea of RaG is to use \textbf{Disentangled Semantic IDs} (\textbf{D-SIDs}) as a unified interface between recommendation and generation. RaG encodes each video with a multimodal large language model into two factorized embeddings: one for \emph{content} (entities, topics) and the other for \emph{creative} attributes (style, rhythm, atmosphere). RaG then independently quantizes them into discrete \emph{content SIDs} and \emph{creative SIDs}, which jointly form the video's D-SIDs. Conditioned on user context, RaG autoregressively predicts the D-SIDs of user interests and decodes them into personalized videos, connecting fine-grained interest modeling with controllable video generation.
A key idea of RaG is to use \textbf{Disentangled Semantic IDs} (\textbf{D-SIDs}) as a unified interface between recommendation and generation. A multimodal large language model encodes each video into two factorized embeddings---one for \emph{content} (entities, topics) and the other for \emph{creative} attributes (style, rhythm, atmosphere). These embeddings are then quantized into discrete \emph{content SIDs} and \emph{creative SIDs}, jointly forming the video's D-SIDs. On the recommendation side, a generative recommendation model (GRM) autoregressively predicts the D-SIDs of user interests. On the generation side, the predicted D-SIDs are decoded into personalized videos, connecting fine-grained interest modeling with controllable video generation.
% On top of D-SIDs, we propose \textbf{Video Generation Agents} (\textbf{VGAs}) for scalable personalized video generation. Compared to monolithic, high-cost diffusion-based or prompt-engineering-heavy pipelines, VGAs adopt a hierarchical planning and refinement framework for controllable generation. Conditioned on user-interest D-SIDs, a fine-tuned Instruction Model produces structured content and creative intents as generation blueprints. Hierarchical agents then perform reasoning and action over these blueprints by modeling visual composition, audio alignment, and artistic effects in an end-to-end manner, with a lightweight bounded reflection mechanism for consistency refinement. Overall, VGAs enable efficient and interest-aligned video generation with high visual quality at industrial scale.
% To realize controllable video generation at scale, RaG develops \textbf{Video Generation Agents} (\textbf{VGAs}). Instead of monolithic, high-cost diffusion-based or prompt-engineering-heavy pipelines, VGAs adopt a hierarchical planning and refinement framework. Conditioned on user-interest D-SIDs, a fine-tuned \textbf{Instruction Model} (\textbf{IM}) first translates structured content and creative intents into generation blueprints. A set of hierarchical agents then reason and act over these blueprints, jointly modeling visual composition, audio alignment, and artistic effects, with a lightweight bounded reflection mechanism for consistency refinement.
To realize controllable video generation at scale, RaG develops \textbf{Video Generation Agents} (\textbf{VGAs}). Compared to monolithic, high-cost diffusion-based or prompt-engineering-heavy pipelines, VGAs adopt a hierarchical planning and refinement framework. Conditioned on user-interest D-SIDs, a fine-tuned \textbf{Instruction Model} (\textbf{IM}) first translates them into structured generation blueprints. Three role-specialized agents then reason and act over the blueprints, jointly modeling visual composition, audio alignment, and artistic effects. The three agents share a single LLM backbone and are jointly trained end-to-end, differentiated only through prompts and tool access. After the agents complete the pipeline, a bounded reflection loop (capped at two iterations) refines cross-modal consistency, balancing output quality with generation efficiency. The shared backbone further enables KV-cache reuse across agents to substantially accelerate inference. Combined with an SID-indexed cache that amortizes generation cost, VGAs reliably serve recommendation requests for hundreds of millions of users at industrial scale.
% Specifically, A-VGS first employs a fine-tuned Instruction Model to decode user-interest SIDs into two disentangled and structured signals: \textit{content intentions}, which describe the fine-grained semantic concepts users are interested in, and \textit{creative intentions}, which specify how such interests should be expressed through narrative style, visual aesthetics, pacing, and emotional tone. These structured instructions serve as the high-level blueprint for personalized video production. Based on these instructions, A-VGS performs iterative multi-agent collaborative generation through three core modules. The \textbf{Visual Planning Agent} is responsible for visual composition planning, including scene layout, asset perception, retrieval-or-generation decisions, and video clip synthesis. The \textbf{Audio Alignment Agent} generates and aligns multimodal audio signals such as voice narration, background music, and rhythm synchronization to ensure semantic and emotional consistency with visual content. The \textbf{Artistic Effect Enhancement Agent} further enhances presentation quality through creative style optimization, including transitions, typography, stickers, visual effects, and promotional elements. These agents operate in a hierarchical closed loop, where intermediate outputs are continuously refined through execution-feedback interactions to improve both generation quality and interest alignment.
% Crucially, RaG introduces a \textbf{multi-objective reward learning framework} that jointly optimizes recommendation and generation under unified user feedback signals. Unlike traditional pipelines where recommendation and content production are optimized separately, our framework directly incorporates real-world user feedback into the entire generation process. We design a multi-objective reward that jointly optimizes (1) interest alignment between generated videos and inferred user intent, (2) generation quality in terms of visual fidelity, audio synchronization, and artistic enhancement, and (3) downstream engagement signals derived from user interactions. These rewards are used to jointly optimize the Generative Recommendation Model, Instruction Model, and Video Generation Agents via reinforcement learning after stage-wise supervised training.
% Crucially, RaG introduces \textbf{Synergistic Cross-Domain Reward Learning} (\textbf{SCRL}), which fuses heterogeneous reward channels across recommendation and video generation under a constrained policy learning formulation: user feedback serves as the primary objective, while interest alignment and video quality act as constraints. Group-decoupled reward normalization (GDPO~\cite{liu2026gdpo}) per channel plus a PID-controlled Lagrangian update~\cite{stooke2020responsive} reconcile scale mismatch and stabilize training. SCRL turns recommendation and video generation into a single closed-loop optimization where user interest, video quality, and real-world feedback co-evolve.
To close the optimization loop, RaG introduces \textbf{Synergistic Cross-Domain Reward Learning} (\textbf{SCRL}). Instead of naive reward aggregation that conflates heterogeneous reward signals, SCRL formulates multi-objective optimization as a constrained policy learning problem: user feedback serves as the primary objective, while interest alignment and video quality act as constraints. Group-decoupled reward normalization (GDPO~\cite{liu2026gdpo}) is applied per channel to reconcile scale mismatch, followed by a PID-controlled Lagrangian update~\cite{stooke2020responsive} to stabilize training. Together, SCRL unifies recommendation and video generation into a single closed-loop optimization where user interests, content quality, and real-world feedback co-evolve.
We deploy RaG on a large-scale production platform serving over 400 million daily active users in a revenue-critical advertising scenario. Online A/B testing shows significant improvements in ad revenue, validating the effectiveness of generation-driven personalization for recommendation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first production-scale system that effectively unifies recommendation and personalized video generation.
Our main contributions are summarized as follows:
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,itemsep=1pt]
% \item We propose \textbf{Recommendation-as-Generation} (\textbf{RaG}), a new paradigm that fundamentally shifts recommendation from retrieving videos within a fixed corpus to generating personalized videos directly from inferred user interests.
% \item We introduce a \textbf{SID-based unified latent interface} that bridges recommendation and video generation, enabling end-to-end optimization between dynamic user interest modeling and controllable content synthesis.
% \item We develop an industrial-scale \textbf{Agentic Video Generation System} (\textbf{A-VGS}) with hierarchical planning and execution, enabling scalable, cost-efficient, and high-quality personalized video production.
% \item We propose an \textbf{end-to-end reward learning framework} that jointly optimizes interest alignment, generation quality, and real-world user feedback signals in a closed-loop manner.
% \item Extensive offline experiments and online A/B testing on a production platform demonstrate substantial gains in engagement and revenue, validating both the effectiveness and economic feasibility of large-scale personalized video generation.
% \end{itemize}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,itemsep=1pt]
\item We propose \textbf{Recommendation-as-Generation} (\textbf{RaG}), a new paradigm that shifts recommendation from retrieving videos within a fixed pool to generating personalized videos directly from inferred user interests. Disentangled Semantic IDs (D-SIDs) serve as the unified latent interface between recommendation and generation, and Synergistic Cross-Domain Reward Learning (SCRL) closes the loop by enforcing interest alignment, user feedback, and video quality assessment.
\item We develop industrial-scale \textbf{Video Generation Agents} (\textbf{VGAs}) with hierarchical planning, collaborative multi-agent execution, and iterative refinement, enabling scalable and high-quality personalized video production.
\item Extensive offline experiments and online A/B testing on a production platform demonstrate substantial improvements in ad revenue, validating the effectiveness of large-scale personalized video generation for recommendation.
\end{itemize}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \section{Paradigm Shift: Unifying Video Generation and Recommendation}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% To integrate user interest modeling with video generation in an end-to-end manner, we propose the Recomendation-as-Generation (RaG) paradigm, which enables personalized video generation conditioned on user interests.
% First, we employ Semantic IDs (SIDs)~\cite{rajput2023recommender} as a unified interface between recommendation and video generation, representing video content as discrete tokens.
% Next, conditioned on a user’s interaction history and profile features, the model generates SIDs that capture the user’s dynamic interests.
% Finally, these SIDs are decoded into videos, enabling fully personalized video generation. The overall framework is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:rag}.
% \subsection{Semantic Encoding and Interest Modeling}
% \label{sec:mdrl}
% \begin{figure*}[t]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/framework.pdf}
% \vspace{-0.2in}
% \caption{
% \small
% Detailed architecture of the proposed Recommendation-as-Generation (RaG) framework.
% Disentangled Semantic Video Encoders map input videos into content and creative Semantic IDs (SIDs), forming a shared latent space for recommendation and generation.
% The Generative Recommendation Model predicts users' future content and creative interests from static profiles and historical behaviors, and the Instruction Model converts the predicted SIDs with matched metadata into detailed video-generation instructions.
% Conditioned on these instructions, the Agentic Video Generation System performs coarse-to-fine production through visual planning, audio alignment, and creative refinement agents, which dynamically invoke registered tools to produce personalized videos.
% An end-to-end reward system supervises the full pipeline. }
% \label{fig:sys_pipeline}
% % \vspace{-0.25in}
% \end{figure*}
% In the RaG paradigm, Semantic IDs bridge recommendation and video generation, so efficiently encoding videos into a discrete latent space becomes a key part of the framework. (see Figure~\ref{fig:rag}).
% Formally, given a video $v$, the semantic encoding module maps it into a sequence of Semantic IDs via an encoder $\mathcal{E}$:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathbf{SID} = \mathcal{E}(v) = \text{Discretize}(e_v) = (s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_M),
% \end{equation}
% where $e_v$ denotes the video semantic embedding extracted by a fine-tuned multimodal large language model, and $(s_1, s_2, \ldots, s_M)$ denotes the resulting Semantic IDs obtained through discretization of $e_v$.
% This design involves two tightly coupled components: (i) a content encoder aligned with recommendation that produces semantically expressive and structured video representations, and (ii) a discretization mechanism that preserves semantic fidelity while enabling efficient token-based modeling in the latent space.
% Due to space constraints, we defer the detailed design of the semantic encoder to Appendix~\ref{app:dbs_encoder}, including data construction, model architecture, training procedure, and discretization strategy, where we provide a comprehensive description of the underlying design choices and their empirical effects.
% % LIM
% The interest modeling module, illustrated in the middle part of Figure~\ref{fig:rag}, plays a central role in capturing users’ dynamic interests from their static profiles and historical behavior sequences.
% Unlike conventional recommendation models that operate in the item space, we perform user interest modeling directly in the shared discrete latent space defined by Semantic IDs.
% This design enables seamless alignment between interest estimation and downstream video generation.
% To this end, we propose a Latent Interest Modeling (LIM) module that formulates user modeling as an autoregressive sequence generation problem over SIDs.
% Conditioned on the user context $\mathbf{c}_\text{user}$ that constructed from static user profiles and historical interaction sequences, the model predicts a sequence of SIDs in a next-token prediction manner:
% \begin{equation}
% \label{eq:u2sid}
% p(\mathbf{SID} \mid \mathbf{c}_\text{user}) = \prod_{t=1}^{M} p\bigl(s_t \mid s_{<t}, \mathbf{c}_\text{user}\bigr).
% \end{equation}
% % This formulation is inspired by recent advances in generative recommendation models~\cite{xue2026gr4ad,deng2025onerec}, but extends them in a crucial way. Rather than using predicted SIDs as indices to retrieve existing videos, we treat them as a generative representation of user interests that can be directly decoded into new content. This distinction is critical: retrieval-based approaches, including recently generative recommendation models~\cite{xue2026gr4ad,deng2025onerec}, remain inherently bounded by the coverage of the existing content corpus, and thus fail to generalize when user interests fall outside observed combinations (e.g., basketball shoes $\times$ sci-fi visual style). In contrast, by conditioning video generation on the predicted SIDs, our approach enables the synthesis of content that aligns with users’ latent interests, effectively overcoming the limitations of retrieval-based paradigms.
% % As a result, user interest modeling and content generation are unified within the same latent space.
% In practice, we instantiate LIM using a LazyDecoderBlock-based architecture~\cite{zhou2025onerecv2technicalreport}, which stacks self-attention, cross-attention, and feed-forward layers~\cite{vaswani2017attention} to effectively incorporate user conditioning signals into the autoregressive modeling process.
% This design achieves a favorable balance between modeling capacity and computational efficiency, which is critical for large-scale recommendation systems. The detailed architecture is illustrated in left part of Figure~\ref{fig:sys_pipeline}.
% Due to space constraints, we defer detailed descriptions of the LIM to Appendix~\ref{app:LIM}.
% \subsection{Rethinking Generative Recommendation in the Context of Personalized Video Generation}
% We now revisit the connection between generative recommendation and video generation from a unified latent space perspective.
% Given a video $v$, modern video generation models~\cite{yan2021videogpt} first encode it into discrete latent tokens $\mathbf{z}=(z_1, z_2, ..., z_T)$ via an encoder $\mathcal{E}$, and then model generation as an autoregressive process conditioned on textual semantics $\mathbf{c}_\text{text}$, with a decoder $\mathcal{D}$ that finally generate target video $\hat{v}$ conditioned on latent tokens $\mathbf{z}$:
% % \begin{align}
% % \mathbf{z} = \mathcal{E}(v) \quad \to \quad
% % p(\mathbf{z} \mid \mathbf{c}_\text{text}) = \prod_{t=1}^{T} p\bigl(z_t \mid z_{<t},\mathbf{c}_\text{text}\bigr)\quad \to \quad
% % \hat{v} =\mathcal{D}(\mathbf{z}).
% % \end{align}
% \begin{align}
% \mathbf{z} &= \mathcal{E}(v)
% \to p(\mathbf{z} \mid \mathbf{c}_\text{text}) \nonumber\\
% &= \prod_{t=1}^{T} p\bigl(z_t \mid z_{<t}, \mathbf{c}_\text{text}\bigr)
% \to \hat{v} = \mathcal{D}(\mathbf{z}).
% \end{align}
% We observe that this formulation is structurally analogous to the Latent Interest Modeling in Eq.~\eqref{eq:u2sid}, where user behavior sequences are projected into the same class of discrete token space and modeled autoregressively. This reveals a key insight: both recommendation and generation can be interpreted as sequence modeling over a shared discrete latent space, differing only in the semantics of conditioning signals.
% Motivated by this observation, we argue that the fundamental gap between recommendation and generation lies not in model architecture, but in the role of latent tokens: existing generative recommendation methods~\cite{xue2026gr4ad,deng2025onerec} treat semantic tokens as \textit{retrieval indices} for existing content, while video generation models treat them as \textit{generative variables} for synthesis.
% % This distinction leads to a critical limitation in existing pipelines. Retrieval-based paradigms are inherently constrained by the support of the content corpus, preventing them from modeling compositions of concepts that are rare or unseen in historical data. In contrast, a generative formulation enables continuous recombination in the latent space, allowing the model to synthesize novel content beyond observed samples.
% Based on this unified view, we formulate recommendation system with content generation as an end-to-end generative process, which jointly bridges user modeling and content generation within a shared discrete latent space:
% \begin{align}
% \label{eq:rag}
% \mathbf{SID} &= \mathcal{E}(v)\to p(\mathbf{SID} \mid \mathbf{c}_\text{user}) \nonumber\\
% &= \prod_{t=1}^{M} p\bigl(s_t \mid s_{<t}, \mathbf{c}_\text{user}\bigr) \to \hat{v} = \mathcal{D}(\mathbf{SID}).
% \end{align}
% According to Eq.~\eqref{eq:rag}, rather than using predicted SIDs as indices to retrieve existing videos~\cite{xue2026gr4ad,deng2025onerec}, we treat them as a generative representation of user interests that can be directly decoded into new content. This distinction is critical: retrieval-based approaches, including recently generative recommendation models~\cite{xue2026gr4ad,deng2025onerec}, remain inherently bounded by the coverage of the existing content corpus, and thus fail to generalize when user interests fall outside observed data (e.g., basketball shoes $\times$ sci-fi visual style). In contrast, by conditioning video generation on the predicted SIDs, our approach enables the synthesis of content that aligns with users’ latent interests, effectively overcoming the limitations of retrieval-based paradigms.
% While the unified formulation elegantly enables end-to-end user interest modeling and video generation, its deployment at scale introduces significant challenges in computation cost and reliable quality control for generated videos. To address these issues, we introduce the Agentic Video Generation System (Agentic VGS, \S~\ref{sec:decoding}), which leverages asset reuse and tool-augmented generation with a coarse-to-fine instruction design for efficient and high-quality video synthesis.
% % \subsection{Rethinking Generative Recommendation in the Context of Video Generation}
% % Given a video $v$, typical video generation models~\cite{yan2021videogpt, rombach2022high} use an encoder $\mathcal{E}$ to compress it into discrete tokens $\mathbf{z}=(z_1, z_2, ..., z_T)$ in the latent space.
% % Conditioned on textual information $\mathbf{c}_\text{text}$, a language model auto-regressively predicts the distribution of these latent tokens. Finally a decoder $\mathcal{D}$ is applied to generate final videos $\hat{v}$:
% % \begin{align}
% % \mathbf{z} = \mathcal{E}(v) \quad \to \quad
% % \label{eq:t2v}
% % p(\mathbf{z} \mid \mathbf{c}_\text{text}) = \prod_{t=1}^{T} p\bigl(z_t \mid z_{<t},\mathbf{c}_\text{text}\bigr)\quad \to \quad
% % \hat{v} =\mathcal{D}(\mathbf{z}).
% % \end{align}
% % We observe that Eq.\eqref{eq:u2sid} and Eq.\eqref{eq:t2v} share a similar formulation.
% % Motivated by this connection, we re-formulate recommendation tasks as an end-to-end framework that jointly performs dynamic user interest estimation and video generation:
% % \begin{align}
% % \mathbf{SID} = \mathcal{E}(v)\quad \to \quad
% % p(\mathbf{SID} \mid \mathbf{c}_\text{user}) = \prod_{t=1}^{M} p\bigl(s_t \mid s_{<t},\mathbf{c}_\text{user}\bigr)\quad \to \quad
% % \hat{v} =\mathcal{D}(\mathbf{SID}).
% % \end{align}
% % % We define this novel paradigm as Recommendation-as-Generation (RaG).
% % While elegantly integrates dynamic user interest estimation with video generation in an end-to-end manner, deploying this unified architecture in an industrial environment remains highly challenging in computational costs associated with robust quality assurance for generated videos.
% % To tackle these challenges, we propose Agentic Video Generation System (Agentic VGS, \S~\ref{sec:decoding}), which utilizes assets retrieval and agent tools for video generation via coarse-to-fine instruction design for efficiency and quality.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{Figures/framework.pdf}
% \vspace{-0.2in}
% \caption{
% \small
% Architecture overview of the proposed Recommendation-as-Generation (RaG) framework.
% Disentangled Semantic Video Encoders (D-SVE) map input videos into content and creative Semantic IDs (SIDs), forming a shared latent space for recommendation and generation.
% The Generative Recommendation Model (GRM) predicts users' content and creative interests from user context, and the Instruction Model (IM) converts the predicted SIDs with matched metadata into detailed video-generation instructions. Conditioned on these instructions, Video Generation Agents (VGAs) perform coarse-to-fine production through visual planning, audio alignment, and artistic effect refinement agents, which dynamically invoke registered tools to generate personalized videos. A multi-objective reward learning optimize the full pipeline.}
\caption {
\small
% Architecture of the Recommendation-as-Generation (RaG) framework. Videos are encoded into Disentangled Semantic IDs (D-SIDs) for unified recommendation and generation. Given the interest D-SIDs predicted by the Generative Recommendation Model (GRM), Video Generation Agents (VGAs) generate personalized videos through multi-stage planning and iterative refinement, with all components jointly optimized via cross-domain rewards.
Architecture of the Recommendation-as-Generation (RaG) framework. Videos are encoded into Disentangled Semantic IDs (D-SIDs) that decouple content and creative semantics, forming a shared latent interface for recommendation and generation. The Generative Recommendation Model (GRM) predicts a user's interest D-SIDs from user context. The Instruction Model (IM) then translates these predicted D-SIDs, together with optional metadata, into shot-level production instructions, which are executed by the Video Generation Agents (VGAs) through hierarchical planning and refinement. The full pipeline is jointly optimized under Synergistic Cross-Domain Reward Learning (SCRL).
}
\label{fig:sys_pipeline}
% \vspace{-0.25in}
\end{figure*}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
\section{Methodology}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
\subsection{Paradigm Shift: Recommendation as Generation}
Conventional recommendation systems~\cite{covington2016deep, cheng2016wide, zhou2018din, zhu2018learning} retrieve or rank videos from a fixed content pool.
Recent generative recommendation models (GRMs) formulate recommendation as autoregressive token prediction~\cite{xue2026gr4ad,deng2025onerec}, but still retrieve videos from the existing content pool set according to the predicted tokens.
As a result, these approaches remain limited by content coverage, often yielding suboptimal recommendations when user interests involve novel or long-tail semantics.
To overcome this limitation, we introduce the \textbf{Recommendation-as-Generation} (\textbf{RaG}) paradigm, which reformulates recommendation as an interest-conditioned video generation problem (Figure~\ref{fig:sys_pipeline}).
Instead of retrieving existing videos, RaG directly generates personalized videos from inferred user interests.
One key idea is to unify recommendation and video generation within a shared discrete latent space.
We construct this space using \textbf{Disentangled Semantic Video Encoders} (Section~\ref{sec:SID}), which map videos into disentangled semantic IDs (D-SIDs). These D-SIDs capture both semantic content and creative attributes, enabling both fine-grained interest modeling and controllable video generation.
Given a video $v$, the encoder $\mathcal{E}$ produces a sequence of tokens:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{D{-}SIDs} = \mathcal{E}(v) = (s_\text{content}^1, \ldots, s_\text{content}^L, s_\text{creative}^1, \ldots, s_\text{creative}^L),
\end{equation}
which jointly represent video semantics and creative structure.
Building on this semantic space, recommendation is recast as generative interest modeling: given a user's profile and interaction history, the Generative Recommendation Model (GRM, Appendix~\ref{app:GRM}) autoregressively predicts the sequential D-SIDs representing the user's future interests:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rag_sid}
p(\mathbf{D{-}SIDs} \mid \mathbf{c}_{\text{user}})
=
\prod_{t=1}^{2L}
p(s_t \mid s_{<t}, \mathbf{c}_{\text{user}}),
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{c}_{\text{user}}$ denotes the user context.
Unlike prior GRM-based approaches that use predicted D-SIDs as retrieval keys, we treat D-SIDs as \emph{generative interest representations} that can be directly decoded into new content, beyond a fixed pool. The overall pipeline is:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{D{-}SIDs} = \mathcal{E}(v)
\rightarrow
p(\mathbf{D{-}SIDs} \mid \mathbf{c}_{\text{user}})
\rightarrow
\hat{v} = \mathcal{G}(\mathbf{D{-}SIDs}),
\end{align}
where user interests are modeled in the latent semantic space and decoded into personalized videos.
However, directly optimizing $\mathcal{G}$ for both generation quality and interest alignment is challenging.
We therefore decompose the generation process into a hierarchical framework.
We introduce an \textbf{Instruction Model} (Section~\ref{sec:IM}) that translates D-SIDs into natural language instructions, providing interpretable and structured guidance for downstream agents. Building on this, we develop \textbf{Video Generation Agents} (Section~\ref{sec:A-VGS}) that generate videos through collaborative agents, enabling hierarchical planning, multimodal alignment, artistic enhancement, and iterative refinement. Finally, we optimize the entire framework via \textbf{Synergistic Cross-Domain Reward Learning} (Section~\ref{sec:Reward}), jointly capturing user interest alignment, generation quality, and user engagement signals.
% \vspace{-0.05in}
% \subsection{Closed-Loop Personalized Video Generation System}
% While the RaG paradigm provides a unified formulation for recommendation and generation, directly decoding predicted SIDs into high-quality videos remains challenging due to the complexity of controllable video production, multimodal consistency, and computational cost.
% To address these challenges, we further propose a \textbf{Closed-Loop Personalized Video Generation System}, which integrates (1) Disentangled Semantic Video Encoders (D-SVE); (2) Generative Recommendation Model (GRM); (3) Instruction Model (IM); (4) Agentic Video Generation System (A-VGS); and (5) End-to-End Reward Learning, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:sys_pipeline}
% First, the GRM predicts structural interest SIDs (generated by D-SVE) based on user context features.
% These predicted SIDs represent high-level user intent, but are not suitable directly for controllable video synthesis.
% Therefore, we introduce an Instruction Model (IM), which transforms the predicted SIDs together with matched metadata into detailed generation instructions, including scene semantics, visual style, motion dynamics, audio cues, subtitle requirements, and artistic effects.
% Conditioned on these instructions, the Agentic Video Generation System performs coarse-to-fine personalized video production through multiple collaborative agents.
% Specifically, the \textbf{Visual Planning Agent} organizes storyline structure, shot composition, and temporal visual layouts; the \textbf{Audio Alignment Agent} synchronizes music rhythm, speech, and acoustic semantics with visual transitions; and the \textbf{Artistic Effect Enhancement Agent} further enhances visual quality through stylization, transition effects, subtitle rendering, and cinematic post-processing.
% During generation, these agents dynamically invoke registered tools from the tool pool to complete specialized production tasks, enabling modular and scalable video synthesis.
% Crucially, the entire framework forms a closed-loop optimization system.
% Generated videos are exposed to real user interactions, whose feedback signals are subsequently transformed into reward supervision for recommendation, instruction generation, and video production modules.
% After large-scale supervised fine-tuning initialization, reinforcement learning is further employed to optimize the full generation pipeline end-to-end, enabling continuous alignment between generated content and evolving user preferences.
% Such a closed-loop design allows the system to iteratively refine generation quality, recommendation relevance, and creative personalization through interaction-driven feedback optimization.
% % \vspace{-0.2in}
% \section{Agentic Video Generation System}\label{sec:decoding}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % Given the latent interest SIDs auto-regressively generated by the Latent Interest Modeling (LIM) module, the ultimate objective of ELD architecture is to translate these abstract semantic blueprints into a concrete, executable video. To bridge the substantial gap between latent representations and physical assets, we design the Agentic Video Generation System (Agentic VGS). First, a \textbf{Conceptual Decoder} translates the predicted SIDs into a structured, human-readable ad script draft $\hat{Y}$, specifying key creative dimensions such as target audience, narrative style, and visual tone. Subsequently, the \textbf{Agentic Video Generator} materializes this conceptual draft into the final video by dynamically orchestrating existing asset retrieval and external generative tools.
% % Given the latent interest SIDs auto-regressively generated by the Latent Interest Modeling (LIM) module, the ultimate objective of ELD architecture is to translate these abstract semantic blueprints into a concrete, executable video.
% To enable scalable, high-quality video generation with computational efficiency, we design the resource-aware Agentic Video Generation System (Agentic VGS). First, a Creative Instruction Model translates the generated SIDs into a creative instruction $\hat{Y}$, specifying key creative dimensions such as narrative style and visual tone.
% Following this creative instruction, the Agentic Video Generator produces a detailed coarse-to-fine instruction set $\mathcal{I}$ and generates the final video by dynamically orchestrating existing asset retrieval and external generative tools utilizing candidate asset collection $\mathcal{A}$.
% This dynamic orchestration not only delivers cost-effective, low-latency results for massive requests, but also ensures creative generative capabilities to satisfy highly customized, long-tail preferences and produce the final generated video $\hat{v}$. Formally, the complete inference pipeline of this multi-stage generative process is summarized as follows, and the inference pipeline of this agentic procedure is shown in the right part of Figure~\ref{fig:sys_pipeline}.
% % multi-stage production chain, and the end-to-end inference pipeline from user clicks to interest prediction to personalized generation is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sys_pipeline}.
% \begin{equation}
% \mathbf{SID}\!\to\! \hat{Y} \!\to\! \textbf{Agents}(\hat{Y};\mathcal{I}, \mathcal{A}) \!\to\! \hat{v}.
% \end{equation}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \subsection{Architecture Design}\label{sec:decoder_arch}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \noindent\textbf{Creative Instruction Model.}
% The Creative Instruction Model uses an LLM as the backbone, which accepts heterogeneous inputs: (i) the abstract latent user interest represented by SIDs, and (ii) fine-grained textual metadata describing the currently available themes, which are dynamic in real recommendation scenarios.
% For the former, we first de-quantize the generated SIDs back into a continuous dense embedding $\hat{e}_{v}$ via the reverse RQ-Kmeans. This embedding represents user interest and is then projected into the LLM's input space through an MLP projector $\phi(\cdot)$.
% For the latter, the structured textual metadata for available theme $T_\text{meta}$ (e.g., core concepts, essential attributes, and contextual summaries) is tokenized and embedded directly through the LLM's standard embedding layer. The final input sequence is formed by concatenating these two embeddings, which is then fed into the LLM to generate executable creative instruction $\hat{Y}$:
% % $$\mathbf{H}_{in} = \left[\phi(\hat{e}_{v});\ \operatorname{Embed}(T_\text{meta})\right]$$
% % \begin{equation}
% $\hat{Y} = LLM(\phi(\hat{e}_{v});\ T_\text{meta})$. More details are described in Appendix~\ref{app:creative_instruction_model}.
% % This design enables the model to jointly reason over the abstract, user-conditioned latent interest and precise item-level knowledge within a unified sequence, producing a creative instruction $\hat{Y}$ that is simultaneously faithful to user preference and grounded in accurate product semantics.
% % The Creative Instruction Model consists of an MLP projector $\phi(\cdot)$ and a pre-trained LLM backbone. To handle the heterogeneous inputs, we adopt a hybrid input strategy. The continuous dense embedding of the latent interest $\mathbf{e}_{full} \in \mathbb{R}^{2d}$ is split into the product embedding $\mathbf{e}_{prod} \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ and creative embedding $\mathbf{e}_{crea} \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$. In parallel, $\mathbf{e}_{prod}$ is used to retrieve the item's textual marketing metadata $T_{mkt}$ — carrying precise information such as product name, price, and selling points — which is directly tokenized and embedded through the LLM's standard embedding layer. The final input sequence is mapped and concatenated as:
% % $$\mathbf{H}_{in} =[\phi(\mathbf{e}_{prod});\ \phi(\mathbf{e}_{crea});\ \text{Embed}(\text{Tokenizer}(T_{mkt}))]$$
% % This design allows the model to jointly reason over abstract latent interest signals from the product and creative combination alongside precise, explicit product knowledge within a unified sequence.
% % \begin{figure*}[tbp]
% % \centering
% % \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/vgs_v4.pdf}
% % % \vspace{-0.15in}
% % \caption{\small The reinforcement learning framework of the Agentic Video Generator. Efficiency Training: Retrieval-First execution by dynamically choosing between asset retrieval and tool generation, guided by clip masking and hard negative mixing. Quality Training: Dual-granularity reward system that ensures both track-specific validity and overall faithfulness, which combines step-level correctness rewards ($r_t$, middle) for local technical execution, and a global faithfulness reward ($R_{\text{global}}$, right) to prevent semantic drift.}
% % \label{fig:Agentic VGS}
% % % \vspace{-0.25in}
% % \end{figure*}
% % \noindent\textbf{Agentic Video Generator.}
% % As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:sys_pipeline}, it is fundamentally difficult to directly generate high-quality videos from creative instruction to meet industrial deployment standards. Furthermore, this one-step generation hinders the utilization of agent tools to improve efficiency and is not conducive to the independent requirement of specific video elements, such as subtitles, effects, and background music. To explicitly address these bottlenecks, drawing inspiration from the natural dependency structure of video production, Agentic Video Generator is designed to decompose the complex generating process into detailed hierarchical plans. This structured design realizes the triple objectives: maximize the efficient utilization of agent tools and assets to reduce computational overhead, establish structural constraints to ensure visual quality, and simplifies the reinforcement learning process by enabling fine-grained, controllable reward supervision for each element in video.
% \noindent\textbf{Agentic Video Generator.} As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:sys_pipeline}, directly generating high-quality videos from creative instruction in one step struggles to meet industrial deployment standards. Forcing a single model to simultaneously process visuals, voice, and effects is overwhelming, which often causes the model to get stuck in thinking loops and limits its creativity. Furthermore, this one-step method ignores the natural dependency where audio and effects must rely on the generated visuals, making it hard to optimize specific video elements independently or utilize existing tools efficiently. To address these bottlenecks, the Agentic Video Generator decomposes the complex generation process into hierarchical plans. This structured design realizes three objectives: it prioritizes the visual generation while maximizing tool utilization to reduce overhead, follows the natural video structure to ensure overall quality, and simplifies the reinforcement learning process by enabling track-specific rewards for each specific element.
% % As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:sys_pipeline}, to ensure generation quality and maximize the utilization of existing tools and assets for efficiency, we designed Agentic Video Generator following the natural dependency structure of video production.
% Formally, it represents video production as a hierarchical instruction set $\mathcal{I}$ decomposed into five semantically distinct tracks: (${\mathcal{I}_{\text{visual}},\mathcal{I}_{\text{voice}}, \mathcal{I}_{\text{bgm}},\mathcal{I}_{\text{subtitle}}, \mathcal{I}_{\text{effect}}}$), planned along a coarse-to-fine dependency chain:
% \begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*, parsep=0pt, itemsep=2pt, topsep=2pt, label=\roman*)]
% \item \textbf{Visual Plan} ($\mathcal{I}_{\text{visual}}$): asset retrieval or clip generation defines the overall narrative structure and scripts of the video.
% \item \textbf{Audio Align} ($\mathcal{I}_{\text{voice}}, \mathcal{I}_{\text{bgm}}$): selected voiceover and background music are aligned with the visual rhythm.
% \item \textbf{Style Refine} ($\mathcal{I}_{\text{subtitle}}, \mathcal{I}_{\text{effect}}$): subtitles, stickers, and visual effects are applied as decorative elements to enrich the final visual appearance.
% \end{enumerate}
% Based on creative instruction $\hat{Y}$, the set of instructions $\mathcal{I}$ is generated supported by candidate asset collection $\mathcal{A} = \{v_1, \ldots, v_n\}$ and structured textual metadata $T_\text{meta}$ for detailed information. The execution mechanism is explicitly designed to balance two critical objectives:
% \noindent\textbf{Efficiency (Resource-Aware Execution).} Rather than blindly generating all videos from scratch, the agent adopts a resource-aware, cost-effective strategy utilizing existing assets. When producing video for recommendation, it prioritizes the retrieval and reusing of existing video clips from $\mathcal{A}$ that semantically align with the instruction. Computationally expensive generative tools are proactively invoked exclusively as a fallback when existing assets are mismatched or insufficient. This dynamic strategy not only maintains high-efficiency, dynamic generation for massive common recommendation requests, but also ensures the production of high-quality, personalized content for rare, long-tail demands.
% % \noindent\textbf{Quality Assurance (Iterative Self-Correction).} The coarse-to-fine hierarchical structure inherently ensures that downstream tracks are logically conditioned on upstream decisions. To further prevent silent semantic drift and ensure execution correctness across this multi-track chain, the agent executes iterative \textit{Observe$\rightarrow$Think$\rightarrow$Act} cycles. Supervised by step-level correctness rules and global faithfulness rewards, it performs rigorous self-correction at each step, sequentially populating the tracks until a high-quality, structurally flawless $\mathcal{I}$ is fully constructed and passed to the downstream Video Renderer.
% \noindent\textbf{Quality (Multi-Reward Design).}
% Agentic VGS contains a synergy of task decomposition and formal reward supervision to prevent semantic drift across the multi-track chain. First, the coarse-to-fine hierarchical structure prevents compounding errors by strictly conditioning downstream tracks on upstream decisions. Second, the hierarchical structure is explicitly guided by a dual-granularity reward system: \textbf{(i)} a step-level correctness reward that verifies the technical validity of individual decisions within each track; and \textbf{(ii)} a global faithfulness reward that ensures the fully constructed instruction set $\mathcal{I}$ remains semantically aligned with the creative instruction $\hat{Y}$ and latent user interest embedding $\hat{e}_{v}$. Supervised collaboratively by rewards above, the agent iteratively populates the tracks until a high-quality, structurally flawless $\mathcal{I}$ for video generation.
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \subsection{Model Training}\label{sec:decoder_train}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% %这个decoder training感觉可以放附录
% % \noindent\textbf{Conceptual Decoder Training.}
% % We optimize the Conceptual Decoder through a three-stage pipeline. In \textbf{Stage 1 (Modality Alignment)}, we freeze the LLM backbone and train only the projector $\phi$. In \textbf{Stage 2 (Instruction Tuning)}, we unfreeze all parameters and jointly optimize the projector and LLM via the Next Token Prediction objective. In \textbf{Stage 3 (RL Fine-tuning)}, the reward is computed as the semantic similarity between the generated draft $\hat{Y}$ and a ground-truth video summary $Y_{gt}$, encouraging scripts grounded in the user's true interest rather than drifting toward generic content (see Appendix).
% % \noindent\textbf{Agentic Video Generator Reinforcement Learning.}
% % We optimize Agentic Video Generator via GDPO~\cite{liu2026gdpo} to ensure the video can be successfully rendered and remains faithful to the user's latent interest. Designing such rewards faces two core challenges: first, the multi-stage chain $\mathbf{e}_{\text{full}} \!\to\! \hat{Y} \!\to\! \mathcal{I} \!\to\! \mathbf{e}_{\text{proxy}}$ (embedding of the synthesized video) causes silent semantic drift; second, trajectory-level rewards cause gradient dilution (e.g., a misaligned asset at step 1 is indistinguishable from a poor TTS choice at step 3). We address this through a \textbf{dual-granularity reward design}:
% % \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*, parsep=0pt, itemsep=2pt, topsep=2pt]
% % \item \textit{Step-Level Correctness Reward ($r_t$):} Rule-based rewards verifying individual decisions, covering asset selection validity, tool invocation correctness, clip duration matching, voice-visual correspondence, and occlusion checks. These are applied exclusively to tokens at step $t$.
% % \item \textit{Global Interest Faithfulness Reward ($R_{\text{global}}$):} Comprises two complementary signals. $R_{\text{param}}$ supervises the local segment $\hat{Y} \leftrightarrow \mathcal{I}$ ensuring no parametric drift, trained via a regression reward model on hierarchically distorted script variants (min-max rescaled to $[0,1]$). $R_{\text{embed}}$ supervises the end-to-end mapping $\mathbf{e}_{\text{full}} \leftrightarrow \mathbf{e}_{\text{proxy}}$. Since full rendering is slow, we construct a lightweight visual proxy: we sample representative keyframes for retrieved assets, and synthesize frames via T2I models for generation-conditioned segments. The reward is:
% % $$R_{\text{embed}} = \frac{1 + \mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{e}_{\text{proxy}},\; \mathbf{e}_{\text{full}})}{2}$$
% % \end{itemize}
% % To avoid gradient dilution, we adopt a track-level optimization strategy. Each of the five tracks is treated as an independent optimization unit: $R_t = w_t \cdot (R_{\text{param}} + R_{\text{embed}}) + r_t$, where $w_t$ distributes the global faithfulness signal and $r_t$ provides track-specific correctness.
% % \noindent\textbf{Agentic Video Generator Reinforcement Learning.}
% % We optimize the Agentic Video Generator via GDPO~\cite{liu2026gdpo} to simultaneously instill the resource-aware routing capability and prevent semantic drift across the multi-stage production chain
% % % ($\hat{e}_{v} \!\to\! \hat{Y} \!\to\! \mathcal{I} \!\to\! e_{proxy}$).
% % $
% % \hat{e}_{v} \!\to\! \hat{Y} \!\to\! \mathcal{I} \!\to\! \hat{v}
% % $
% % , where $\hat{v}$ represents the final decoded video.
% We optimize the Agentic Video Generator via GDPO~\cite{liu2026gdpo} to instill the multi-reward training capability and prevent semantic drift, through a comprehensive training framework that guarantees both efficiency and quality.
% % \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*, parsep=0pt, itemsep=2pt, topsep=2pt]
% \noindent\textbf{Resource-Aware Data Curation.}
% To teach the agent to dynamically balance retrieval and generation, we construct a specialized instruction-clip paired dataset. Specifically, curated videos are segmented into fine-grained clips (e.g., 10 clips for a video) and paired with corresponding creative instructions. To force the agent to learn generative invocation as a fallback, we deliberately mask a subset of ground-truth clips in the candidates (e.g., providing $\le 9$ candidate clips for 10 instructions). The agent receives a positive reward (+1) for two behaviors: (a) correctly retrieving the matching video segment from the available pool when it exists, or (b) accurately invoking the generative tool to synthesize a sequence that highly aligns with the instruction when the target clip is masked. This routing behavior is strictly regularized by track-specific penalties, such as the \textit{Asset-Existence Check}, which applies a hard penalty ($-1$) if the agent attempts to hallucinate or retrieve a non-existent asset.Details for data curation and reward design are provided in the Appendix~\ref{app：avgsdata}.
% \noindent \textbf{Dual-Granularity Reward Design.}
% To improve quality and ensure the final video remains faithful to the user's intent, we employ a dual-granularity reward design.
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*, parsep=0pt, itemsep=2pt, topsep=2pt]
% \item{Step-Level Correctness Reward ($r_t$):} Fine-grained rule-based rewards verify individual decisions. For instance, the Visual Track Reward ($r_1$) evaluates Aesthetic Quality, Gen-Consistency, and Duration Validation. Comprehensive metric formulations for all rewards are provided in the Appendix~\ref{app:reward_details}.
% \item{Global Interest Faithfulness Reward ($\mathcal{R}_{\text{global}}$):} Comprises two complementary rewards. $\mathcal{R}_{\text{param}}$ supervises the parametric drift between track segments and creative instructions $\hat{Y} \leftrightarrow \mathcal{I}$, by a regression reward model to provide a faithfulness score (min-max rescaled to $[0,1]$). $\mathcal{R}{\text{embed}}$ supervises the end-to-end mapping $\hat{e}_{v} \leftrightarrow \hat{v}$. Since full video generation is costly, we construct a lightweight visual proxy: we sample representative keyframes in retrieved assets, and generate frames via text-to-image models for generation instructions to represent features of generated videos. These inputs are fed into the semantic encoder $\mathcal{E}$ to get the proxy embedding $e_\text{proxy}$, then we calculate the similarity score as reward:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{R}_{\text{embed}} = \frac{1 + \mathrm{sim}(\hat{e}_{v}, e_\text{proxy}\; )}{2}.
% \end{equation}
% \end{itemize}
% % \textbf{Reward Composition and Optimization.}
% % \label{sec:optimization}
% To ensure each decision is simultaneously guided by local quality and global faithfulness, we compose the two reward granularities into a unified per-track signal: $\mathcal{R}_t = {w_{t}\mathcal{R}_{\text{global}}} + r_t,$ where $w_{t}$ is a weight factor to achieve a balance between global interest faithfulness and cumulative step-level quality, and the final reward $\mathcal{R}_t$ at each step is used to optimize the model by the GDPO algorithm~\cite{liu2026gdpo}, detailed in Appendix~\ref{app:avgs}
% % \end{itemize}
% % \subsection{Data Curation}
% % A core challenge in training the agent is constructing data that naturally enforces the dual objectives of efficiency and quality. We extract production attributes from curated reference trajectories and apply two targeted data synthesis strategies to teach the complete perceive--retrieve--generate loop:
% % \noindent\textbf{Data Curation for Efficiency.}
% % To teach the agent the retrieval-first execution and balance long-tail personalization against generation cost, we strategically mask a subset of ground-truth asset segments in the reference trajectories. By replacing them with directives to invoke generative tools, we train the agent to recognize physical inventory insufficiency and trigger generative tools only as a necessary fallback.
% % \noindent\textbf{Data Curation for Quality.}
% % To prevent semantic drift and ensure accurate asset selection, we inject hard negatives into the candidate pool at two granularities—asset segments from \textit{videos of different categories} (coarse-grained) and from \textit{videos within the same category but featuring different products} (fine-grained)—with strict semantic similarity filtering. This trains the agent to make precise and robust retrieval decisions under confusing alternatives, ensuring the visual quality and semantic correctness of the selected assets.
% % \subsection{Conceptual-Physical Agentic (CPA) Decoder}\label{sec:decoding}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % \subsection{Conceptual Decoder}\label{sec:pcd}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % With the latent interest SIDs predicted by the LIM, the next step is to translate these abstract representations into structured, actionable content that can guide video production. The Conceptual Decoder bridges this gap by converting predicted SIDs into a human-readable ad script draft $\hat{Y}$, specifying key creative dimensions such as target audience, narrative style, and visual tone.
% % \noindent\textbf{Model Architecture.}
% % The Conceptual Decoder consists of two components: an MLP projector and a pre-trained LLM backbone. To handle the heterogeneous inputs, we adopt a hybrid input strategy. We first apply reverse RQ-KMeans decoding to reconstruct the predicted SID sequence into its continuous dense embedding $\mathbf{e}_{full} \in \mathbb{R}^{2d}$, which is then split into the product embedding $\mathbf{e}_{prod} \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ and creative embedding $\mathbf{e}_{crea} \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$. These continuous embeddings are mapped into the LLM's token space via the MLP projector $\phi(\cdot)$. In parallel, $\mathbf{e}_{prod}$ is used to retrieve the item's textual marketing metadata $T_{mkt}$ — carrying precise information such as product name, price and selling points — which is directly tokenized and embedded through the LLM's standard embedding layer. The final input sequence is constructed as:
% % $$\mathbf{H}_{in} =[\phi(\mathbf{e}_{prod});\ \phi(\mathbf{e}_{crea});\ \text{Embed}(\text{Tokenizer}(T_{mkt}))]$$
% % This design allows the model to jointly reason over abstract latent interest signals from the product and creative combination alongside precise, explicit product knowledge within a unified sequence.
% % \noindent\textbf{Multi-Stage Training.}
% % We optimize the Conceptual Decoder through a three-stage pipeline. In \textbf{Stage 1 (Modality Alignment)}, we freeze the LLM backbone and train only the projector $\phi$ to align the latent interest space with the LLM's textual embedding space. In \textbf{Stage 2 (Instruction Tuning)}, we unfreeze all parameters and jointly optimize the projector and LLM via the Next Token Prediction objective, enabling coherent script generation by synthesizing latent preferences with explicit item features. In \textbf{Stage 3 (RL Fine-tuning)}, we further optimize the model to ensure the generated script remains faithful to the user's latent interest. The reward is computed as the semantic similarity between the generated draft $\hat{Y}$ and a ground-truth video summary $Y_{gt}$
% % , encouraging the model to produce scripts that are grounded in the user's true interest rather than drifting toward generic content (see Appendix for details).
% % This progressive training pipeline ensures that the Conceptual Decoder effectively translates abstract user intents into precise, actionable, and personalized advertising blueprints.
% % \begin{figure}[tbp]
% % \centering
% % \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/VGS_0326.png}
% % \vspace{-0.15in}
% % \caption{The physical decoding process and training rewards of Agentic Video Generation System. }
% % \label{fig:Agentic VGS}
% % \end{figure}
% % \subsection{Physical Decoding via Agentic Video Generation System (Agentic VGS)}\label{sec:Agentic VGS}
% % With the personalized script draft $\hat{Y}$ produced by the Conceptual Decoder, the final challenge is to materialize it into a concrete, executable video. However, as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:intro}, conventional pipelines fall short in two critical ways: \textit{(i)} they lack the ability to jointly leverage existing assets and generative tools in a coherent manner; \textit{(ii)} they execute steps in a fixed sequence with no mechanism to detect or correct intermediate misalignments, causing the final video to silently drift from the user's original intent.
% % To address both limitations, we propose the \textbf{Agentic Video Generation System (Agentic VGS)} — an autonomous agent that dynamically balances asset retrieval and content generation, and is optimized end-to-end to maintain alignment with the user's latent interest throughout the entire production process.
% % \noindent\textbf{Task formulation and Model Architecture.}
% % As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:Agentic VGS}, to reflect the natural dependency structure of video production, we represent video production as a hierarchical instruction set $\mathcal{I}$ decomposed into five semantically distinct tracks, planned along a coarse-to-fine dependency chain:
% % \textbf{(i) Visual Backbone} ($\mathcal{I}_{\text{visual}}$): asset retrieval or clip generation defines the overall narrative structure of the video;
% % \textbf{(ii) Audio-Visual Alignment} ($\mathcal{I}_{\text{voice}}, \mathcal{I}_{\text{bgm}}$): selected voiceover and background music are aligned to the visual rhythm;
% % \textbf{(iii) Stylistic Refinement} ($\mathcal{I}_{\text{subtitle}}, \mathcal{I}_{\text{effect}}$): subtitles, stickers, and visual effects are applied as decorative elements to enrich the final visual appearance of the video.
% % This coarse-to-fine structure ensures that each track is planned in a logically grounded order, with downstream tracks conditioned on upstream decisions.
% % To produce $\mathcal{I}$, the Agentic VGS agent receives three inputs: the personalized script draft $\hat{Y}$, the marketing context $T_{\text{mkt}}$, and a retrieved asset collection $\mathcal{V}_{\text{assets}} = \{v_1, \ldots, v_n\}$. Additionally, it has access to a heterogeneous tool registry $\mathcal{T}$ comprising six specialized tools (clip generation, digital human synthesis, TTS, BGM, subtitle, and sticker/SFX; details in Appendix).
% % Built on Qwen3-32B, the agent executes iterative \textit{Observe→Think→Act} cycles with self-correction, sequentially populating each track until $\mathcal{I}$ is fully constructed.
% % The resulting instruction set is then passed to the downstream Video Renderer to synthesize the final advertisement.
% % \noindent\textbf{Reinforcement Learning and Reward Design.}
% % We optimize Agentic VGS via GDPO~\cite{liu2026gdpo} with a reward signal designed around two complementary objectives: ensuring the video can be successfully rendered, and ensuring the final output remains faithful to the user's latent interest. However, designing such rewards faces two core challenges. First, the production pipeline $\mathbf{e}_{\text{full}} \!\to\! \hat{Y} \!\to\! \mathcal{I} \!\to\! \mathbf{e}_{\text{proxy}}$~(embedding of the synthesized video) is a multi-stage chain where semantic drift can accumulate silently across stages, making it hard to localize errors with a single end-to-end signal. Second, trajectory-level rewards cause gradient dilution, for example a misaligned asset selection at step 1 is indistinguishable from a poor TTS choice at step 3, making it difficult to assign credit to individual decisions. We address these challenges through a \textbf{dual-granularity reward design} that combines step-level correctness with global interest faithfulness.
% % \textit{Step-Level Correctness Reward} ($r_t$). For each track in $\mathcal{I}$, we define rule-based rewards that verify the correctness of individual production decisions. These rules cover: asset selection validity, tool invocation correctness, clip duration matching, voice-visual correspondence, and occlusion checks~(refer to Appendix for more details). Step-level rewards are applied exclusively to the tokens generated at each step $t$, providing fine-grained credit assignment that ensures the video can be successfully rendered end-to-end.
% % \textit{Global Interest Faithfulness Reward} ($R_{\text{global}}$). To ensure the final video remains aligned with the user's original latent interest, we design two complementary global rewards that supervise different segments of the production chain.
% % $R_{\text{param}}$ supervises the local segment $\hat{Y} \leftrightarrow \mathcal{I}$, ensuring the agent faithfully executes the script without introducing parametric drift. We train a regression reward model on hierarchically distorted script variants to predict a continuous alignment score between $\mathcal{I}$ and $\hat{Y}$, with min-max rescaling to $[0,1]$.
% % $R_{\text{embed}}$ supervises the end-to-end mapping $\mathbf{e}_{\text{full}} \leftrightarrow \mathbf{e}_{\text{proxy}}$, catching accumulated drift across the full chain that $R_{\text{param}}$ alone cannot detect. Since full video rendering is slow for RL training, we construct a lightweight visual proxy to approximate the final video at low cost: for retrieved assets, we sample representative keyframes directly from the existing footage; for generation-conditioned segments, we synthesize frames via T2I models, bypassing the expensive video generation process. These visual frames, together with the associated text information, are fed into the same encoder described in section~\ref{sec:mdrl} yielding the proxy embedding $\mathbf{e}_{\text{proxy}}$,
% % and the reward is: $$R_{\text{embed}} = \frac{1 + \mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{e}_{\text{proxy}},\; \mathbf{e}_{\text{full}})}{2},$$
% % where $\mathrm{sim}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the cosine similarity function.
% % To enable fine-grained credit assignment across production stages, we adopt a track-level optimization strategy inspired by GDPO~\cite{liu2026gdpo}: each of the five tracks is treated as an independent optimization unit, with its own per-track reward and independently computed advantage. Specifically, the reward for track $t$ is defined as: $R_t = w_t \cdot (R_{\text{param}} + R_{\text{embed}}) + r_t,$
% % where $w_t$ distributes the global interest faithfulness signal across tracks with different weights, and $r_t$ provides track-specific correctness supervision. By computing advantages independently at the track level rather than over the full trajectory, the policy gradient is able to distinguish the contribution of each production decision, thereby avoiding the gradient dilution that arises from trajectory-level reward aggregation.
% % \noindent\textbf{Training Data Curation.}
% % A core challenge in training Agentic VGS is constructing data that teaches the agent the complete \textbf{perceive--retrieve--generate} decision loop: when existing assets are sufficient, the agent should retrieve and reuse them directly; when they are not, it should proactively invoke generative tools to synthesize the missing content. In large-scale industrial deployment, striking this balance is critical — over-reliance on retrieval limits personalization for long-tail interests, while unnecessary generation increases cost and reduces quality consistency. We address this through two targeted data construction strategies.
% % \textit{Perceive--Retrieve--Generate Reference Trajectories.}
% % We curate a collection of high-quality ad videos from the platform as raw data, and apply fine-grained structural parsing to extract key production attributes — such as visual clip compositions, background music categories, and voiceover styles. Building on this foundation, we apply two carefully designed data synthesis and augmentation strategies:
% % \noindent\textbf{(1) Discriminative Retrieval with Hierarchical Hard Negatives.} To train the agent to accurately perceive asset relevance under confusing alternatives, we construct hard negatives at two granularities: asset segments sampled from \textit{videos of different categories} (coarse-grained) and from \textit{videos within the same category but featuring different products} (fine-grained) are injected into the candidate pool as negative examples, with strict semantic similarity filtering applied to remove false negatives. This design mirrors the real-world noise spectrum from gross mismatch to subtle drift, training the agent to make precise and robust retrieval decisions.
% % \noindent\textbf{(2) Resource-Aware Generation Invocation.} To train the agent to recognize retrieval insufficiency and switch to generation at the right moment, we strategically mask a subset of ground-truth asset segments in the reference trajectories and replace them with directives to invoke generative tools. This teaches the agent to perceive scenarios where retrieval fails or assets are simply unavailable, and to proactively call upon generative tools to fulfill the user's personalized needs — achieving a dynamic cost-benefit balance between retrieval and generation.
% \vspace{-0.2in}
\subsection{Disentangled Semantic Video Encoders}\label{sec:SID}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
\subsubsection{Multimodal Representation Learning}
Building upon Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct~\cite{qwen2_5_vl}, we propose an instruction-guided disentangled representation framework that separates semantic content and creative attributes from the same video. For multimodal input processing, we directly reuse Qwen2.5-VL's native visual encoder and text tokenizer.
We first extract its visual token representations using the vision encoder:
$H = \mathcal{F}(v),H \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d},$
where $H$ denotes a sequence of visual tokens capturing spatial-temporal semantics.
To obtain disentangled signals, we leverage our in-house dense captioning model (CapModel) to generate factor-specific textual descriptions:
\begin{equation}
D_m = \text{CapModel}(v,\text{PROMPT}_m),
\quad
m \in \{\text{content}, \text{creative}\},
\end{equation}
where $D_\text{content}$ describes semantic content (entities, topics), while $D_\text{creative}$ captures creative attributes (style, rhythm and atmosphere).
The instructions are encoded via the text tokenizer:
$Q_m = \mathcal{T}(D_m)$, $Q_m \in \mathbb{R}^{L_m \times d}$, where $L_m$ is the instruction length.
We obtain multimodal representations by jointly encoding visual and textual inputs with Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct, and use the last-token hidden state of the final layer as the pooled multimodal representation:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{z}_m
=
\mathrm{Normalize}(\mathrm{VLM}(H, Q_m)),
\quad
\mathbf{z}_m \in \mathbb{R}^{d},\ \|\mathbf{z}_m\|_2 = 1,
\end{equation}
yielding $\mathbf{z}_\text{content}$ and $\mathbf{z}_\text{creative}$ as L2-normalized content and creative representations, respectively.
% \begin{equation}
% \mathbf{z}_m
% =
% \mathrm{VLM}(H, Q_m),
% \qquad
% \mathbf{z}_m \in \mathbb{R}^{d},
% \end{equation}
% yielding $\mathbf{z}_\text{content}$ and $\mathbf{z}_\text{creative}$ as content and creative representations, respectively.
To encourage representation consistency, we employ a contrastive loss for each module:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_m
=
-\log
\frac{
\exp(\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{z}_m^i,\mathbf{z}_m^j)/\tau)
}{
\sum_k \exp(\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{z}_m^i,\mathbf{z}_m^k)/\tau)
},
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{z}_m^j$ is the positive pair of $\mathbf{z}_m^i$ within a batch, and k indexes all candidates including the positive.
To reduce cross-factor leakage, we introduce an orthogonality constraint:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_\text{orth}
=
\|\mathbf{z}_\text{content}^\top \mathbf{z}_\text{creative}\|_2^2.
\end{equation}
The final objective is:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}
=
\mathcal{L}_\text{content}
+
{\gamma_1} \mathcal{L}_\text{creative}
+
{\gamma_2} \mathcal{L}_\text{orth}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Discrete Tokenization}
To facilitate generative recommendation within the latent space, we discretize the disentangled multimodal representations into semantic IDs.
Specifically, each representation $\mathbf{z}_m$ is independently quantized via Residual Quantization (RQ)-based K-means~\cite{luo2024qarm}, yielding a quantized embedding $\mathbf{e}_m$ that approximates $\mathbf{z}_m$ as a sum of codebook vectors across $L$ hierarchical layers:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{e}_m = \sum_{l=1}^{L} \mathbf{c}_{m}^{l}(s_{m}^{l}) \,\approx\, \mathbf{z}_m,
\qquad
\mathbf{e}_m \in \mathbb{R}^{d},
\label{eq:rq_quantization}
\end{equation}
where $s_{m}^{l}$ denotes the discrete code index at layer $l$ for modality $m$, and $\mathbf{c}_{m}^{l}(\cdot)$ is the corresponding codebook lookup. Each modality maintains an independent codebook with 8,192 entries per layer. The final D-SIDs are obtained by concatenating the per-modality code sequences: $\mathbf{D{\text{-}}SIDs} = \bigl[\,s_{\text{content}}^{\,1:L}\,;\, s_{\text{creative}}^{\,1:L}\,\bigr]$.
% We then construct the final SID sequence by concatenating content and creative tokens:
% $\mathbf{D{-}SIDs} = \bigl[\,s_{\text{content}}^{\,1:L}\,;\, s_{\text{creative}}^{\,1:L}\,\bigr]$, which serve as the target space for autoregressive generative recommendation. This discrete representation enables structured modeling of user interests and supports controllable video generation.
% % \vspace{-0.2in}
% \subsection{Instruction Model}\label{sec:IM}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% The Instruction Model translates structured Semantic IDs (SIDs) into shot-level video production instructions. Unlike conventional caption generation, these instructions explicitly specify scene composition, camera motion, temporal pacing, and cinematic style, serving as an intermediate semantic bridge between discrete user interests and controllable video generation.
% To construct supervision signals, we extract SIDs for each video $v$ using the Disentangled Semantic Video Encoders (Section~\ref{sec:SID}) and use Gemini to generate corresponding shot-level instructions.
% \begin{equation}
% D_{\text{inst}}
% \;=\;
% \text{Gemini}(v,\,\text{PROMPT}_{\text{inst}})
% \;=\;
% (y_{1},\, y_{2},\, \ldots,\, y_{L_{\text{inst}}}),
% \end{equation}
% where $D_{\text{inst}}$ serves as supervision for instruction generation, and $L_{\text{inst}}$ denotes its token length.
% To improve controllability across recommendation scenarios, we incorporate video-associated metadata $D_{\text{meta}}$, including topic tags and product information.
% We instantiate the Instruction Model using Qwen3-8B~\cite{yang2025qwen3} as a conditional generation model:
% \begin{equation}
% \hat{D}_\text{inst}
% =
% \text{LLM}(\mathbf{h}_{\text{SIDs}},Q_\text{meta}).
% \end{equation}
% Concretely, we first reconstruct continuous embeddings from discrete SIDs via reverse RQ-Kmeans to get
% $\mathbf{e}_\text{SIDs}=[\mathbf{e}_\text{content};\mathbf{e}_\text{creative}]$,
% and then project them into the language model embedding space via a learnable projector:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathbf{h}_\text{SIDs}
% =
% \phi(\mathbf{e}_\text{SIDs}),
% \qquad
% \mathbf{h}_\text{SIDs} \in \mathbb{R}^{2\times d}.
% \end{equation}
% Meanwhile, the metadata is encoded via the native text tokenizer:
% $Q_\text{meta}=\mathcal{T}(D_\text{meta}),Q_\text{meta} \in \mathbb{R}^{L_\text{meta} \times d}$, where $L_\text{meta}$ denotes sequence length.
% The model is trained using a standard next-token prediction objective:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{L}_\text{NTP}
% =
% -
% \sum_{t=1}^{L}
% \log
% P(y_t \mid y_{<t},\mathbf{h}_\text{SIDs},Q_\text{meta}),
% \end{equation}
% % where $y=(y_1,\cdots,y_L)$ denotes the instruction token sequence, i.e., $y_t$ is the t-th token of $D_{inst}$.
% where the model autoregressively generates $\hat{D}_{\text{inst}}$ to approximate the ground-truth instruction sequence $D_{\text{inst}}$.
% We adopt a three-stage training strategy: in the first stage, the backbone LLM is frozen and only the projector $\phi(\cdot)$ is optimized to align SID embeddings with the language space; in the second stage, both the projector and LLM parameters are jointly fine-tuned for improved semantic fidelity and controllable instruction generation; in the third stage, we further enhance the model using reinforcement learning with reward optimization, as described in Section~\ref{sec:Reward}.
\subsection{Instruction Model}\label{sec:IM}
The Instruction Model translates disentangled semantic IDs into shot-level video production instructions. Unlike conventional caption generation, these instructions explicitly specify scene composition, camera motion, temporal pacing, and cinematic style, serving as an intermediate semantic bridge between discrete user interests and controllable video generation.
\subsubsection{Supervision Construction.}
Since no off-the-shelf dataset contains video-instruction pairs at the shot level, we distill supervision from a strong multimodal teacher. For each video $v$, we first extract its D-SIDs (Section~\ref{sec:SID}), and then prompt Gemini2.5~Pro~\cite{comanici2025gemini} with a carefully designed instruction template $\text{PROMPT}_{\text{inst}}$ to produce the target shot-level script:
\begin{equation}
D_{\text{inst}}
\;=\;
\text{Gemini}(v,\,\text{PROMPT}_{\text{inst}})
\;=\;
(y_{1},\, y_{2},\, \ldots,\, y_{L_{\text{inst}}}),
\end{equation}
where $D_{\text{inst}}$ is a token sequence of length $L_{\text{inst}}$ serving as ground-truth supervision. To accommodate advertising scenarios where the generated video must reflect specific products being promoted, we further introduce an \emph{optional} metadata factor $D_{\text{meta}}$ (e.g., product information and marketing topics) as an auxiliary conditioning signal. When unavailable (e.g., for pure organic videos), $D_{\text{meta}}$ is simply masked, leaving instruction generation conditioned on D-SIDs alone.
\subsubsection{Model and Optimization Objective.}
We instantiate the Instruction Model with Qwen3-8B~\cite{yang2025qwen3}, which consumes two heterogeneous token sequences---the primary D-SIDs and the auxiliary $D_{\text{meta}}$ (masked when unavailable)---mapped into the LLM's input embedding space and concatenated as the prefix.
For D-SIDs, we reconstruct continuous embeddings from the discrete codes via reverse RQ-Kmeans, $\mathbf{e}_{\text{D-SIDs}} = [\mathbf{e}_{\text{content}};\, \mathbf{e}_{\text{creative}}] \in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times d}$, and map them through a learnable projector $\phi(\cdot)$ to $\mathbf{h}_{\text{D-SIDs}} = \phi(\mathbf{e}_{\text{D-SIDs}}) \in \mathbb{R}^{2 \times d'}$. For metadata, $D_{\text{meta}}$ is tokenized and embedded by the LLM's native text tokenizer $\mathcal{T}$ to $Q_{\text{meta}} = \mathcal{T}(D_{\text{meta}}) \in \mathbb{R}^{L_{\text{meta}} \times d'}$, with $L_{\text{meta}}$ denoting the token length. Conditioned on both, the model autoregressively predicts the instruction sequence
\begin{equation}
\hat{D}_{\text{inst}} \;=\; \text{LLM}(\mathbf{h}_{\text{D-SIDs}},\, Q_{\text{meta}}),
\end{equation}
and is optimized with a standard next-token prediction loss against the Gemini-distilled supervision:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{NTP}}
\;=\;
- \sum_{t=1}^{L_{\text{inst}}}
\log P\!\bigl(y_{t}\,\big|\,y_{<t},\, \mathbf{h}_{\text{D-SIDs}},\, Q_{\text{meta}}\bigr),
\end{equation}
so that $\hat{D}_{\text{inst}}$ token-wise approximates $D_{\text{inst}}$.
\subsubsection{Three-Stage Training.}
We adopt a three-stage training strategy: in the first stage, the backbone LLM is frozen and only the projector $\phi(\cdot)$ is optimized to align D-SIDs' embeddings with the language space; in the second stage, both the projector and LLM parameters are jointly fine-tuned for improved semantic fidelity and controllable instruction generation; in the third stage, we further enhance the model using reinforcement learning with reward optimization, as described in Section~\ref{sec:Reward}.
% \subsection{Video Generation Agents}\label{sec:A-VGS}
% As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:sys_pipeline}, industrial-scale personalized video generation cannot be effectively handled by a monolithic generator. The one-shot production of visuals, audio, and effects often leads to semantic inconsistency and limited controllability. Moreover, video production exhibits a hierarchical dependency structure where visual planning determines narrative flow, while audio and effects are conditioned on visual states.
% To address this, we propose Video Generation Agents (VGAs), formulated as a structured multi-agent decision process over a shared generation state.
% \vspace{2pt}
% \noindent\textbf{Agentic Formulation.}
% We model video generation as a sequential decision process:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{S}_t = \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}_{t-1}, a_t), \quad
% a_t \sim \pi_{\theta}(\cdot \mid \mathcal{S}_{t-1}, \hat{D}_{\text{inst}}),
% \end{equation}
% where $\mathcal{S}_t$ denotes the generation state (including intermediate visual clips, audio tracks, and effect layers), $\hat{D}_{\text{inst}}$ is the instructions generated by the Instruction Model, and $a_t$ represents a modality-specific action for visual, audio, or effect generation.
% We implement $\pi_{\theta}$ as a unified policy over heterogeneous actions:
% \begin{equation}
% \pi_{\theta}(a_t \mid \cdot) =
% \{\pi_{\text{visual}}, \pi_{\text{audio}}, \pi_{\text{effect}}\}(a_t \mid \cdot),
% \end{equation}
% corresponding to storyboard planning $\pi_{\text{visual}}$, audio synthesis $\pi_{\text{audio}}$, and post-production refinement $\pi_{\text{effect}}$, respectively.
% All policies share a single Qwen2.5-32B backbone~\cite{yang2024qwen25}, with fully shared parameters across visual, audio, and effect generation.
% Task specialization is achieved purely through structured prompts, tool access constraints, and state-dependent input conditioning, rather than separate model components or parameterized heads. This shared design further enables KV-cache reuse across agents---the common prompt prefix is encoded once and reused across all three policies, substantially reducing inference latency.
% \vspace{2pt}
% \noindent\textbf{Tool Encoding.}
% We use the native text tokenizer to encode tool descriptions and external API specifications into embedding space for policy conditioning:
% $\mathbf{h}_\text{tool} = \mathcal{T}(D_{\text{tool}})$, where $D_{\text{tool}}$ includes metadata of available tools (e.g., pretrained text-to-video and image-to-video models, external audio synthesis and visual effect APIs). These embeddings provide each agent with explicit tool-awareness for decision making.
% \vspace{2pt}
% \noindent\textbf{1. Visual Planning Agent (VPA).}
% The VPA acts as the global controller of the generation process, responsible for structuring the overall flow and clip-level storyboard. It outputs a structured plan consisting of scene segments, layout configurations, and temporal boundaries for each segment:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{I}_\text{visual} = \pi_{\text{visual}}(\hat{D}_\text{inst}, \mathcal{A}, \mathbf{h}_\text{tool}^\text{visual}),
% \end{equation}
% where $\mathcal{A}=\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ denotes the reusable asset pool of video clips.
% \vspace{2pt}
% \noindent\textbf{2. Audio Alignment Agent (AAA).}
% Conditioned on the visual plan and instruction, the AAA generates temporally aligned audio signals, including speech and music, synchronized with scene transitions:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{I}_\text{audio} = \pi_{\text{audio}}(\hat{D}_\text{inst}, \mathcal{I}_\text{visual}, \mathbf{h}_\text{tool}^\text{audio}),
% \end{equation}
% \vspace{2pt}
% \noindent\textbf{3. Artistic Effect Enhancement Agent (AEEA).}
% Conditioned on upstream outputs, the AEEA performs post-production refinement by adding subtitles, visual effects, transitions, and call-to-action elements:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{I}_\text{effect} = \pi_{\text{effect}}(\hat{D}_\text{inst}, \mathcal{I}_\text{visual}, \mathcal{I}_\text{audio}, \mathbf{h}_\text{tool}^\text{effect}),
% \end{equation}
% \vspace{2pt}
% \noindent\textbf{Hierarchical Generation Process.}
% The final video is composed via a unified generation operator $\mathcal{G}$, which invokes a set of specialized, pretrained generation tools for visual, audio, and effect production:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{V} = \mathcal{G}(\mathcal{I}_\text{visual}, \mathcal{I}_\text{audio}, \mathcal{I}_\text{effect}).
% \end{equation}
% We further define an iterative reasoning loop:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{S}_{t+1} = \text{Observe}(\mathcal{S}_t, \mathcal{I}_t), \quad
% \mathcal{I}_t = \text{Think} \rightarrow \text{Act},
% \end{equation}
% allowing agents to refine decisions based on intermediate outputs. Agent policies are optimized via synergistic cross-domain reward signals that jointly capture generation quality, interest alignment, and user feedback, as detailed in Section~\ref{sec:Reward}.
\subsection{Video Generation Agents}\label{sec:A-VGS}
As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:sys_pipeline}, industrial-scale personalized video generation cannot be effectively handled by a monolithic generator. The one-shot production of visuals, audio, and effects often leads to semantic inconsistency and limited controllability. Moreover, video production exhibits a hierarchical dependency structure where visual planning determines the narrative flow, while audio and effects are conditioned on the visual state.
To address this, we propose Video Generation Agents (VGAs), formulated as a structured multi-agent decision process over an evolving generation state.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Agentic Formulation.}
We model video generation as a sequential decision process executed by a team of sub-agents. At each step $t$, the active sub-agent observes a state $\mathcal{S}_t$, selects an action $a_t$ according to its policy $\pi_{\theta}$, and transitions to the next state via a deterministic operator $\mathcal{P}$:
\begin{equation}
a_t \sim \pi_{\theta}(a_t \mid \mathcal{S}_t),
\qquad
\mathcal{S}_{t+1} = \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{S}_t, a_t).
\end{equation}
To enable efficient backbone reuse across sub-agents (detailed later), we serialize the state as an ordered prefix followed by stage-dependent tokens:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}_t = \bigl[\,\underbrace{\hat{D}_{\text{inst}};\, D_{\text{tool}}}_{\text{shared prefix}};\; \underbrace{\mathcal{O}_{<t};\, \text{PROMPT}_\text{role}}_{\text{stage-dependent}}\,\bigr],
\label{eq:vga_state}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{D}_{\text{inst}}$ is the instruction sequence produced by the Instruction Model; $D_{\text{tool}}$ is the description of all available tools, including in-house pretrained text-to-video and image-to-video models and external audio synthesis and visual effect APIs; $\mathcal{O}_{<t}$ is the running concatenation of all earlier sub-agents' role prompts and their generated outputs; and $\text{PROMPT}_\text{role}$ is a short role-specific prompt that activates the current sub-agent. The action $a_t$ corresponds to a modality-specific intent for visual, audio, or effect generation.
VGAs consist of three role-specialized sub-agents, each acting according to its own policy:
\begin{equation}
\pi_{\theta}(a_t \mid \mathcal{S}_t) = \{\pi_{\text{visual}},\, \pi_{\text{audio}},\, \pi_{\text{effect}}\}(a_t \mid \mathcal{S}_t),
\end{equation}
corresponding to visual planning, audio synthesis, and post-production effects, respectively. We next describe each sub-agent in turn.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{1. Visual Planning Agent (VPA).}
At the visual stage, $\text{PROMPT}_\text{role}$= $\text{PROMPT}_\text{visual}$ and $\mathcal{O}_{<t}$ is empty (or carries the previous reflection round's content). The VPA acts as the global controller, producing a clip-level storyboard with scene segments, layout configurations, and temporal boundaries: $\mathcal{I}_\text{visual} = \pi_{\text{visual}}(\mathcal{S}_t)$.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{2. Audio Alignment Agent (AAA).}
At the audio stage, $\text{PROMPT}_\text{role}$ = $\text{PROMPT}_\text{audio}$ and $\mathcal{O}_{<t}$ extends with $(\text{PROMPT}_\text{visual}, \mathcal{I}_\text{visual})$. The AAA generates temporally aligned audio (speech and music) synchronized with scene transitions: $\mathcal{I}_\text{audio} = \pi_{\text{audio}}(\mathcal{S}_t)$.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{3. Artistic Effect Enhancement Agent (AEEA).}
At the effect stage, $\text{PROMPT}_\text{role} = \text{PROMPT}_\text{effect}$ and $\mathcal{O}_{<t}$ further extends with $(\text{PROMPT}_\text{audio}, \mathcal{I}_\text{audio})$. The AEEA performs post-production refinement by adding subtitles, visual effects, transitions, and call-to-action elements: $\mathcal{I}_\text{effect} = \pi_{\text{effect}}(\mathcal{S}_t)$.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Hierarchical Generation with Bounded Reflection.}
The three intent outputs are composed into the final video via a unified generation operator $\mathcal{G}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{V} = \mathcal{G}(\mathcal{I}_\text{visual},\, \mathcal{I}_\text{audio},\, \mathcal{I}_\text{effect}).
\end{equation}
To improve cross-modal consistency, VGAs operate within a bounded reflection loop that follows the standard Observe$\rightarrow$Think$\rightarrow$Act cycle, capped at two iterations to balance output quality with generation efficiency.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Shared Backbone and KV-Cache Reuse.}
Although VGAs comprise three role-specific sub-agents, they are not three separate models---all share a single Qwen2.5-32B backbone~\cite{yang2024qwen25} with fully shared parameters. Differentiation arises purely from the state $\mathcal{S}_t$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:vga_state}: $\text{PROMPT}_{\text{role}}$ activates the target sub-agent, an attention mask over $D_{\text{tool}}$ restricts it to the accessible tool subset, and $\mathcal{O}_{<t}$ supplies the cumulative upstream context. This serialization also enables straightforward KV-cache reuse: with sub-agents invoked sequentially and $\mathcal{O}_{<t}$ growing append-only, every previously generated token stays in the KV cache, leaving each downstream sub-agent to only encode its own $\text{PROMPT}_{\text{role}}$, substantially reducing per-request inference latency.
The agent policies are optimized via synergistic cross-domain reward signals that jointly capture generation quality, interest alignment, and user feedback, as detailed in Section~\ref{sec:Reward}.
% \textbf{Optimization Objective.}
% We formulate VGA generation as a multi-objective decision process, where each action is guided by:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{R} =
% \lambda_1 R_{\text{quality}} +
% \lambda_2 R_{\text{align}} +
% \lambda_3 R_{\text{feedback}}.
% \end{equation}
% The policy aims to maximize expected reward:
% \begin{equation}
% \max_{\theta} \mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\theta}}[\mathcal{R}],
% \end{equation}
% where the reward components respectively capture user-interest alignment, generation quality, and user engagement. Detailed reward formulations and training strategies are introduced in Section~\ref{sec:Reward}.
% % \vspace{-0.2in}
% \subsection{Agentic Video Generation System}\label{sec:A-VGS}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:sys_pipeline}, industrial-scale personalized video generation cannot be reliably solved by a monolithic one-shot generator. Directly synthesizing visuals, narration, music, subtitles, and artistic effects within a single generation process often leads to semantic drift, unstable temporal consistency, and poor controllability over individual video components. More importantly, real-world video production naturally follows a dependency hierarchy: visual composition determines narrative structure, while audio and artistic effects should be adaptively conditioned on the generated visual content. Ignoring this structure substantially limits generation quality, tool utilization efficiency, and optimization flexibility.
% To address these challenges, we introduce an \textbf{Agentic Video Generation System} (\textbf{A-VGS}), which decomposes video production into a coordinated multi-agent planning and execution framework. Instead of treating generation as a single black-box process, A-VGS organizes video synthesis into sequentially dependent generation stages, where specialized agents collaboratively construct the final video through iterative planning, tool invocation, and refinement. This design enables structured reasoning over heterogeneous generation tools while preserving fine-grained controllability for different video modalities.
% Specifically, A-VGS contains three collaborative agents that follow the natural production pipeline of short-form videos. Importantly, these agents are not implemented as independent models. Instead, all agents share the same Qwen2.5-32B large language model backbone~\cite{yang2024qwen25} with shared parameters, while being specialized through different contextual inputs, intermediate planning states, and accessible tool descriptions. This shared-policy design enables efficient multi-agent coordination and knowledge transfer across heterogeneous generation tasks, while avoiding the substantial training and deployment overhead introduced by maintaining multiple standalone models.
% \begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=*, parsep=0pt, itemsep=2pt, topsep=2pt, label=\roman*)]
% \item \textbf{Visual Planning Agent (VPA).}
% The Visual Planning Agent serves as the primary controller of the generation process. Given the creative instruction $\hat{D}_{instruction}$ generated by the Instruction Model, the agent receives visual generation contexts, candidate asset information, and registered visual tool descriptions to determine the overall narrative structure, visual layout, and clip-level storyboard of the target video. The agent dynamically decides whether to retrieve reusable assets from the candidate asset pool $\mathcal{A}=\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ or invoke external generation tools such as text-to-video or image-to-video models when existing assets are insufficient. Since visual semantics dominate downstream video perception, the generated visual plan establishes the global temporal and semantic backbone for all subsequent stages.
% \item \textbf{Audio Alignment Agent (AAA).}
% Conditioned on both the creative instruction $\hat{D}_{instruction}$ and the visual plan generated by VPA, the Audio Alignment Agent receives multimodal synchronization contexts together with registered audio tool specifications to produce narration, voice style, speaking rhythm, and background music. Rather than generating audio independently, AAA explicitly aligns audio cues with visual pacing, scene transitions, and target audience characteristics. This dependency-aware design significantly improves multimodal consistency between speech, music, and visual semantics.
% \item \textbf{Artistic Effect Enhancement Agent (AEEA).}
% After the visual and audio tracks are finalized, the Artistic Effect Enhancement Agent further receives downstream rendering contexts and artistic tool descriptions to enrich the generated video with subtitles, stickers, typography, transition effects, promotional tags, and call-to-action elements. By conditioning on upstream generation states, the agent performs controllable aesthetic refinement while preserving overall semantic coherence.
% \end{enumerate}
% Formally, the entire generation process is represented as a hierarchical instruction set:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{I} =
% \{
% \mathcal{I}_{\text{visual}},
% \mathcal{I}_{\text{audio}},
% \mathcal{I}_{\text{artistic\_effects}}
% \},
% \end{equation}
% where each track corresponds to a semantically specialized generation subspace. Unlike conventional cascaded pipelines with fixed execution orders, A-VGS performs iterative reasoning through interleaved \textit{Think$\rightarrow$Action$\rightarrow$Observation} cycles, allowing agents to dynamically revise generation decisions according to intermediate outputs and execution feedback.
% Another key advantage of A-VGS is its \textbf{resource-aware execution mechanism}. In industrial recommendation systems, fully generating all videos from scratch is computationally prohibitive. A-VGS therefore prioritizes the retrieval and reuse of semantically aligned assets whenever possible, while invoking expensive generative models only for missing or weakly matched visual segments. This hybrid retrieval-generation paradigm substantially improves serving efficiency and scalability while still preserving personalization capability for long-tail user interests.
% Finally, the hierarchical multi-agent formulation also provides a natural foundation for reward-driven optimization. Since different generation tracks correspond to distinct objectives such as visual quality, audio synchronization, artistic aesthetics, and user engagement, the system can incorporate fine-grained reward supervision for each specialized agent while jointly optimizing global interest alignment with user intent. Detailed reinforcement learning formulation and reward optimization strategies are introduced in Section~\ref{sec:Reward}.
% Finally, the hierarchical multi-agent formulation also provides a natural foundation for reward-driven optimization. We first construct large-scale shot-level agentic tuning data using Google Gemini~\cite{comanici2025gemini}, which translates high-quality videos into structured generation scripts containing scene planning, motion control, audio alignment, and visual effects. Based on these supervised trajectories, the specialized generation agents are jointly optimized through instruction tuning to learn controllable video generation behaviors. Building upon the supervised initialization, we further introduce reward-driven reinforcement learning, where different generation tracks are optimized using fine-grained rewards targeting visual quality, audio synchronization, artistic aesthetics, temporal coherence, and user engagement, while jointly maintaining global alignment with user interests. Detailed reinforcement learning formulation and reward optimization strategies are introduced in Section~2.5.
% \begin{figure*}
% \centering
% % \vspace{-15pt} % 适当减少图片上方的留白，让它与文字对齐更紧凑
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/reward.pdf}
% \caption{Overview of the end-to-end reward system for Recommendation-as-Generation.}
% \label{fig:datacuration}
% \end{figure*}
% \vspace{-0.2in}
\subsection{Synergistic Cross-Domain Reward Learning}\label{sec:Reward}
\subsubsection{Cross-Domain Reward Formulation}
To further enhance both recommendation and video generation performance, we formulate a structured cross-domain reward scheme with three synergistic objectives: \textit{video quality}, \textit{interest alignment}, and \textit{user feedback}. Unless otherwise specified, all reward models share the same Transformer-based architecture and are trained on task-specific datasets.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{1. Video Quality Rewards.}
We evaluate the perceptual and compositional quality of generated videos from three complementary aspects: visual quality, audio-visual coherence, and effect-visual alignment. Formally, we define:
$R_{\text{quality}} = R_{\text{visual}} + R_{\text{audio}} + R_{\text{effect}}$,
where:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item $R_{\text{visual}}$ evaluates visual quality, including aesthetic appeal and spatio-temporal consistency to ensure coherent motion and stable rendering,
\item $R_{\text{audio}}$ measures alignment between audio and visual content, covering both speech synchronization (TTS) and background music consistency (BGM),
\item $R_{\text{effect}}$ captures the quality and alignment of visual effects, including subtitles, highlights, and interactive elements such as action bars.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{2. Interest Alignment Rewards.}
To keep generated content aligned with user interests throughout the pipeline, we apply alignment rewards at multiple stages, anchored on the D-SIDs that encode user interests in a structured latent space:
$R_{\text{align}} = R_{\text{instr-align}} + R_{\text{rep-align}}$, where:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item $R_{\text{instr-align}}$ enforces semantic consistency between GRM-generated D-SIDs and the generated instructions,
\item $R_{\text{rep-align}}$ measures semantic similarity between GRM-generated D-SIDs and the generated videos.
\end{itemize}
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{3. User Feedback Rewards.}
To enhance downstream user engagement, we leverage user interaction signals such as clicks and conversions as the core reward for optimization. However, real-world interaction signals are sparse and delayed, making them insufficient for stable and efficient policy optimization.
To mitigate this issue, we augment sparse interaction signals with dense engagement estimates from deployed ranking models. We define the overall reward as:
$R_{\text{feedback}} = R_{\text{real}} + R_{\text{pred}}$,
where:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item $R_{\text{real}}$ denotes sparse but high-fidelity user interaction signals observed from real feedback, including behaviors such as click, like, collect, and purchase,
\item $R_{\text{pred}}$ denotes dense engagement signals estimated by ranking models, which capture user preference strength beyond explicit interactions.
\end{itemize}
% \vspace{4pt}
% \noindent\textbf{Module-specific Optimization.}
% While a unified reward is defined at the system level, different modules are optimized with distinct emphases according to their functional roles:
% \begin{equation}
% \small
% \begin{aligned}
% R_{\textbf{GRM}} &= \alpha R_{\text{feedback}}, \\
% R_{\textbf{IM}} &= \beta R_{\text{align}}, \\
% R_{\textbf{VGAs}} &= \lambda_1 R_{\text{quality}} + \lambda_2 R_{\text{align}} + \lambda_3 R_{\text{feedback}},
% \end{aligned}
% \end{equation}
% Here, GRM focuses on optimizing user engagement signals, IM emphasizes semantic faithfulness, while VGAs jointly optimize generation quality, interest alignment, and user feedback. This design decomposes the global objective into module-specific learning signals, enabling stable and coordinated end-to-end optimization.
% \vspace{4pt}
% \subsubsection{Constrained Policy Optimization with GDPO.}
% After supervised fine-tuning (SFT), we further optimize the Generative Recommendation Model (GRM), Instruction Model (IM), and Video Generation Agents (VGAs) using reinforcement learning.
% We adopt GDPO~\cite{liu2026gdpo} as the unified optimization framework, which stabilizes heterogeneous multi-objective learning via per-reward normalization and group-wise preference optimization.
% Given an input context $x$, the policy $\pi_\theta$ samples a set of candidates: $\mathcal{Y} = \{y_1, \dots, y_K\}$.
% Each candidate is evaluated by multiple reward functions, which are first normalized and then aggregated:
% \begin{equation}
% R(y_i) = \sum_{m=1}^{M} \lambda_m \cdot
% \frac{R_m(y_i) - \mu_m}{\sigma_m + \epsilon},
% \end{equation}
% where $\mu_m$ and $\sigma_m$ denote batch-level statistics for reward $m$.
% Relative advantages are computed within each sampled group:
% \begin{equation}
% A_i = \frac{R(y_i) - \mu(\mathcal{Y})}{\sigma(\mathcal{Y}) + \epsilon}.
% \end{equation}
% The optimization objective is:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{L}_{\text{GDPO}} =
% -
% \mathbb{E}_{(x,y_i)}
% \left[
% A_i \log \frac{\pi_\theta(y_i|x)}{\pi_{\text{ref}}(y_i|x)}
% \right],
% \end{equation}
% where $\pi_{\text{ref}}$ is the frozen SFT policy.
% We further introduce a cross-domain reward fusion mechanism to integrate heterogeneous supervision signals. Specifically, user feedback is treated as the primary reward, while interest alignment and video quality are incorporated as constrained auxiliary rewards:
% \begin{equation}
% R(y_i) =
% R_{\text{fb}}(y_i)
% + \alpha_t \cdot R_{\text{align}}(y_i)
% + \beta_t \cdot R_{\text{quality}}(y_i),
% \end{equation}
% where $\alpha_t$ and $\beta_t$ are adaptive weights dynamically controlled via a PID-based Lagrangian scheme to balance constraint satisfaction during training.
% \vspace{4pt}
% \subsubsection{Constrained Policy Optimization with GDPO}
% To better integrate the cross-domain reward signals introduced above for improving video generation and recommendation within the RaG framework, we propose constrained policy optimization with GDPO.
% GDPO~\cite{liu2026gdpo} serves as the unified optimization framework, addressing scale mismatch and optimization instability in heterogeneous reward learning via per-reward normalization and group-wise preference optimization.
% Given an input context $x$, the policy $\pi_\theta$ samples a set of candidates: $\mathcal{Y} = \{y_1, \dots, y_K\}$. Each candidate is evaluated by multiple reward functions, which are first normalized and then aggregated:
% \begin{equation}
% R(y_i) = \sum_{m=1}^{M} \lambda_m \cdot
% \frac{R_m(y_i) - \mu_m}{\sigma_m + \epsilon},
% \end{equation}
% where $\mu_m$ and $\sigma_m$ denote the mean and standard deviation of reward $m$ computed over the batch, respectively. The fusion weights $\lambda_m$ are adaptively learned via the PID-controlled Lagrangian scheme introduced later.
% Relative advantages are computed within each sampled group:
% \begin{equation}
% A_i = \frac{R(y_i) - \mu(\mathcal{Y})}{\sigma(\mathcal{Y}) + \epsilon}.
% \end{equation}
% where $\mu(\mathcal{Y})$ and $\sigma(\mathcal{Y})$ are the group-level statistics of rewards over the sampled candidates $\mathcal{Y}$.
% The optimization objective is:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{L}_{\text{GDPO}} =
% -
% \mathbb{E}_{(x,y_i)}
% \left[
% A_i \log \frac{\pi_\theta(y_i|x)}{\pi_{\text{ref}}(y_i|x)}
% \right],
% \end{equation}
% where $\pi_{\text{ref}}$ is the frozen SFT policy.
% To enable effective fusion of heterogeneous reward signals, we introduce a PID-controlled Lagrangian scheme~\cite{stooke2020responsive} to dynamically balance cross-domain objectives. Specifically, user feedback is treated as the primary reward, while interest alignment and video quality are enforced as constrained signals with target thresholds $\tau_a$ and $\tau_q$:
% \begin{equation}
% \begin{aligned}
% R_{\text{total}} =
% & R_{\text{feedback}}(y_i) \\
% & - \lambda_a(t)\,\text{ReLU}\big(\tau_a - R_{\text{align}}(y_i)\big) \\
% & - \lambda_q(t)\,\text{ReLU}\big(\tau_q - R_{\text{quality}}(y_i)\big),
% \end{aligned}
% \end{equation}
% where $\lambda_a(t)$ and $\lambda_q(t)$ are adaptively updated via proportional, integral, and derivative feedback on constraint violations, ensuring responsive yet stable enforcement throughout training.
\subsubsection{Constrained Policy Optimization with GDPO}
\label{sec:cpo-gdpo}
To jointly optimize the heterogeneous, cross-domain rewards introduced above, we formulate reward learning within the RaG framework as a \emph{constrained policy optimization} problem solved by GDPO~\cite{liu2026gdpo}. The design addresses two practical challenges in multi-reward RL: (i)~the scale mismatch and optimization instability caused by heterogeneous reward signals, and (ii)~the difficulty of statically balancing competing objectives without sacrificing the dominant goal.
\paragraph{Problem setup.}
Given an input context $x$, the policy $\pi_\theta$ samples a candidate set $\mathcal{Y} = \{y_1, \dots, y_K\} \sim \pi_\theta(\cdot \mid x)$. Each candidate $y_i$ is evaluated by a collection of heterogeneous reward functions covering user feedback $R_{\text{feedback}}(y_i)$, interest alignment $R_{\text{align}}(y_i)$, and video quality $R_{\text{quality}}(y_i)$. These rewards differ in scale, density, and reliability, motivating the constrained formulation below.
\paragraph{Constrained reward formulation.}
We designate user feedback as the primary objective and treat interest alignment and video quality as inequality constraints with target thresholds $\tau_{a(lign)}$ and $\tau_{q(uality)}$. The composite reward for each candidate $y_i$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:constrained-reward}
R(y_i) = R_{\text{feedback}}(y_i)
- \!\!\!\sum_{c \in \{a, q\}}\!\!\! \lambda_c(t)\,\mathrm{ReLU}\!\big(\tau_c - R_c(y_i)\big),
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_a(t),\lambda_q(t)\ge 0$ are time-varying Lagrangian multipliers, updated via a PID-controlled rule on constraint violations~\cite{stooke2020responsive} to avoid the oscillation and overshoot of naive primal--dual updates. To avoid hand-tuned magic numbers, we calibrate each threshold relative to the SFT baseline distribution on a held-out validation set as $\tau_c = \mu_c^{\text{base}} + k_c\,\sigma_c^{\text{base}}$, where the strictness factor $k_c$ encodes the module's role in RaG: VGAs adopt the strictest setting ($k_c=1.1$ for both $\tau_a$ and $\tau_q$) as it directly governs final video generation; IM retains a comparable $\tau_a$ ($k_a=0.8$) to enforce instruction-level alignment; while GRM applies a relaxed $\tau_a$ ($k_a=0.3$), with the video-quality constraint omitted for the latter two modules.
% \paragraph{PID-controlled Lagrangian multipliers.}
% A naive primal--dual update of $\lambda_a(t)$ and $\lambda_q(t)$ acts purely as integral control on the cumulative violation, which is well known to induce oscillation and overshoot in safe RL~\cite{stooke2020responsive}. We therefore adopt a \emph{PID-controlled Lagrangian} update, in which the multipliers respond to proportional, integral, and derivative feedback on constraint violations. This yields a stable yet responsive enforcement mechanism that automatically rebalances reward emphasis throughout training, removing the need for hand-tuned static weights.
\paragraph{Group-decoupled normalization and advantage.}
Given the constrained reward in Eq.~\eqref{eq:constrained-reward}, GDPO further eliminates residual scale mismatch among reward channels via per-reward standardization prior to aggregation, and computes a group-relative advantage over the sampled candidate set $\mathcal{Y}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:group-adv}
A_i = \frac{R(y_i) - \mu(\mathcal{Y})}{\sigma(\mathcal{Y}) + \epsilon},
\end{equation}
where $\mu(\mathcal{Y})$ and $\sigma(\mathcal{Y})$ denote the group-level mean and standard deviation of the rewards over $\mathcal{Y}$. This decoupled normalization stabilizes optimization across rewards with disparate magnitudes.
\paragraph{Optimization objective.}
The policy is updated by maximizing the group-relative advantage anchored to the frozen SFT policy $\pi_{\text{ref}}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gdpo-loss}
\mathcal{L}_{\text{GDPO}} =
- \mathbb{E}_{(x, y_i)}
\left[
A_i \,\log \frac{\pi_\theta(y_i \mid x)}{\pi_{\text{ref}}(y_i \mid x)}
\right].
\end{equation}
For brevity, we omit the importance-sampling ratio clipping and the KL regularization term against $\pi_{\text{ref}}$ that are commonly used to stabilize policy optimization; both are retained in our implementation and follow the standard GDPO formulation~\cite{liu2026gdpo}.
% Together, the constrained reward (Eq.~\eqref{eq:constrained-reward}), the PID-controlled multiplier updates, and the group-relative advantage (Eq.~\eqref{eq:group-adv}) form a unified, theoretically grounded mechanism for stable multi-reward optimization in RaG.
% \subsection{End-to-End Reward Learning}\label{sec:Reward}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \subsubsection{Reinforcement Learning with Multi-Reward GDPO}
% After supervised fine-tuning (SFT), the three core modules in our framework, including the Generative Recommendation Model (GRM), Instruction Model (IM), and Agentic Video Generation System (A-VGS), are further optimized using reinforcement learning to improve both recommendation and personalized generation.
% Specifically, we adopt GDPO~\cite{liu2026gdpo} as the unified reinforcement learning framework, which stabilizes heterogeneous multi-reward optimization by independently normalizing each reward objective before weighted aggregation. For each module, we initialize the policy from its SFT checkpoint and optimize it against a frozen reference model. During training, the current policy samples multiple candidate outputs for each input context, and optimization is performed through relative preference comparison within the sampled group.
% Given an input context $x$, the policy $\pi_\theta$ samples a group of candidate outputs:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{Y}=\{y_1,y_2,\dots,y_K\}.
% \end{equation}
% Each candidate is evaluated by $M$ heterogeneous reward models. Since different reward functions exhibit substantially different numerical ranges and variances, GDPO first independently normalizes each reward:
% \begin{equation}
% \hat{R}_m(y_i)
% =
% \frac{
% R_m(y_i)-\mu_m
% }{
% \sigma_m+\epsilon
% },
% \end{equation}
% where $\mu_m$ and $\sigma_m$ denote the batch-level mean and standard deviation of the $m$-th reward component.
% The normalized rewards are then aggregated through weighted summation:
% \begin{equation}
% R(y_i)
% =
% \sum_{m=1}^{M}
% \lambda_m
% \hat{R}_m(y_i),
% \end{equation}
% where $\lambda_m$ controls the contribution of each reward objective.
% GDPO further computes relative advantages within the sampled candidate group:
% \begin{equation}
% A_i
% =
% \frac{
% R(y_i)-\mu(\mathcal{Y})
% }{
% \sigma(\mathcal{Y})+\epsilon
% },
% \end{equation}
% where $\mu(\mathcal{Y})$ and $\sigma(\mathcal{Y})$ denote the mean and standard deviation of rewards over all sampled candidates.
% The final optimization objective is:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{L}_{\text{GDPO}}
% =
% -
% \mathbb{E}_{(x,y_i)}
% \left[
% A_i
% \log
% \frac{
% \pi_\theta(y_i|x)
% }{
% \pi_{\text{ref}}(y_i|x)
% }
% \right],
% \end{equation}
% where $\pi_{\text{ref}}$ denotes the frozen reference policy initialized from the SFT model.
% \subsubsection{Reward Formulations}
% Our reinforcement learning framework jointly optimizes three categories of rewards, including video quality assessment rewards, semantic interest alignment rewards, and real-world user feedback rewards. Unless otherwise specified, all reward models introduced in the following are Transformer-based models trained on task-specific annotated datasets collected for the corresponding reward objectives.
% \vspace{4pt}
% \noindent\underline{\textit{Video Quality Assessment Rewards.}}
% \noindent\textbf{Aesthetic Score Reward $R_{aesthetic}$.} We adopt a pre-trained \textit{LAION Aesthetic Predictor}\footnote{\url{https://github.com/LAION-AI/aesthetic-predictor}} to evaluate visual attractiveness, composition quality, and lighting consistency:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{aesthetic}
% =
% \text{RM}_{aesthetic}(v),
% \end{equation}
% where $v$ denotes the generated video or sampled key frames.
% \noindent\textbf{Spatio-Temporal Consistency Reward $R_{st-consistancy}$.} To reduce flickering artifacts and motion discontinuity, we introduce a consistency reward computed from adjacent generated frames:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{st-consistancy}
% =
% \text{RM}_{st-consistency}(v).
% \end{equation}
% \noindent\textbf{Duration Alignment Reward $R_{duration}$.} To ensure generated videos satisfy target temporal constraints, we adopt a piecewise duration reward:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{duration} (\rho)=
% \begin{cases}
% \rho, & \rho < 1.0 \\
% 1.0, & 1.0 \le \rho \le 1.5 \\
% \max(0, 1.0-0.5(\rho-1.5)), & \rho > 1.5
% \end{cases}
% \end{equation}
% where $\rho=T_{\text{act}}/T_{\text{tgt}}$ denotes the ratio between generated duration and target duration.
% \noindent\textbf{Instruction Quality Reward $R_{instr\_quality}$.} We further evaluate the intrinsic quality and executability of generated video instructions:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{instr\_quality}
% =
% \text{RM}_{\text{instr\_quality}}(D_{instruction}),
% \label{eq:instr_quality}
% \end{equation}
% where $D_{instruction}$ denotes the generated instruction sequence.
% \noindent\textbf{Audio-Visual Coherence Reward $R_{tts}$.} To improve synchronization between generated speech and visual content, we introduce:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{tts}
% =
% \text{RM}_{tts}
% (f_{visual}, f_{tts}),
% \end{equation}
% where $f_{visual}$ and $f_{tts}$ denote visual and speech representations, respectively.
% \noindent\textbf{Music-Theme Alignment Reward $R_{bgm}$.} We evaluate whether the generated background music matches the emotional tone and rhythm of the visual content:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{bgm}
% =
% \text{RM}_{bgm}
% (f_{visual}, f_{bgm}).
% \end{equation}
% \noindent\textbf{Subtitle Quality Reward $R_{subtitle}$.} We evaluate subtitle readability, semantic correctness, and visual alignment:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{subtitle}
% =
% \text{RM}_{subtitle}
% (f_{visual}, f_{subtitle}).
% \end{equation}
% \noindent\textbf{Visual Enhancement Quality Reward $R_{effect}$.} To improve visual richness and stylistic enhancement, we introduce:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{effect}
% =
% \mathbb{I}_{pos}
% \cdot
% \text{RM}_{effect}
% (f_{visual}, f_{effect}),
% \end{equation}
% where $\mathbb{I}_{pos}$ is a position-validity indicator.
% \vspace{4pt}
% \noindent\underline{\textit{Interest Alignment Rewards.}}
% \noindent\textbf{Instruction Alignment Reward $R_{instr\_align}$.} To preserve semantic consistency between GRM-generated semantic IDs and IM-generated instructions, we train a pairwise alignment reward model:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{instr\_align}
% =
% \text{RM}_{instr\_align}
% (\textbf{SIDs}, D_{instruction}).
% \end{equation}
% \noindent\textbf{Semantic Representation Alignment Reward $R_{rep\_align}$.} To directly align generated videos with user interests, we compute cosine similarity between GRM semantic representations and MLLM video representations:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{rep\_align}
% =
% \frac{
% 1+\cos(\mathbf{e}_{\text{GRM}},\mathbf{e}_{\text{video}})
% }{2}.
% \end{equation}
% \vspace{4pt}
% \noindent\underline{\textit{User Feedback Rewards.}}
% \noindent\textbf{Sparse Engagement Reward $R_{real\_feedback}$.} We further introduce sparse rewards derived from real user engagement behaviors:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{real\_feedback}
% =
% w_1 r_{like}
% +
% w_2 r_{share}
% +
% w_3 r_{finish}
% +
% w_4 r_{conversion},
% \end{equation}
% where different engagement signals are manually weighted according to business objectives.
% \noindent\textbf{Dense Feedback Reward $R_{predicted\_feedback}$.} We incorporate online ranking signals predicted by industrial recommendation models:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{predicted\_feedback}
% =
% \text{RM}_{rank\_model}(v).
% \end{equation}
% Different modules focus on distinct optimization objectives; therefore, we adopt different reward weighting strategies for GRM, IM, and A-VGS as follows:
% \begin{equation}
% \small
% \begin{aligned}
% R_{\textbf{GRM}}
% &=
% \alpha_1 R_{real\_feedback}
% +
% \alpha_2 R_{predicted\_feedback},
% \\[4pt]
% R_{\textbf{IM}}
% &=
% \beta_1 R_{instr\_quality}
% +
% \beta_2 R_{instr\_align},
% \\[4pt]
% R_{\textbf{A-VGS}}
% &=
% \sum_{k}{R_k}
% \qquad
% k \in {all\ rewards}
% \end{aligned}
% \end{equation}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
\section{Deployment}\label{sec:Deployment}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Figures/deployment.pdf}
% \vspace{-0.35in}
\caption{\small Training and serving architecture of the proposed Recommendation-as-Generation system.}
% \caption{\small Training and serving architecture of the proposed Recommendation-as-Generation system. The framework illustrates 1) the complete industrial deployment pipeline, including generative recommendation, and SIDs-driven personalized video generation with efficiency optimization; 2) the training of each module with supervised finetuning together with mulit-reward reinforcement learning.}
\label{fig:deployment}
% \vspace{-0.15in}
\end{figure}
We deploy RaG in Kuaishou’s large-scale advertising system, serving over 400 million users (Figure~\ref{fig:deployment}). The system unifies real-time user interest modeling with large-scale personalized video generation under strict latency constraints. Since video generation is orders of magnitude slower than interest inference (Appendix~\ref{app:runtime}), we design a decoupled deployment architecture to bridge this efficiency gap while maintaining end-to-end personalization quality. The system consists of three decoupled modules: real-time interest modeling, nearline video generation, and latency-aware serving.
% The implementation of hierarchical caching effectively decouples the real-time serving layer from the compute-intensive generation layer. In a production environment, this architecture achieves:
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
% \item High Throughput: Stable handling of 180k QPS peak traffic, a significant improvement over the baseline without hierarchical tiers.
% \item Extreme Cache Efficiency: A 99.9\%+ hit rate at the Content / Creative-level SIDs, reducing the computational load on GPUs by several orders of magnitude.
% \item Guaranteed Refresh Cycle: For uncovered SIDs, the prioritized asynchronous queue ensures the production latency is kept within 5 minutes, fulfilling the requirements for rapid content iteration in recommendation scenarios.
% \end{itemize}
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Real-Time Interest Modeling.}
The Generative Recommendation Model (GRM) is continuously trained on streaming user interaction logs (impression, click, watch time, and conversion) to adapt to non-stationary user behavior, combining streaming supervised updates with periodic GDPO-based optimization.
At real-time inference, GRM performs low-latency autoregressive generation of structured Semantic IDs (SIDs), which encode user interests as semantic targets for downstream content generation.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Nearline Video Generation.}
The Instruction Model (IM) and Video Generation Agents (VGAs) are trained on large-scale agentic supervision data curated from high-quality videos, and optimized via supervised fine-tuning followed by constrained GDPO to jointly improve generation quality and interest alignment. Both models are periodically updated in full-batch mode to ensure training stability while adapting to evolving user interests and emerging video patterns.
At serving time, conditioned on GRM-generated SIDs, IM and VGAs operate in a nearline pipeline to generate personalized videos. To handle the heavy generation load, VGAs apply \emph{KV-cache reuse} as established in Section~\ref{sec:A-VGS}: with sub-agents invoked sequentially over an append-only state, every previously generated token stays in the KV cache, leaving only each sub-agent's own short $\text{PROMPT}_{\text{role}}$ to be encoded per call, substantially reducing per-request inference latency. The outputs are continuously accumulated into a growing personalized video space, enabling coverage expansion while decoupling video generation from real-time serving.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Latency-Aware Serving.}
To meet real-time consumption requirements in recommendation scenarios, the system adopts a hierarchical serving strategy organized around whether the requested content-level SIDs are covered by the cache.
\emph{Case 1: content-SIDs hit.} If the matched cache entry also covers the creative-level SIDs, the system returns the previously generated video directly with negligible latency; otherwise, it serves a content-consistent cached video while asynchronously scheduling the missing creative variations, with higher-frequency creatives prioritized in the generation queue.
\emph{Case 2: content-SIDs miss.} The system serves videos associated with the nearest-neighbor SIDs for immediate consumption, while enqueuing the uncovered SIDs for prioritized future generation.
% \subsection{Efficiency Analysis}
% This design significantly reduces redundant computation while preserving personalization coverage. In practice, generating a 30-second video requires approximately 180 seconds, making efficiency-aware scheduling essential for production deployment. Despite this gap, the decoupled architecture enables the system to sustain over 2M QPS recommendation traffic while maintaining high-quality video generation for long-tail user interests.
% We have deployed the RaG in Kuaishou’s advertising system,
% serving over 400 million users.
% The system facilitates an end-to-end pipeline that unifies real-time interest prediction with the timely synthesis of corresponding video content. Given that minute-level video production is several orders of magnitude slower than interest inference, we implemented system-level optimizations to bridge this latency. These enhancements enable the framework to sustain a throughput of over 2 million QPS, effectively meeting the massive production demands of industrial-scale traffic.
% \subsection{System Overview}
% % \noindent\textbf{Semantic Encoder.}
% % We deploy the Dual-Branch Semantic (DBS) Encoder as the semantic representation module of the system.
% % DBS encoder is trained on \texttt{Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct}, which encodes each ad video into two orthogonal embeddings: a \emph{product embedding} that captures what is being sold, and a \emph{creative embedding} that captures how it is being presented.
% % Concretely, the product branch encodes product images together with metadata such as title, category, and attributes, while the creative branch encodes sampled video frames together with creative texts such as slogans, OCR, and ASR transcripts.
% % The resulting product and creative embeddings are further discretized into SID tuples, which define the item-side semantic space used by downstream modules.
% % More details of the DBS Encoder are provided in Appendix~\ref{app:dbs_encoder}.
% % \noindent\textbf{Latent Interest Model (LIM).}
% % We deploy LIM as the to model dynamic user interests for personalized generation.
% % Given user profile features, historical behavior sequences, and the target prefix SID, LIM predicts the full SID tuple that represents the user's latent interest in the same semantic space defined by the Semantic Encoder.
% % In our implementation, LIM follows a LazyDecoder-style architecture and serves as the fast online component of the whole pipeline, which continuously transform large-scale user feedback streams into structured latent interests that can be consumed by the Agentic VGS.
% % The model architecture and implementation details are described in Appendix~\ref{app:LIM}.
% % \noindent\textbf{Agentic VGS.}
% % We deploy Agentic VGS as a dedicated \texttt{Qwen-32B}-based video-generation service behind the online interest-prediction stack.
% % At runtime, the service takes the filtered creative instruction $\hat{Y}$ together with the candidate asset pool as input, and executes a coarse-to-fine workflow over five production tracks: visual, voice, background music, subtitle, and effect.
% % The deployed system follows a retrieval-first, generation-as-needed execution policy. Existing assets are reused whenever they already satisfy the target instruction; otherwise, the service invokes generation tools only for the missing parts and then assembles the final video output.
% % In our deployment, one complete Agentic VGS run takes about 180 seconds, and is triggered sampled for \textcolor{blue}{high-value interests rather than for every online request.}
% \noindent\textbf{Real-Time Recommendation Serving with Streaming Model Updates.}
% The Generative Recommendation Model (GRM) is deployed as a low-latency online serving system that continuously models dynamic user interests from streaming interaction behaviors, including impressions, clicks, watch-time, and conversions. During inference, the model autoregressively generates interest SIDs conditioned on user context. The predicted SIDs are subsequently expanded into a candidate video space, which consists of asynchronously produced personalized videos aligned with user interests, and the online recommendation engine selects the most relevant videos for final ranking and serving.
% To support industrial-scale recommendation under rapidly evolving user distributions, the GRM adopts a continuous streaming training paradigm. Newly collected exposure trajectories and interaction logs are incrementally incorporated into supervised next-token optimization, enabling the model to continuously adapt to fresh user preferences and content dynamics. Beyond supervised learning, we further introduce an online reinforcement learning pipeline based on multi-reward GDPO. Specifically, a sampler service periodically performs rollout expansion on a subset of online requests to generate diversified SID trajectories and recommendation sequences. These sampled trajectories are evaluated using delayed user feedback signals and reward models. The resulting rewards are utilized for continual policy optimization, enabling the GRM to improve long-term recommendation quality and user satisfaction in a closed online feedback loop.
% \noindent\textbf{Nearline Video Generation Serving with Offline Batch Model Refresh.}
% In the nearline stage, the Instruction Model (IM) decodes SIDs into structured shot-level instructions, and the Agentic Video Generation System (A-VGS) produces high-quality personalized videos through multi-agent collaborative planning and execution. These generated videos are not produced in real-time, but are asynchronously scheduled within a nearline pipeline to balance latency, throughput, and generation quality.
% Due to the high computational cost and stability requirements of video generation, both IM and A-VGS adopt an offline full-batch model refresh paradigm. A large-scale dual-stage tuning dataset constructed from professionally produced videos, where GPT-4o-generated instruction data is used for IM training, and Gemini-generated agentic data is used for A-VGS training. Similar to the GRM, the two models are optimized through supervised fine-tuning followed by multi-reward GDPO reinforcement learning. After each offline refresh cycle, newly generated personalized videos are asynchronously inserted into the creative index pool and exposed to the online recommendation system for future retrieval and serving.
% \subsection{Efficiency Optimization}
% % % \subsection{Interest Sampling Module}
% % \label{sec:ism}
% % While the Latent Interest Model (LIM) generates millions of candidate SIDs per second to capture online user interests, the downstream Agentic Video Generation System (AVGS) operates with significantly higher computational complexity and latency. To bridge this gap, we introduce the Interest Sampling Module in deployment to aggregate, filter, and prioritize recommendation before they trigger content production.
% % This module adopts sliding window based on real-time aggregation for each productive embeddings and runs two parallel stages: Real-time Grouping and Periodic Sampling.
% % Let the continuous stream of generated SIDs from the GRM be denoted as $\mathcal{S} = \{ \mathbf{s}_i \}_{i=1}^N$. Consistent with our discrete representation, each SID is a tuple $\mathbf{s} = (s^1, s^2, s^3, s^4)$. We decompose each SID into a Product Identifier $\mathbf{p} = (s^1, s^2)$ and a Creative Identifier $\mathbf{c} = (s^3, s^4)$.
% % \textbf{Product-Centric Aggregation:}
% % We employ a sharding strategy based on product information. For every unique product $\mathbf{p}$, we maintain a temporal sliding window bucket $\mathcal{B}_{\mathbf{p}}$. Within a specified time horizon $T_1$, we record the frequency of occurrence for all associated creative identifiers. The local popularity score $Score(\mathbf{c} | \mathbf{p})$ for a specific creative concept within the window is defined as:
% % $$
% % Score(\mathbf{c} | \mathbf{p}) = \sum_{\mathbf{s} \in \mathcal{W}_{T_1}} \mathbb{I}(\mathbf{s}_p = \mathbf{p} \land \mathbf{s}_c = \mathbf{c})
% % $$
% % where $\mathcal{W}_{T_1}$ represents the sliding window of duration $T_1$, and $\mathbb{I}(\cdot)$ is the indicator function. This aggregation allows us to identify the "hottest" creative angles for each product dynamically.
% % \textbf{Periodic Sampling and Filtering:}
% % To discretize the continuous flow into manageable batches for the PCD, we execute a sampling operation at fixed time intervals $T_2$. For each product bucket $\mathcal{B}_{\mathbf{p}}$, we select the Top-$K$ creative identifiers based on their popularity scores.
% % To ensure diversity and prevent redundant computation, we enforce a strict deduplication protocol. A global history cache $\mathcal{H}_{T_3}$ tracks all SIDs sent for production within the last $T_3$ period. The final set of sampled candidates $\mathcal{C}_{final}$ for the current interval is formulated as:
% % $$
% % \mathcal{C}_{final} = \bigcup_{\mathbf{p}} \left\{ (\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{c}) \mid \mathbf{c} \in \text{Top-}K(\mathcal{B}_{\mathbf{p}}) \land (\mathbf{p}, \mathbf{c}) \notin \mathcal{H}_{T_3} \right\}
% % $$
% % This mechanism reduces the request pressure on the content creation system by several orders of magnitude. Furthermore, by prioritizing high-frequency SIDs (which represent strong consensus on user interest), we ensure that the limited generation resources are allocated to the creative concepts most likely to maximize user engagement.
% % \begin{figure}[t]
% % \centering
% % \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Figures/deployment_v3.pdf}
% % % \vspace{-0.35in}
% % \caption{\small}
% % \label{fig:deployment}
% % % \vspace{-0.15in}
% % \end{figure}
% % \textbf{Interest Sampling.}
% % Since we need to model hundreds of millions of users’ interests and generate corresponding videos, the overall RaG pipeline has strict latency requirements. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:infer_time}, the most time-consuming part is the Agentic VGS.
% % To reconcile the high-throughput LIM with computationally demanding video generation, we introduce an Interest Sampling Procedure which is a `resource-aware execution' pipeline coupled with dynamic interest sampling:
% % \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
% % \item Filtering: Due to the high redundancy among predicted SIDs, we maintain a dynamic lookup table for existing video assets. The SIDs with pre-existing videos will bypass the generation pipeline to optimize system efficiency.
% % % Predicted SIDs mapping to available inventory are directly routed to the ranking system, bypassing generation.
% % \item Aggregation: For the remaining part of the predicted SIDs sequence, we employ a temporal sliding window for products where SIDs are partitioned by their frequency. This metric serves as an indicator of local popularity for each SID.
% % \item Interest Sampling: Finally, rather than generating a video for every single request, we sample the Top-K popular SIDs within each window, with the value of K scaled according to the current generation system throughput. For generated creative insructions we apply hallucination check to ensure correctness.
% % \end{itemize}
% % By leveraging dynamic interests sampling, this approach facilitates our Agentic VGS that robustly handles large-scale traffic under stringent latency constraints.
% Since the RaG pipeline must serve hundreds of millions of users with strict latency constraints, generation efficiency becomes a critical deployment challenge. Among the pipeline, the Agentic Video Generation System (A-VGS) is the dominant latency bottleneck due to the high computational cost of video synthesis. To address this issue, we introduce a resource-aware execution pipeline to align high-throughput recommendation inference with expensive video generation.
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
% \item \textbf{Video Cache.} We maintain a dynamic video cache pool for previously generated videos. SIDs associated with existing assets directly bypass the generation pipeline, avoiding redundant video synthesis.
% \item \textbf{Hybrid Retrieval-or-Generation.} Instead of generating all videos from scratch, the system first retrieves semantically aligned video assets and only invokes generative modules when suitable candidates are unavailable. This design significantly improves serving efficiency while preserving personalized generation capability for long-tail demands.
% \item \textbf{Content-Level SID Aggregation.} Given hierarchical SIDs, we first aggregate and sample content-level SIDs $(s_{content}^{1}, s_{content}^{2})$ within temporal sliding windows to identify high-frequency interest topics.
% \item \textbf{Creative-Style Frequency Sampling.} For sampled content SIDs, we further estimate the frequency distribution of its associated creative-style SIDs $(s_{creative}^{1}, s_{creative}^{2})$ and dynamically sample Top-$K$ popular creative patterns for subsequent video generation.
% \item \textbf{Hallucination Filtering.} Finally, we evaluate the quality and executability of generated instructions using Eq.~\ref{eq:instr_quality} based on the sampled SIDs, and filter low-confidence instructions before video generation.
% \end{itemize}
% This resource-aware deployment strategy substantially reduces generation overhead and enables the A-VGS to handle large-scale online traffic under stringent latency constraints. In particular, generating a 30-second video requires approximately 180 seconds on average, highlighting the necessity of efficiency-aware scheduling in practical deployment.
% % \textbf{Resource-Aware Execution.}
% % %补充实例化的具体调用规则/检索生成的阈值
% % \subsection{Latency Analysis}
% % \label{app:ism}
% % \begin{table}[htbp]
% % \centering
% % \caption{\small Inference efficiency of each core component.}
% % \small
% % \label{tab:infer_time}
% % \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
% % \toprule
% % \textbf{Component} & \textbf{Semantic Encoding} & \textbf{LIM}
% % & \textbf{Interest Sampling}
% % & \textbf{Agentic VGS} \\
% % \midrule
% % \textbf{Inference Time} & \textasciitilde 4s & \textasciitilde 100ms & \textasciitilde 200ms & \textasciitilde 180s \\
% % \bottomrule
% % \end{tabular}
% % \end{table}
% % \section{Implementation Details}
% % \noindent\textbf{Semantic Encoder.} The dual-branch architecture of the DBS Encoder is instantiated using the Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct backbone. The two branches share the base model parameters to leverage unified multimodal understanding capabilities, but utilize distinct language model (LM) projection heads to map the final hidden states into the separated embedding spaces $\mathbf{e}_{prod}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{crea}$.
% % \noindent\textbf{Agentic VGS.}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \section{Experiments}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed RaG framework, we conduct extensive experiments in a real-world advertising setting, including both offline evaluations and large-scale online A/B tests.
% In advertising scenarios, where the primary objective is product promotion, we instantiate the semantic encoding module with a dual-branch semantic (DBS) encoder that decomposes the video representation $e_v$ into two components: a product embedding capturing product-related semantics, and a creative embedding modeling presentation styles such as narrative, visual effects, and aesthetics.
% This disentanglement enables more flexible and controllable modeling of product semantics and creative styles in the latent space.
% % Detailed implementations are provided in Appendix~\ref{app:dbs_encoder}.
% Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed DBS encoder significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across multiple evaluation metrics, including Recall@K at the embedding level and Cpr, Col, and Util at the SID level. Detailed results are provided in Appendix~\ref{app:encoder_exp}.
% The Creative Instruction Model in the RaG framework translates the predicted user latent interests (represented by SIDs) into the creative instructions required by the agentic video generator. The accuracy of this translation directly determines whether the generated videos faithfully reflect users’ dynamic interests. In this work, we evaluate this component using decoding fidelity as the metric, achieving a score of 0.8212 in the offline evaluation, which demonstrates its strong capability in preserving user intent. Detailed results are provided in Appendix~\ref{app:cim_exp}.
% In the remainder of this section, we focus on the offline evaluation of the Agentic VGS and the online A/B testing results of the overall RaG framework.
% % To comprehensively evaluate the proposed RaG framework, we conduct detailed experimental assessments for each of its core modules. In the advertising scenario, we evaluate the Semantic Encoding and Interest Modeling module (Section~\ref{sec:mdrl}) against strong baselines in terms of Creative Discriminability and Semantic Relevance, with detailed results provided in Appendix~\ref{app:encoder_exp}. To assess the generation quality of the Creative Instruction Model, we evaluate the semantic similarity between the generated creative instructions and manual ground-truth script summaries under various experimental settings (Appendix~\ref{app:cim_exp}). Finally, for the Agentic VGS and overall performance of RaG, we conduct comprehensive offline evaluations and online A/B testing to compare our against current industrial baselines across three core dimensions: Interest Alignment, video quality, and user preference.
% % Detailed implementation details for baselines and Agentic VGS are provided in Appendix~\ref{app:avgs}.
% % To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed RaG framework, we conduct extensive experiments in a real-world advertising setting, including both offline evaluations and large-scale online A/B tests.
% % We first perform a rigorous offline analysis of the generated videos from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives. Subsequently, we execute comprehensive online A/B testing on a production platform to validate the practical business value of our unified framework. Due to limited space, more implementation details and experiment for Semantic Encoding and Interest Modeling module in \ref{sec:mdrl} and Creative Instruction Model are shown in Appendix~\ref{app:implement details},~\ref{app:encoder_exp},~\ref{app:lim_exp}.
% % \subsection{Implementation Details}
% % Given the predicted SID sequence from LIM, we apply reverse RQ-KMeans decoding to reconstruct its continuous dense embedding $\mathbf{e}_{full}$.
% % The core LLM agent within the Agentic VGS is built upon the Qwen3-32B backbone.
% % Additionally, the heterogeneous tool registry $\mathcal{T}$ accessible to the agent comprises six specialized tools: clip generation, digital human synthesis, TTS, BGM, subtitle, and sticker/SFX (more details in Appendix~\ref{app:implement details}).
% % \subsection{Dataset}
% % To facilitate the training and validation of our Agentic VGS, we curated a dataset from internal online platforms. High-quality videos were filtered based on objective quality metrics and post-delivery performance data. Subsequently, we leveraged advanced multimodal large language models (e.g., Gemini, our Semantic Encoding) to extract video embeddings, creative instruction scripts and structured multi-track rendering parameters. Ultimately, we constructed a dataset consisting of 25,000 training samples and 500 testing samples (more details in Appendix A).
% % \subsection{Evaluation of Core Modules}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \subsection{Offline Evaluation of Agentic VGS}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% We compare the Agentic VGS against a hand-crafted workflow baseline, which is training-free and orchestrates a sequence of independently invoked models for script generation, video clip retrieval, background music grounding, sound effects and sticker selection, TTS generation, and subtitle placement.
% Detailed descriptions are provided in Appendix~\ref{app:baseline_details}.
% Our Quantitative Evaluation assesses the Agentic VGS across two core dimensions: Interest Alignment, reflecting the consistency between the generated video and user interests, and generated video quality(score and win rate), representing the quality of the content.
% Qualitative evaluation further presents case studies highlighting the advantages of Agentic VGS in generating personalized videos that align with users’ dynamic interests.
% % Qualitative Evaluation analyzes specific cases to demonstrate the advantages of Agentic VGS in producing personalized videos driven by dynamic user interest.
% % We construct an evaluation dataset that consists of 500 representative samples, covering a wide range of marketing categories and diverse target audiences.
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % \subsubsection{Dual-Branch Semantic (DBS) Encoder}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % \begin{table}[hbt]
% % \centering
% % \caption{Offline Evaluation of Dual-Branch Semantic (DBS) Encoder.}
% % % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % % \vspace{-1em}
% % \label{tab:UA-Emb}
% % \resizebox{0.8\columnwidth}{!}{% % 调整为1.0以适应更多列
% % \small
% % \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
% % \toprule
% % \textit{Semantic Relevance} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Product-level Recall}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Creative-level Recall}} \\
% % \cmidrule(lr){2-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-7}
% % & \textbf{R@1}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@5}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@10}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@1}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@5}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@10}$\uparrow$ \\
% % \cmidrule(lr){2-5} \cmidrule(lr){5-7}
% % % \midrule
% % \ \ VLM2Vec-V2~\cite{meng2025vlm2vec} & - & - & - & 0.485 & 0.690 & 0.756 \\
% % \ \ QARM~\cite{luo2024qarm} & - & - & - & 0.541 & 0.812 & 0.893 \\
% % \ \ Qwen2.5-VL-7B~\cite{qwen3embedding} & 0.806 & 0.915 & 0.944 & 0.769 & 0.948 & 0.977 \\
% % \ \ \textbf{Ours (DBS Encoder)} & \textbf{0.879} & \textbf{0.955} & \textbf{0.975} & \textbf{0.896} & \textbf{0.985} & \textbf{0.994} \\
% % \midrule
% % \textit{Creative Discriminability} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Compression Score}$\downarrow$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Collision Ratio}$\downarrow$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Utilization Ratio}$\uparrow$} \\
% % \cmidrule(lr){2-7}
% % \ \ QARM~\cite{luo2024qarm} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1.36} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{37.24\%} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.10\textperthousand} \\
% % \ \ \textbf{Ours (DBS Encoder)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{1.05}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{18.02\%}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{0.34\textperthousand}} \\
% % \bottomrule
% % \end{tabular}
% % }
% % \vspace{-1em}
% % \end{table}
% % As the foundation of our framework, the Dual-Branch Semantic (DBS) Encoder module connects content understanding with user interests and decouple video content into product embedding and creative embedding.
% % We evaluate the quantitative results across two dimensions: semantic relevance and creative discriminability in Table~\ref{tab:UA-Emb}.
% % We also visualize the decoupling result of video in Figure~\ref{fig:uni-emb-model}.
% % \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
% % \item{Semantic Relevance.}We adopt Top-$k$ Recall ($R@k$) to assess semantic relevance on Product-level (50k samples, 20k categories) and Creative-level (20k samples) benchmarks. A hit is defined as retrieving a candidate that aligns with the query's branch-specific ground truth—i.e., the same product category or stylistic cluster, respectively. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:UA-Emb}, our method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art Vision-Language Models (VLMs). Notably, while Qwen2.5-VL-7B~\cite{qwen3embedding} serves as a strong baseline, our approach achieves an $R@1$ of 0.879 (Product) and 0.896 (Creative), representing a substantial lead. This consistency across both granularities confirms that our discrete tokens effectively capture the core product identity as well as the specific nuances of individual creatives.
% % \item{Creative Discriminability.} We report three metrics, compression score, collision ratio and codebook space utilization ratio. The detailed computation is listed in Appendix. As illustrated in the bottom half of Table~\ref{tab:UA-Emb}, our method drastically reduces the collision ratio from 37.24\% (QARM) to 18.02\%, while tripling the codebook space utilization ratio to 0.34\textperthousand. Combined with a lower compression score (1.05), these results demonstrate that we create a more uniform and informative latent space, ensuring each creative is assigned a unique and representative ID.
% % % \item {Qualitative Visualization.} The t-SNE visualization (Figure~\ref{fig:tsne_uniemb}) demonstrates that our Multi-modal Discrete Representation (UniEmb) achieves a significantly higher Silhouette Coefficient (SC: 0.393)—a metric measuring both intra-cluster compactness and inter-cluster separation—compared to VLM2Vec-V2 and QARM. This results in more distinct and compact clusters, qualitatively confirming its superior semantic representational power.
% % \end{itemize}
% % \begin{figure}[tbh]
% % \centering
% % % 左图
% % \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
% % \centering
% % \includegraphics[height=3.3cm]{Figures/tsne_uniemb_fig_v2.pdf}
% % \caption{}
% % \label{fig:tsne_uniemb}
% % \end{subfigure}
% % \hfill
% % % 右图
% % \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.38\textwidth}
% % \centering
% % \includegraphics[height=3cm]{Figures/pcd_ablation_bar_line.pdf}
% % \caption{}
% % \label{fig:pcd_ablation_bar_line}
% % \end{subfigure}
% % \vspace{-6pt}
% % \caption{(a):t-SNE visualization of the embeddings learned by the Multi-modal Discrete Representation module on 15 categories.
% % (b):Ablation study of Conceptual Decoder on different scales of data and parameters. Zoom in for better visualization.}
% % \label{fig:tsne_and_pcdablation}
% % \end{figure}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % \subsubsection{Agentic Video Generation System (Agentic VGS)}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % Building upon the discrete representations, we evaluate the effectiveness and scalability of the Conceptual Decoder module, which bridges latent user interests and concrete video scripts. We conduct ablation studies across varying data scales (100K vs. 1M samples) and model architectures (Qwen3-8B vs. Qwen3-32B), evaluating them on a held-out test set of 5,000 samples. To quantify decoding fidelity, we use a pre-trained Qwen3-8B model to extract embeddings from both the generated and ground-truth scripts, calculating their average cosine similarity.
% % As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pcd_ablation_bar_line}, performance consistently improves with both data volume and model capacity. The 32B model trained on 1M samples achieves the highest semantic alignment; thus, we adopt this configuration for online deployment.
% % The Conceptual Decoder module serves as a bridge between latent user interests and concrete video scripts. To quantify its decoding fidelity, we employ a pre-trained Qwen3-8B model to extract embeddings from both the generated scripts and their corresponding ground-truth counterparts, and compute the average cosine similarity over a held-out test set of 5,000 samples.
% % The resulting similarity score of \textbf{0.82} indicates a high level of reconstruction consistency.
% % \subsubsection{Datasets}
% % \subsubsection{Experimental Results}
% % \subsubsection{Physical Decoder}
% % \vspace{-0.15in}
% \begin{table}[bt]
% \centering
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% \caption{\small Evaluation of videos between the proposed Agentic VGS vs.\ the workflow baseline. For Automated Score, we present average and median score.}
% \small
% \label{tab:consistency_success}
% \begin{tabular}{lcc}
% \toprule
% \textbf{Metric} & Workflow Baseline & \textbf{Agentic VGS} \\
% \midrule
% \textbf{Interest Alignment} $\uparrow$ & 0.7067 & \textbf{0.8279} \\
% \midrule
% % \textbf{Success Rate} (Zero-shot) $\uparrow$ & \textcolor{gray}{100\%} & 59.32\% \\
% % \textbf{Success Rate} (RL Post-training) $\uparrow$ & \textcolor{gray}{100\%} & \textbf{98.92\%} \\
% % \midrule
% \textbf{Automated Score} $\uparrow$ & 62.4 / 62 & \textbf{71.3 / 76} \\
% \textbf{Automated Win Rate} $\uparrow$ & 28.74\% & \textbf{70.11\%(+1.15\%tie)} \\
% \textbf{User Study Win Rate} $\uparrow$ & 34.38\% & \textbf{52.87\%+(+12.75\%tie)} \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% \end{table}
% % \noindent\textbf{Quantitative evaluation.}
% \subsubsection{Quantitative Evaluation}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % For the quantitative evaluation of video generation, we evaluate the generated videos from Agentic VGS against the AI-generated videos curated from industrial assets, which is currently used for retrieval-based pipeline.
% % For the quantitative evaluation of video generation, we evaluate the generated videos from Agentic VGS against pre-produced offline assets, which are the current standard for retrieval-based video advertising.
% % We construct an evaluation dataset that consists of 500 representative samples, covering a wide range of marketing categories and diverse target audiences.
% We built an evaluation dataset that covers different marketing categories and user groups, using historical interaction records from 500 users. Detailed metrics are provided in ~\ref{app:reward_eval}
% % We then systematically evaluate the generated results across two core and critical dimensions: the degree of interest alignment with the intended audience, and the overall objective quality of the content produced.
% % \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*,itemsep=1pt]
% \noindent\textbf{Interest Alignment.}
% To evaluate interest alignment, we use Gemini-3.0-Pro to measure how well the generated videos match the target creative instructions generated from user interests. Gemini-3.0-Pro outputs a consistency score in the range of [0, 1], where higher values indicate better alignment. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:consistency_success}, Agentic VGS significantly improves the score from 0.7067 to 0.8279.
% \noindent\textbf{Generation Quality.} To assess the overall quality of generated videos, we employ Gemini-3.0-Pro as an automated evaluator across four dimensions: script attractiveness, Background Music (BGM) fit, Sound Effects (SFX), sticker design, and script-visual alignment, resulting in a total score (up to 100 points). Additionally, human annotators conducted a user study comparing paired outputs in pairwise Good-Same-Bad (GSB) comparisons. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:consistency_success}, our system achieves a mean automated score of 71.3 (vs. 62.4) and a 70.11 automated win rate. In the user study, our system attains a 52.87 preference rate (vs. 34.38\% for the baseline). These results demonstrate that our dual-granularity reward and agentic planning mechanisms provide profound improvements in creative quality, independent of raw model scale.
% % \begin{wrapfigure}{t}{0.5\textwidth}
% % \centering
% % \vspace{-15pt} % 适当减少图片上方的留白，让它与文字对齐更紧凑
% % \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/pcd_ablation_bar_line.pdf}
% % \caption{\small Ablation study of Creative Instruction Model on different scales of data and parameters.}
% % \label{fig:pcd_ablation_bar_line}
% % \vspace{-10pt} % 减少图片下方的留白
% % \end{wrapfigure}
% % Given that this strong alignment fundamentally relies on the quality of the generated script drafts, we further investigate the optimal configuration for the Creative Instruction Model. We select decoding fidelity as the metric, which is quantified by extracting text embeddings from generated scripts and ground-truth summary using Qwen3-Embedding-8B and computing their average cosine similarity.We conduct ablation studies across varying data scales (100K vs. 1M training samples) and model architectures (Qwen3-8B vs. Qwen3-32B), evaluating them on a held-out test set of 5,000 samples.
% % As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pcd_ablation_bar_line}, performance consistently improves with both data volume and model capacity. The 32B model trained on 1M samples achieves the highest semantic alignment, yielding a similarity score of \textbf{0.82}, which indicates a high level of reconstruction consistency. Thus, we adopt this configuration for online deployment.
% \begin{figure*}[t]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/pcd_compare_v18.pdf}
% % \vspace{-0.35in}
% \caption{\small \caption{\small Qualitative examples of personalized videos generated for the same marketing target under different user interests. Our method captures users' product preferences and creative presentation styles from historical behaviors to generate tailored videos, while conventional offline video assets often fail to satisfy such fine-grained personalized demands.}
% \label{fig:pcd_case_study}
% % \vspace{-0.15in}
% \end{figure*}
% % \vspace{-0.15in}
% % \textbf{Qualitative evaluation.}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% \subsubsection{Qualitative Evaluation}
% To evaluate the end-to-end effectiveness of the RaG framework in satisfying users’ dynamic interests, we design experiments that explicitly focus on scenarios where available visual assets are insufficient to satisfy users' preferences. Figure~\ref{fig:pcd_case_study} visualizes creative instructions generated via various video embedding $\hat{e}_{v}$, which is reconstructed from different predicted SIDs.
% The results demonstrate that the capability of Agentic VGS to generate personalized viedos based on dynamic user interests when lacking of existing assets. As illustrated, personalized generated videos demonstrate high behavioral fidelity and semantic resonance with users' history interests. In the first decompression preferences, Agentic VGS successfully generated a video with scene demonstrations, which corresponds to the user's history interests. In the second example, Agentic VGS executes coarse-to-fine planning to synthesize a detailed close-up video to show specifications and features.
% % Conversely, conventional offline assets are inherently limited by physical production constraints; they frequently fail to satisfy such fine-grained creative demands and are consequently out-competed in recommendation.
% Collectively, these results demonstrate that the capability of RaG to iteratively enrich video assets by enabling personalized video generation driven by users’ dynamic interests.
% % The results demonstrate that the decoder successfully tailors distinct narratives for the exact same marketing target based on different creative preference signals.
% % This confirms the module's capability to enable dynamic video generation that satisfies diverse personalized user interests.
% % To compare with vanilla paradigm with offline assets, we sampled personalized generated videos from RaG paradigm and compared them to other offline assets from the same advertiser accounts, visualizing them in Figure~\ref{fig:pcd_case_study}.
% % As illustrated, personalized generated videos demonstrate high behavioral fidelity and semantic resonance with users' latent interests. In the first decompression preferences, RaG successfully generated a video with scene demonstrations, which corresponds to the user's history interests. In the second example, RaG executes coarse-to-fine planning to synthesize a detailed close-up video to show specifications and features. Conversely, conventional offline assets are inherently limited by physical production constraints; they frequently fail to satisfy such fine-grained creative demands and are consequently out-competed in the recommendation pipeline.
% % Collectively, these results confirm that our RaG paradigm performs deep intent reasoning, successfully translating latent behavioral patterns into high-fidelity, personalized video assets that break the traditional bottleneck of static content corpus.
% % \begin{figure}[t]
% % \centering
% % \includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{Figures/overall_end_to_end_v3.pdf}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % \caption{\small On-demand generated samples from the Recommendation as Generation system.
% % Our method identifies product interest and creative-presentation preferences from users' viewing history to generate tailored videos, whereas existing professionally generated contents (PGC) often can't match these creative preferences and is out-competed in recommendation procedure.
% % }
% % \label{fig:vis_e2e_case}
% % \vspace{-0.2in}
% % \end{figure}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \subsection{Online A/B Testing of the overall RaG framework}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % To validate the real-world business impact and the synergy between the content supply and the recommendation, we deployed our RaG paradigm in an industrial online environment.
% % To validate the real-world effectiveness of RaG and the benefits of jointly optimizing content generation and recommendation, we deployed the framework in a large-scale production system.
% To validate the industrial effectiveness of the RaG framework, we deployed it in a large-scale production system and analyzed its improvement on user preference from two distinct perspectives. First, we conduct an ablation analysis on the Latent Interest Modeling and the Agentic VGS to verify the positive contribution of each individual module. Second, we evaluate the performance uplift of personalized recommended videos generated by Agentic VGS compared to the offline AI-generated videos of previous baseline.
% % Specifically, we compare the performance of different recommendation paradigm (RaG vs Retrieval-based model) under a mutual experimental setting.
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % \subsubsection{Experimental Setup}
% % We compare the performance of different recommendation paradigm (RaG vs Retrieval-based model) under a bilateral experimental setting.
% % On the C-side,
% % we implement randomized traffic splitting on the customer side to control the RaG paradigm activated bucket.
% % On the B-side,
% % to further prove the value of generating on-demand contents via end-to-end paradigm,
% % we establish a bucket for ``Professionally Generated Content (PGC) only'' (holding out AIGC materials).
% % To further prove the value of generating on-demand contents via end-to-end paradigm, we divided offline videos into two distinct corpus:
% % \textit{Offline Asset Content (OAC)} manually crafted by professionals, and \textit{Offline Generation} by AI tools. Based on this division, we establish two independent sets of online experiments.
% \noindent\textbf{RaG vs Retrieval-based Model.}
% This experiment evaluates the paradigm shift in recommendation architectures. Specifically, the Baseline vs. LIM comparison validates the superiority of generative interest modeling, while the LIM vs. LIM+Agentic VGS comparison proves the fundamental advantage of personalized generation over static retrieval.
% As shown in Table~\ref{tab:ab_style3}, experiments demonstrate that upgrading the baseline baseline model to the LIM and deploying Agentic VGS gains consistent improvement in both revenue(+5.630\%) and impressions(5.087\%).
% % yields gains in key business metrics, including impressions revenue (+4.428\%) and (+4.648\%) , while deploying Agentic VGS gains consistent improvement (+5.630\%, 5.087\%) .
% \noindent\textbf{Dynamic Interest Ablation.}
% % To compare personalized generation for recommendation with traditional offline generation for retrieval, we conduct a statistical analysis on two groups of recommended videos: one contains traditional pipeline retrieving from offline generated videos only, and the other generated by our proposed RaG-based pipeline.
% To evaluate the effectiveness of incorporating Dynamic Interest signals into the Agentic VGS, we perform a comparative analysis between two groups of content: (1) personalized videos generated by the Agentic VGS conditioned on dynamic user interests, and (2) generated videos based on product information for workflow baseline without such interests as condition.
% Table~\ref{tab:aigc_ablation} proves the importance of personalized interest and users' feedback of recommendation system for personalized videos generated by RaG paradigm.
% The most critical finding is the exceptional performance of personalized generation, which yields a massive revenue uplift (e.g., +11.11\% when transfering predicted interest into Agentic VGS), reflecting that videos generated with users’ dynamic interests are more preferred in recommendation systems, thus leading to higher ad exposure and revenue.
% % \footnote{Measured within non-manually generated ads only, rather than overall platform revenue.}
% % We attribute the improvement to two factors: First, offline generation cannot incorporate users' interest constraints, so they cannot guarantee the produced content matches what the user currently likes.
% % Second, offline generation cannot dynamically select existing assets and call generative tools at the same time, which is sub-optimal since only editing cannot ensure interest needs are met and only generating is unstable and costly.
% % We then cross-compare their performance on the C-side.
% % \noindent\textbf{Metrics.} We utilize two primary business metrics: Impression (the number of times an ad is displayed, reflecting traffic acquisition capability) and Revenue (the total income generated, serving as the ultimate metric for traffic scale and monetization efficiency).
% \begin{table}[t]
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% \caption{\small Online A/B experiments result, Rev. denotes revenue and Impr. denotes impression. \textbf{(a)} Recommendation paradigm shift from retrieval-based model to Recommendation-as-Generation (RaG) model. \textbf{(b)} Ablation of personalized generation. Baseline is traditional offline generation without personalization; Personalized generation uses instant user-interest feedback with Agentic VGS.}
% \label{tab:combined}
% \footnotesize
% % \setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
% \begin{subtable}[t]{\linewidth}
% \centering
% \caption{\small RaG vs Retrieval-based Model}
% \label{tab:ab_style3}
% \begin{tabular}{@{}lccc@{}}
% \toprule
% \textbf{Settings} & \textbf{Paradigm} & \textbf{$\Delta$ Rev.} & \textbf{$\Delta$ Impr.} \\
% \midrule
% Baseline & Retrieval-based & -- & -- \\
% LIM & Retrieval-based & +4.428\% & +4.648\% \\
% \textbf{LIM+Agentic VGS(Ours)} & \textbf{RaG} & \textbf{+5.630\%} & \textbf{+5.087\%} \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{subtable}
% \vspace{0.5em}
% \begin{subtable}[t]{\linewidth}
% \centering
% \caption{\small Dynamic Interest Ablation}
% \label{tab:aigc_ablation}
% \begin{tabular}{@{}lcc@{}}
% \toprule
% \textbf{Settings} & \textbf{$\Delta$ Rev.} & \textbf{$\Delta$ Impr.} \\
% \midrule
% Baseline & -- & -- \\
% \textbf{Personalized Generation} & \textbf{+11.11\%} & \textbf{+6.77\%} \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{subtable}
% \vspace{-0.15in}
% \end{table}
% % \begin{table}[htbp]
% % \centering
% % \caption{Online A/B experiments of recommendation paradigm shift from retrieval-based model to Recommendation-as-Generation (RaG) model. PGC (Professionally Generated Content) represents videos produced by professional creators for advertisers.
% % }
% % \small
% % \label{tab:ab_style3}
% % \begin{tabular}{lccc}
% % \toprule
% % \textbf{Settings} & \textbf{Recommendation Paradigm} &\textbf{$\Delta$ Revenue} & \textbf{$\Delta$ Impression} \\
% % \midrule
% % DLRM + PGC & Retrieval-based & - & - \\
% % LIM + PGC & Retrieval-based & +4.428\% & +4.648\% \\
% % % \textbf{Ours (Recommendation as Generation)}
% % \textbf{LIM + Agentic VGS} & \textbf{RaG}
% % & \textbf{+5.630\%} & \textbf{+5.087\%} \\
% % % Ours (PGC Only) & +4.428\% & +4.648\% \\
% % % \cmidrule(lr){1-4}
% % % \multicolumn{1}{l}{\textit{\quad \textbf{AIGC Uplift}}} & & \textbf{\textit{+1.182\%}} & \textbf{\textit{+0.420\%}} \\
% % \bottomrule
% % \end{tabular}
% % \end{table}
% % \begin{table}[htbp]
% % \centering
% % \caption{Ablation experiments for AIGC pipeline. Baseline is traditional AIGC which generates videos via rigid workflow pipeline without personalization.
% % Personalized AIGC represents videos generated via instant user-interest feedback (LIM) and powerful video decoder (Agentic VGS) in our framework.}
% % \small
% % \label{tab:one}
% % \begin{tabular}{l c c}
% % \toprule
% % \textbf{Settings} & \textbf{$\Delta$ AIGC Revenue} & \textbf{$\Delta$ AIGC Impression} \\
% % \midrule
% % Workflow Pipeline AIGC & - & - \\
% % % Personalized AIGC
% % \textbf{Ours (Personalized AIGC)}
% % & \textbf{+11.11\%} & \textbf{+6.77\%} \\
% % \bottomrule
% % \end{tabular}
% % \end{table}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % \subsubsection{Experimental Results}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % The results of our online A/B testing are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:ab_style3} and Table~\ref{tab:one}.
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % \paragraph{Impact on Overall Revenue.}
% % As shown in Table~\ref{tab:ab_style3}, experiments demonstrate that upgrading the baseline DLRM model to the LIM yields consistent gains in key business metrics, including impressions (+4.648\%) and revenue (+4.428\%).
% % Furthermore, integrating our proposed on-demand content generation paradigm on top of the LIM drives additional improvements, achieving +5.087 in impressions and +5.630 in overall platform revenue.
% % Notably, the personalized generation further contributes a gain of +1.233\% over the LIM, which validates that the generation quality and personalization capability of our RaG paradigm has overleap the generative recommendation models, directly converting generative AI capabilities into tangible commercial value.
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % \paragraph{Value of Personalized Generated Videos.}
% % Table~\ref{tab:aigc_ablation} proves the importance of personalized interest and on-demand feedback of recommendation system for personalized videos generated by RaG paradigm.
% % % Crossing recommendation models (DLRM vs. GRM) with content creation pipelines (Traditional AIGC vs. Personalized AIGC) reveals substantial gains.
% % The most critical finding is the exceptional performance of personalized generation, which yields a massive revenue uplift (e.g., +11.11\footnote{Measured within non-manually generated ads only, rather than overall platform revenue.} when transitioning from offline generation).
% % We attribute the improvement to two factors: First, offline generation cannot incorporate users' interest constraints, so they cannot guarantee the produced content matches what the user currently likes.
% % Second, offline generation cannot dynamically select existing assets and call generative tools at the same time, which is sub-optimal since only editing cannot ensure interest needs are met and only generating is unstable and costly.
% \begin{table}[t]
% \vspace{-0.12in}
% \caption{\small Online A/B test results. Rev. = revenue, Impr. = impressions. Results are reported as relative improvements over the production baseline.}
% \label{tab:ab_style3}
% \centering
% \footnotesize
% \begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{6pt}}c@{\hspace{6pt}}c}
% \toprule
% \textbf{Method}
% & \textbf{Rev. (\%$\uparrow$)}
% & \textbf{Impr. (\%$\uparrow$)}
% \\
% \midrule
% \textbf{Production Baseline} \\
% DLRM (Serving System) & -- & -- \\
% GR4AD~\cite{xue2026gr4ad} (GRM) & +3.494\% & +3.748\% \\
% \midrule
% \textbf{Enhanced GRM} \\
% GRM + Disentangled-SIDs (D-SIDs) & +4.428\% & +4.648\% \\
% \midrule
% \textbf{Full System (RaG)} \\
% RaG (GRM + D-SIDs + IM + A-VGS)
% & \textbf{+5.630\%}
% & \textbf{+5.087\%} \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \vspace{-0.15in}
% \end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
% \vspace{-0.12in}
\caption{\small Online A/B test results. Rev. denotes ad revenue. Results are reported as relative improvements over production baselines.}
\label{tab:ab_style3}
\resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{%
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{6pt}}c@{\hspace{6pt}}c}
\toprule
\textbf{Method}
& \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Rev. (\%$\uparrow$)}\\ {vs. DLRM baseline}\end{tabular}
& \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}c@{}}\textbf{Rev. (\%$\uparrow$)}\\ {vs. GRM baseline}\end{tabular}
\\
\midrule
\textbf{Production Baseline} \\
DLRM baseline & -- & -- \\
% GRM baseline~\cite{xue2026gr4ad} & +3.494\% & -- \\
GRM baseline~\cite{xue2026gr4ad} & +3.526\% & -- \\
\midrule
\textbf{Enhanced GRM} \\
% GRM + Disentangled-SIDs (D-SIDs) & +4.428\% & +0.902\% \\
GRM + Disentangled-SIDs (D-SIDs) & +4.460\% & +0.902\% \\
\midrule
\textbf{Full System (RaG)} \\
% RaG (GRM + D-SIDs + IM + VGAs + SCRL) & \textbf{+5.630\%} & \textbf{+2.064\%} \\
RaG (GRM + D-SIDs + IM + VGAs + SCRL) & \textbf{+5.462\%} &
\textbf{+1.870\%}
\\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
% \vspace{-0.15in}
}
\end{table}
\section{Experiments}
\subsection{Online A/B Testing}
We deploy the proposed Recommendation-as-Generation (RaG) framework in the real-world advertising platform of Kuaishou and conduct large-scale online A/B experiments to evaluate its industrial effectiveness. The experiments mainly focus on two aspects:
\textbf{(1)} the effectiveness of Disentangled Semantic IDs (D-SIDs) for generative recommendation, and
\textbf{(2)} the additional gains brought by SID-driven personalized video generation.
% Table~\ref{tab:ab_style3} summarizes the online results. Replacing the production DLRM-based pipeline with the generative recommendation model (GRM) yields consistent ad revenue gains, and the proposed Disentangled Semantic IDs (D-SIDs) further lift the improvement from +3.526\% to +4.460\%, confirming that decoupling content and creative semantics mitigates interference during autoregressive generation and yields a more structured latent space. Nevertheless, both variants fundamentally remain within the retrieval paradigm, selecting candidates from a fixed corpus rather than producing them on demand.
Table~\ref{tab:ab_style3} summarizes the online results. Replacing the production DLRM-based pipeline with the Generative Recommendation Model (GRM) yields consistent ad revenue gains, and the proposed Disentangled Semantic IDs (D-SIDs) further lift the improvement from +3.526\% to +4.460\%, confirming that decoupling content and creative semantics yields a more structured latent space and mitigates interference during autoregressive generation. Nevertheless, both variants remain within the retrieval paradigm, selecting candidates from a fixed pool.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{\small Quality of the Disentangled SIDs. We report both (i) embedding-based semantic retrieval quality and (ii) SID discretization quality. Improvements over the strongest baseline are highlighted. \textit{Impr.}: improvement; \textit{R@k}: Recall@k; \textit{Cpr.}: compression rate; \textit{Col.}: collision rate.}
\label{tab:UA-DBS-Full}
\resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{%
% \small
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Method}
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Semantic Retrieval (R@K)}}
& \textbf{Discretization Quality} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-5}
& \textbf{\textit{R@1} $\uparrow$} & \textbf{\textit{R@5} $\uparrow$} & \textbf{\textit{R@10} $\uparrow$}
& \textbf{\textit{Cpr.} $\downarrow$ / \textit{Col.} $\downarrow$} \\
\midrule
VLM2Vec-V2~\cite{meng2025vlm2vec}
& 0.485 & 0.690 & 0.756
& -- \\
QARM~\cite{luo2024qarm}
& 0.541 & 0.812 & 0.893
% & \underline{1.36} / \underline{37.24\%} \\
& \underline{1.14} / \underline{18.24\%} \\
Qwen2.5-VL-7B~\cite{qwen3embedding}
& \underline{0.769} & \underline{0.948} & \underline{0.977}
& -- \\
\midrule
\textbf{Ours (D-SIDs)}
& \textbf{0.896}
& \textbf{0.985}
& \textbf{0.994}
% & \textbf{1.05 / 18.02\%} \\
& \textbf{1.02 / 2.62\%} \\
\midrule
\textbf{\textit{Impr.}}
& \textbf{+16.5\%}
& \textbf{+3.9\%}
& \textbf{+1.7\%}
% & \textbf{-22.8\% / -19.22pp} \\
& \textbf{-10.5\% / -15.6pp} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
% \vspace{-1em}
\end{table}
% Finally, the full RaG framework---integrating GRM, D-SIDs, the Instruction Model (IM), and Video Generation Agents (VGAs) under Synergistic Cross-Domain Reward Learning (SCRL)---delivers a +5.462\% ad revenue gain over the DLRM-based pipeline. Notably, RaG also outperforms the strong GRM baseline by +1.870\%, with this additional lift directly attributable to interest-driven personalized video generation. These results mark a paradigm shift from retrieval-based to video generation-based recommendation: user interests no longer merely match existing candidates, but actively drive personalized content producing, enabling end-to-end optimization from interest understanding to content creation.
Finally, the full RaG framework---integrating GRM, D-SIDs, the Instruction Model (IM), and Video Generation Agents (VGAs) under Synergistic Cross-Domain Reward Learning (SCRL)---delivers a +5.462\% ad revenue gain over the DLRM-based pipeline. Crucially, RaG also outperforms the strong GRM baseline by +1.870\%, with this additional lift coming directly from D-SIDs-driven personalized video generation. This marks a paradigm shift from retrieval-based to generation-based recommendation, where user interests actively drive personalized content production rather than merely matching existing candidates.
\subsection{Offline Ablation Studies}
We ablate the key components of RaG framework---D-SIDs, IM, VGAs, and SCRL optimization---to assess their contributions in terms of semantic representation quality, instruction generation capability, and reward-driven video generation performance.
\begin{table}[bt]
\centering
% \vspace{-0.1in}
\caption{\small Evaluation of videos between the proposed VGAs vs. the workflow baseline. For Automated Score, we present average and median score.}
\small
\label{tab:consistency_success}
\resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Metric} & \textbf{Workflow Baseline} & \textbf{VGAs} & \textbf{\textit{Impr.}}\\
% \midrule
% {Interest Alignment Score} $\uparrow$ & 0.7067 & \textbf{0.8279} \\
\midrule
% \textbf{Success Rate} (Zero-shot) $\uparrow$ & \textcolor{gray}{100\%} & 59.32\% \\
% \textbf{Success Rate} (RL Post-training) $\uparrow$ & \textcolor{gray}{100\%} & \textbf{98.92\%} \\
% \midrule
{Automated Score} $\uparrow$ & 62.4 / 62.0 & \textbf{71.3 / 76.0} & \textbf{+14.3\% / +22.6\%} \\
{Automated Win Rate} $\uparrow$ & 28.7\% & \textbf{70.1\%} & \textbf{+41.4pp} \\
{User Study Win Rate} $\uparrow$ & 34.4\% & \textbf{52.9\%} & \textbf{+18.5pp} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Quality of Disentangled SIDs} The D-SIDs consist of two core components, i.e., multimodal representation learning and semantic quantization; we systematically analyze their effectiveness in the following experiments.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Multimodal Representation Learning.} We evaluate the proposed instruction-guided representation learning under a product-level retrieval setting to ensure fair comparison of semantic alignment capability. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:UA-DBS-Full}, our method consistently outperforms all baselines, achieving $0.896 / 0.985 / 0.994$ in R@1/5/10. In particular, R@1 improves by $+16.5\%$ over the strongest baseline (Qwen2.5-VL-7B), demonstrating stronger semantic discriminability under identical retrieval conditions.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Semantic Quantization.} We construct the D-SIDs by applying RQ-KMeans residual quantization separately to the content and creative embeddings, yielding disentangled content SIDs and creative SIDs. For a fair comparison, both D-SIDs and QARM adopt an identical quantization setup with a 4-layer codebook and 8,192 codes per layer. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:UA-DBS-Full}, our method achieves superior discretization quality, reducing compression distortion to $1.02$ and collision rate to $2.62\%$. Compared to QARM ($1.14 / 18.24\%$), this corresponds to a $10.5\%$ reduction in compression error and a $15.6$pp lower collision rate, indicating a more compact and collision-resistant semantic space.
% \begin{figure}[t]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.78\linewidth]{Figures/pcd_ablation_bar_line.pdf}
% \vspace{-0.15in}
% \caption{\small Performance of Instruction Model on different scales of data and parameters.}
% \label{fig:pcd_ablation_bar_line}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% \end{figure}
% \begin{table}[bt]
% \centering
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \caption{\small Ablation study of video quality rewards. We evaluate three reward components: $R_{\text{visual}}$, $R_{\text{audio}}$, and $R_{\text{effect}}$. Performance is measured by Automated Win Rate compared to the base model without reward optimization.}
% \small
% \label{tab:reward_abs}
% \begin{tabular}{cccc}
% \toprule
% \multirow{2}{*}{$R_{\text{visual}}$} &
% \multirow{2}{*}{$R_{\text{audio}}$} &
% \multirow{2}{*}{$R_{\text{effect}}$} &
% \multicolumn{1}{c}{\textbf{Automated Win Rate} $\uparrow$} \\
% \cmidrule(lr){4-4}
% & & & Base $\rightarrow$ Ours \\
% \midrule
% \checkmark & & & 29.3\% $\rightarrow$ \textbf{50.7\%} \\
% & \checkmark & & 24.0\% $\rightarrow$ \textbf{48.0\%} \\
% & & \checkmark & 22.7\% $\rightarrow$ \textbf{41.3\%} \\
% \checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & 37.3\% $\rightarrow$ \textbf{56.0\%} \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \end{table}
\begin{table}[bt]
\centering
\caption{\small Reward ablation with corresponding evaluation metrics. For each reward component, we report its dedicated metric on a corresponding evaluation set, comparing the policy trained with that reward (\textit{Ours}) against the no-reward base policy (\textit{Base}).}
\label{tab:reward_abs}
\resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{%
\small
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4.5pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\begin{tabular}{ccc c}
\toprule
% =========================
% Video Quality Rewards
% =========================
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Video Quality Rewards}}
& \textbf{Automated Win Rate $\uparrow$} \\
\midrule
$R_{\text{visual}}$ & $R_{\text{audio}}$ & $R_{\text{effect}}$
& Base $\rightarrow$ Ours \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-3}\cmidrule(lr){4-4}
\checkmark & & & 29.3\% $\rightarrow$ \textbf{50.7\% (+21.4pp)} \\
& \checkmark & & 24.0\% $\rightarrow$ \textbf{48.0\% (+24.0pp)} \\
& & \checkmark & 22.7\% $\rightarrow$ \textbf{41.3\% (+18.6pp)} \\
\checkmark & \checkmark & \checkmark & 37.3\% $\rightarrow$ \textbf{56.0\% (+18.7pp)} \\
\midrule
% =========================
% Interest Alignment
% =========================
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{+ Interest Alignment Rewards}}
& \textbf{Interest Alignment Score $\uparrow$} \\
\midrule
& $R_{\text{align}}$ & & Base $\rightarrow$ Ours \\
\cmidrule(lr){1-3}\cmidrule(lr){4-4}
& \checkmark & & 0.707 $\rightarrow$ \textbf{0.828 (+17.1\%)} \\
% \midrule
% =========================
% User Feedback
% =========================
% \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{+ User Feedback Rewards}}
% & \textbf{CTCVR by Ranking Model $\uparrow$} \\
% \midrule
% & $R_{\text{feedback}}$ & & Base $\rightarrow$ Ours \\
% \cmidrule(lr){1-3}\cmidrule(lr){4-4}
% & \checkmark & & 0.02417 $\rightarrow$ \textbf{0.02431} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/overview_v5.pdf}
% \vspace{-0.35in}
\caption{\small Qualitative example of interest-driven personalized video generation in advertising scenarios.}
\label{fig:e2e_overview}
% \vspace{-0.15in}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Instruction Model Configuration}
We evaluate the Instruction Model in terms of decoding fidelity, measured by the cosine similarity between generated instructions and ground-truth summaries using Qwen3-Embedding-8B. Empirically, we observe that both increased training data and model capacity lead to consistent improvements. Specifically, the performance improves from $0.7760$ (8B model, 100K samples) to $0.8096$ (8B model, 1M samples), and further to $0.8212$ with a 32B model trained on 1M samples.
Considering the trade-off between performance and computational efficiency, we adopt the 8B model trained on 1M samples as the default configuration, which achieves competitive decoding fidelity while offering significantly lower deployment cost compared to larger models.
\subsubsection{Performance Analysis of Video Generation}
We evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed Video Generation Agents (VGAs) from two perspectives: (i) system-level comparison against conventional production pipelines, and (ii) the contribution of different reward components to optimization. Specifically, we assess three aspects: generation quality, including automated and human preference evaluations; and interest alignment score, measuring consistency between generated videos and target user interests. See Appendix~\ref{app:evaluation} for details.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{System-level Comparison.}
We compare VGAs with a conventional \emph{workflow baseline}---a hand-crafted pipeline composed of instruction generation, rough-cut (visual clip composition), and fine-cut (TTS synthesis and post-production effects) stages executed in a fixed order. Such rigid execution prevents adaptation to diverse user-specific generation requirements, motivating the agentic design of VGAs.
As shown in Table~\ref{tab:consistency_success}, VGAs consistently outperform the baseline across all metrics. The gains stem from two capabilities: \emph{reasoning}, enabled by a hierarchically structured end-to-end framework that supports coherent cross-modal planning; and \emph{reflection}, which improves output quality through iterative self-correction and re-planning, capped at two iterations to maintain inference latency comparable to the workflow baseline while achieving substantial quality gains.
% \textbf{Reward Contribution Analysis.}
% We further analyze the contribution of different reward components in a multi-objective optimization setting (Table~\ref{tab:reward_abs}).
% For video quality rewards, each component independently improves Automated Win Rate, and jointly optimizing all three yields the best performance, demonstrating the importance of balancing visual fidelity, audio alignment, and effect enhancement.
% Beyond video quality, incorporating the interest alignment rewards further improves the Interest Alignment Score (0.7067 $\rightarrow$ 0.8279), indicating stronger consistency between generated content and user intent.
% Finally, introducing the user feedback rewards, measured via an online ranking model, leads to additional gains in downstream CTCVR signals (0.02417 $\rightarrow$ 0.02431), confirming that aligning with user feedback further enhances system effectiveness.
% Overall, these results demonstrate that different reward signals provide complementary benefits, and their joint optimization leads to a more robust and user-aligned video generation policy.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Reward Contribution Analysis.}
We analyze the contribution of individual reward components under our synergistic cross-domain rewards. Since user feedback serves as the primary objective and is always retained, we focus the ablation on the two constraint-side rewards: video quality and interest alignment.
As shown in Table~\ref{tab:reward_abs}, each video-quality sub-reward is evaluated on its own dedicated test set, with \textit{Base} denoting the policy trained without any reward optimization. Each sub-reward---visual fidelity, audio alignment, and effect enhancement---independently improves the Automated Win Rate over the base, and jointly optimizing all three yields the strongest result, confirming the necessity of balancing all three perceptual aspects.
Building on the quality rewards, incorporating the interest alignment reward further lifts the Interest Alignment Score (0.707 $\rightarrow$ 0.828), indicating substantially stronger consistency between generated content and user interest.
Overall, these results show that the quality and alignment rewards play complementary roles---the former safeguards perceptual fidelity while the latter enforces semantic relevance---and their joint optimization, anchored by the primary user-feedback objective, produces a more robust and user-aligned video generation policy.
\subsubsection{Qualitative Analysis of Personalized Video Generation}
% % \vspace{-0.15in}
% Figure~\ref{fig:e2e_overview} presents a case study under the same marketing content, where two users share interest in the same advertising target but exhibit different creative preferences.
% This case reflects our interest disentanglement design, which separates user interests into content-level intent and creative-style preference.
% Although the content-level intent is identical, the generated videos differ in visual emphasis, narrative structure, and aesthetic style, resulting in distinct scene composition and highlight focus aligned with user-specific preferences.
% In contrast, conventional offline video assets rely on fixed templates and cannot adapt to such style-level variations. This demonstrates the effectiveness of disentangled interest modeling for controllable personalized video generation.
Figure~\ref{fig:e2e_overview} illustrates the end-to-end pipeline of our RaG framework, where user interests are directly transformed into video generation.
Given a representative user profile (female, 25--34) interested in young-mother lifestyle, baby care, household essentials, and value-oriented shopping, the Generative Recommendation Model (GRM) first infers Disentangled SIDs (D-SIDs) that jointly capture content and creative preferences. These D-SIDs are mapped into structured embeddings and, in this advertising scenario, further enriched with the optional metadata factor $D_{\text{meta}}$ encoding product information and marketing topics. Conditioned on these representations, the Instruction Model (IM) produces shot-level production instructions, which are subsequently executed by the Video Generation Agents (VGAs) to coordinate visual, audio, and effect generation. The resulting video achieves high quality with strong alignment to user interests.
% \begin{figure}[t]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{Figures/pcd_compare_v19.pdf}
% % \vspace{-0.35in}
% \caption{\small Qualitative examples of personalized video generation. RaG infers user interests from historical behaviors and disentangles them into content-level intent and creative-style preference, enabling generation of videos that are tailored to both semantic and stylistic preferences.}
% \label{fig:pcd_case_study}
% % \vspace{-0.15in}
% \end{figure}
% \section{Related Works}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% \subsection{Generative Recommendation}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% In conventional recommendation systems~\cite{naumov2019dlrm, zhou2018din, cheng2016wide&deep, guo2018deepfm}, the focus is typically on retrieving existing items from an item pool and serving them to users.
% This implies a separation between content production and user-interest modeling.
% However, with the recent advances in generative recommendation, this paradigm becomes feasible.
% A common paradigm was to fine-tune pretrained large language models or align them with user preferences, such as LC-Rec~\cite{zheng2024lcrec}, BBQ-Rec~\cite{li2025bbqrec}, LETTER~\cite{wang2024letter}, MTGRec~\cite{zheng2025mtgrec} and TTDS~\cite{yin2025ttds}.
% Taking TTDS as example, user profile information and item metadata are first discretized into semantic identifiers (SIDs), which are then incorporated as additional tokens into the LLaMa~\cite{touvron2023llama} vocabulary.
% In order to meet the real-time requirements of large-scale online recommendation systems, more recent works have proposed specialized model architectures.
% OneRec~\cite{deng2025onerec} and OneSug~\cite{guo2025onesug} adopt lightweight encoder–decoder architectures, in which user profile features and historical behavior sequences are encoded and compressed into dedicated query tokens. The decoder then conditions on these tokens to generate the final target SID.
% OneRec-V2~\cite{zhou2025onerecv2technicalreport} and GR4AD~\cite{xue2026gr4ad} adopt a decoder-only architecture, in which all user features are concatenated into key–value (KV) pairs that are shared across layers.
% Our latent interest modeling module essentially follows this design.
% \subsection{Agent-based Content Generation}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% The evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has catalyzed the development of autonomous agents capable of complex reasoning beyond simple text generation~\cite{xi2023rise}. Early strategies like Chain-of-Thought (CoT)\cite{wei2022chain} and ReAct\cite{yao2023react} established the foundation for iterative problem-solving, which has recently been adapted for visual storytelling. In this domain, works such as Vlogger~\cite{zhuang2024vlogger} and StoryAgent~\cite{hu2024storyagent} focus on generating temporally consistent image sequences, while editing-centric agents like LAVE~\cite{wang2024lave} and VideoDirectorGPT~\cite{lin2023videodirectorgpt} assist users in arranging existing clips. However, these approaches remain predominantly either fragmented or unimodal: visual generation models often neglect the narrative synchronization of audio and dialogue, while editing agents typically lack the generative capacity to bridge asset gaps. More importantly, relying solely on prompting often fails to meet the stringent demands of advertising, where visual style, voice timbre, and background atmosphere must be strictly unified under a specific creative brief.
% \subsection{Personalized AI-Generated Content}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% With the development of LLMs and diffusion models, commercial platforms are exploring shifting from retrieving pre-made content to generating personalized content on the fly. Pioneer work~\cite{wang2023generec} introduces large language models (LLMs) to guide users clarifying their personal preferences and generating novel, non-existent content. Along this direction, Yang et al.~\cite{yang2024cg4ctr} use Stable Diffusion's inpainting mode with a CTR-aware reward model to generate advertising images. HLLM-Creator~\cite{chen2025hllm} builds a hierarchical LLM framework to generate personalized ad titles at scale. PMG~\cite{shen2024pmg} extracts user preferences from historic interaction data via LLMs and uses them to condition multimodal generators. I-AM-G~\cite{wang2024iamg} proposes a ``Rewrite and Retrieve'' paradigm that rewrites item descriptions based on user interests and retrieves cross-modal information to guide generation. Wang et al.~\cite{wang2025pcg} use multi-turn dialogues to capture user preferences for personalized visual content generation.
% With the advancement of generative technologies, recent works such as NextAds~\cite{xu2026nextads} have attempted to extend personalized content generation to the video domain by leveraging video generation models. However, these efforts remain largely at the proof-of-concept stage and fall short of demonstrating real-world commercial value.
% To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to build an end-to-end unified system that jointly supports personalized video ad generation and recommendation in a real-world industrial environment.
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% \section{Related Work}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \textbf{Retrieval-Based Recommendation.}
% Conventional recommendation systems~\cite{covington2016deep, cheng2016wide, zhou2018din,zhu2018learning,naumov2019dlrm,jia2025learn} focus on retrieving existing items from a fixed corpus and ranking them for users.
% Recent models~\cite{zheng2024lcrec, wang2024letter, yin2025ttds} have emerged as a promising direction to generative recommendation, typically by tokenizing items into latent Semantic IDs and predicting them as next-token-prediction task.
% To satisfy the latency requirements of industrial systems, more recent architectures adopt lightweight designs~\cite{deng2025onerec, xue2026gr4ad, zhou2025onerecv2technicalreport}, enabling dynamic Semantic IDs prediction at scale.
% However, these `generative' recommendation methods still retrieve over a human-generated video corpus according to predicted Semantic IDs, leaving video generation and recommendation fundamentally decoupled and preventing end-to-end optimization.
% \textbf{Personalized AI-Generated Content.}
% The rapid advancement of generative models has inspired efforts to shift from serving pre-made content to generating personalized content on demand. Early works explored LLM-based preference guidance~\cite{wang2023generec} or conditioning diffusion models on user interest signals for image generation~\cite{yang2024cg4ctr, shen2024pmg}. Latter approaches adopt this to richer modalities, such as generating personalized ad titles~\cite{chen2025hllm} or leveraging multi-turn dialogues to capture user preferences for visual content~\cite{wang2025pcg}. Recently, NextAds~\cite{xu2026nextads} attempts to extend personalized generation into the video domain, but it remains to be a proof-of-concept. Critically, none of these works unify user interest modeling and video generation in an end-to-end framework deployable at industrial scale.
\section{Related Work}
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Retrieval-Based Recommendation.}
Traditional recommendation systems~\cite{covington2016deep, cheng2016wide, zhou2018din, zhu2018learning, naumov2019dlrm, jia2025learn} follow a retrieve-and-rank paradigm over a fixed pool of pre-produced items.
Recent advances explore generative recommendation by modeling item IDs as discrete tokens and formulating recommendation as next-token prediction over Semantic IDs~\cite{zheng2024lcrec, wang2024letter, yin2025ttds}. To meet industrial latency constraints, efficient architectures have been further proposed for large-scale SID prediction~\cite{deng2025onerec, xue2026gr4ad, zhou2025onerecv2technicalreport}.
However, these methods still rely on retrieving from a static content pool conditioned on predicted tokens, leaving recommendation and content creation fundamentally decoupled and preventing end-to-end optimization.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Personalized AI-Generated Content.}
Recent progress in generative models has motivated a shift from retrieving pre-produced content to generating personalized content conditioned on user preferences. Early efforts explore preference-guided LLM generation or conditioning diffusion models on user signals for image synthesis~\cite{wang2023generec, yang2024cg4ctr, shen2024pmg}.
These ideas have been extended to richer modalities, including personalized advertising text generation~\cite{chen2025hllm} and dialogue-based preference elicitation for visual content generation~\cite{wang2025pcg}. More recently, NextAds~\cite{xu2026nextads} studies personalized video advertising by conditioning generation on observed user preferences, but focuses primarily on the generation module without modeling an end-to-end pipeline from user interest representation to controllable video production, and does not consider industrial deployment efficiency and cost.
Overall, existing approaches mostly treat user interest modeling and controllable content generation as separate tasks, leaving room for a unified framework that jointly optimizes both within a closed-loop industrial system.
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% \section{Conclusion}
% % \vspace{-0.1in}
% % In this work, we present a unified Recommendation-as-Generation paradigm that fundamentally shifts recommendation systems from retrieving static inventory to dynamically creating personalized video content. By tightly coupling generative user-interest modeling with an autonomous agentic video production system, our end-to-end framework successfully bridges the gap between abstract latent intent prediction and physical multi-modal generation. This enables the platform to produce novel, highly customized advertisements on demand, effectively overcoming the traditional limitations of fixed content pools. Deployed at an industrial scale on a real-world media platform, the system achieves a 70.11\% win rate over commercial baselines and delivers a +5.63\% overall revenue lift, demonstrating the profound commercial impact of integrating generative AI with recommendation platforms.
% % % Future work will explore closing the real-time user feedback loop and expanding this generative paradigm to more diverse modalities.
% In this work, we present a unified Recommendation-as-Generation (RaG) paradigm that fundamentally shifts recommendation systems from retrieving from corpus to dynamically synthesizing personalized video. To address the challenge of integrating dynamic user interests with video generation, we introduce an end-to-end architecture that effectively bridges the fundamental gap between recommendation and generation. To tackle the challenge of enabling scalable and cost-efficient production, we design a resource-aware Agentic Video Generation System. By intelligently orchestrating existing digital assets and step-wise generative tools, this agent ensures high-quality, controllable output while strictly bounding computational overhead. Deployed at an industrial scale on a real-world media platform, the system achieves a 70.11\% win rate over commercial baselines and delivers a +5.63\% overall revenue lift.
% % Future work will continue to advance exploring finer-grained cross-modal alignment to deepen the coupling between interest modeling and generation, and developing more lightweight agentic planning policies to further optimize production efficiency.
\section{Conclusion}
% We propose \textbf{Recommendation-as-Generation} (\textbf{RaG}), a unified paradigm that shifts recommendation towards video generation-driven personalization. RaG bridges user interest modeling and controllable video generation through a shared semantic space, together with efficient video generation agents for scalable industrial deployment. Online A/B tests show that RaG consistently improves ad revenue over strong commercial baselines, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed paradigm in real-world industrial settings.
We propose \textbf{Recommendation-as-Generation} (\textbf{RaG}), a unified paradigm that shifts recommendation toward generation-driven personalization. RaG bridges user interest modeling and controllable video generation through Disentangled Semantic IDs as a shared interface, scalable Video Generation Agents for industrial deployment, and Synergistic Cross-Domain Reward Learning for closed-loop optimization. Online A/B tests show that RaG consistently improves ad revenue over strong commercial baselines, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed paradigm in real-world industrial settings.
RaG currently serves nearline rather than in real time, with VGAs being the dominant latency bottleneck. Future work will fold the Instruction Model into VGAs for a tighter generation path, and further accelerate VGAs through stronger model distillation and inference optimization, moving toward on-the-fly personalized generation.
\section{Runtime Analysis of RaG Modules}
\label{app:runtime}
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\small
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\caption{\small Inference efficiency comparison across modules of RaG system.}
\label{tab:efficiency}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\toprule
\textbf{Component}
& \shortstack{\textbf{D-SIDs}\\{(Nearline)}}
& \shortstack{\textbf{GRM}\\{(Online)}}
& \shortstack{\textbf{IM}\\{(Nearline)}}
& \shortstack{\textbf{VGAs}\\{(Nearline)}} \\
\midrule
\textbf{Latency}
& $\sim$4s
& $\sim$100ms
& $\sim$2.5s
& $\sim$180s \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We deploy the proposed RaG system in Kuaishou’s large-scale advertising and recommendation infrastructure, serving over 400 million users. To better understand system efficiency, we conduct a runtime analysis of each core component under both online and nearline deployment settings. Specifically, the Generative Recommendation Model (GRM) operates in an online serving regime for real-time recommendation, while Disentangled Semantic IDs (D-SIDs), the Instruction Model (IM), and the Video Generation Agents (VGAs) are executed in a nearline pipeline due to their higher computational cost and generation latency. All latency numbers reported in Table~\ref{tab:efficiency} are measured under live production traffic, reflecting the actual serving conditions.
\section{Evaluation Metrics for Video Quality and Interest Alignment}
\label{app:evaluation}
To provide a fair and unbiased evaluation of the proposed Video Generation Agents (VGAs), we adopt an evaluation protocol that is fully decoupled from the reward functions used during training. Specifically, we assess generated videos from three complementary perspectives: \emph{instruction-level interest alignment score}, \emph{automated multi-dimensional quality evaluation}, and \emph{human preference assessment}. All evaluation scores are computed using external judges or human annotators, ensuring that the reported results reflect generalization quality rather than optimization-specific reward fitting.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Interest Alignment Score.}
We first evaluate whether generated videos faithfully follow their corresponding video production instructions derived from interest SIDs. To mitigate single-judge bias, we employ an ensemble of three state-of-the-art multimodal evaluators---GPT-5.1~\cite{gpt5_1_report}, Gemini-2.5~Pro~\cite{comanici2025gemini}, and Claude-4.5~Sonnet~\cite{claude45sonnet}---each independently scoring the same benchmark of 1{,}000 multi-category video instances under the identical protocol defined in Box~\ref{box:prompt_alignment}. Each generated video is rated along five dimensions---semantic consistency, attribute accuracy, thematic alignment, completeness, and narrative coherence---producing a continuous alignment score in $[0,1]$. We report the per-instance average across the three judges as the final Interest Alignment Score.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Automated Quality Evaluation.}
Beyond semantic alignment, we further evaluate the overall production quality of generated videos using the same three-judge ensemble---GPT-5.1~\cite{gpt5_1_report}, Gemini-2.5~Pro~\cite{comanici2025gemini}, and Claude-4.5~Sonnet~\cite{claude45sonnet}---under the identical protocol defined in Box~\ref{box:prompt_quality}. Each judge independently rates every video along four aspects: (1) instruction attractiveness, measuring hook quality, pacing, and call-to-action effectiveness; (2) BGM compatibility, evaluating music-tone consistency and beat synchronization; (3) SFX and sticker design quality, assessing visual effects and subtitle design; and (4) instruction--visual alignment, measuring the consistency between visual progression and instruction semantics. Per-instance scores are averaged across the three judges, yielding two metrics: a normalized \textbf{Automated Score} in $[0,1]$ and an \textbf{Automated Win Rate} under the Good-Same-Bad (GSB) setting.
\vspace{2pt}
\noindent\textbf{Human Preference Assessment.}
To further validate real-world perceptual quality and user preference alignment, we conduct a human evaluation study with 20 annotators from diverse professional backgrounds---including algorithm engineers, product managers, and advertising clients---covering both algorithm-side and business-side perspectives to reduce single-role bias. Each annotator performs 50 pairwise comparisons between generated videos and baseline results under a Good-Same-Bad (GSB) protocol, yielding 1{,}000 pairwise judgments in total. All comparisons are presented in a blind, randomized order, with each video pair independently evaluated by at least three annotators to mitigate individual subjectivity; we report the majority-vote outcome as the \textbf{User Study Win Rate}.
% ---- Interest Alignment Prompt Box ----
\begin{promptbox}[after skip=3pt]{Interest Alignment Prompt}{prompt_alignment}
\textbf{Role}
You are an expert evaluator assessing the alignment between the video production instructions and the corresponding generated video. Focus only on semantic and creative consistency, while ignoring production quality (e.g., resolution, smoothness, or visual artifacts).
\medskip
\textbf{Inputs}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item \textbf{Instructions}: \{instructions\}
\item \textbf{Video}: \{video\}
\end{itemize}
\medskip
\textbf{Task}
Evaluate the video along the following five dimensions, each scored in $[0,1]$.
\medskip
\textbf{[A1] Content Fidelity}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Subjects, actions, and scenes match the instruction.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{[A2] Attribute Accuracy}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Visual attributes and spatial-temporal relationships are correctly represented.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{[A3] Intent \& Theme Alignment}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Creative intent, mood, and stylistic cues align with the instruction.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{[A4] Completeness}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item All key elements are included without hallucinated content.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{[A5] Narrative Coherence}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item The temporal progression and story flow remain coherent.
\end{itemize}
\medskip
\textbf{Scoring Scale}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item 0.9--1.0: Perfect alignment
\item 0.7--0.9: Minor deviations
\item 0.5--0.7: Moderate deviations
\item 0.3--0.5: Major missing elements
\item 0.0--0.3: Largely unrelated
\end{itemize}
\medskip
\textbf{Output Format}
\begin{verbatim}
{
"content_fidelity": {"score": 0.0},
"attribute_accuracy": {"score": 0.0},
"intent_theme_alignment": {"score": 0.0},
"completeness": {"score": 0.0},
"narrative_coherence": {"score": 0.0},
"overall_alignment_score": 0.0
}
\end{verbatim}
\textbf{Rules}
Scores should be continuous in $[0,1]$. The overall score is a holistic judgment rather than the arithmetic mean of sub-scores. Do not consider production quality unless explicitly required by the instruction.
\end{promptbox}
% \section{Evaluation Metrics for Interest Alignment and Video Quality}
% \label{app:evaluation}
% To ensure a fair and reliable evaluation of the Video Generation Agents (VGAs) beyond the training reward functions, we adopt a separate and independent evaluation protocol to assess generated video quality and interest alignment. Specifically, we evaluate VGAs from three complementary perspectives: interest consistency, automated quality assessment, and human evaluation, where all metrics are computed using external judges and are decoupled from the optimization objectives used during training. \\
% \noindent\textbf{Interest Alignment.}
% We first evaluate how faithfully each generated video aligns with its corresponding creative instruction. For fairness, we use Gemini~3.0 Pro as an external evaluator on a benchmark of 1{,}000 multi-category instances, following the prompt defined in Box~\ref{box:prompt_alignment}. Each video is assigned an alignment score in $[0,1]$. \\
% \noindent\textbf{Automated Quality Assessment.}
% We further assess video quality using Gemini~3.0 Pro as an independent multi-dimensional judge, evaluating four aspects: \emph{instruction attractiveness}, \emph{BGM compatibility}, \emph{SFX and sticker design quality}, and \emph{instruction--visual alignment} defined in Box~\ref{box:prompt_quality}. \\
% \noindent\textbf{Human Evaluation.}
% To further validate effectiveness under real-world subjective judgment, we conduct a human study with 20 evaluators, including algorithm engineers, product managers, and advertising clients. Each evaluator performs 50 paired comparisons.
% \begin{figure*}[ht]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Figures/overview_v2.pdf}
% % \vspace{-0.35in}
% \caption{\small Overview of the end-to-end video generation pipeline.}
% \label{fig:e2e_overview}
% % \vspace{-0.15in}
% \end{figure*}
% ---- The compact prompt window ----
\begin{promptbox}[before skip=2pt]{Video Quality Assessment Prompt}{prompt_quality}
\textbf{Role}
You are a professional short-video advertising evaluator assessing video quality from editing and audio-visual perspectives.
\medskip
\textbf{Task}
Evaluate the video across four dimensions with a total score of 100 points.
\medskip
\textbf{[D1] Instruction Attractiveness (25)}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Hook quality: pain-point, suspense, benefit-first, or contrast design.
\item Pacing and structure: logical progression without redundant segments.
\item CTA effectiveness: clarity, urgency, and consistency with opening intent.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{[D2] BGM Compatibility (25)}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Mood and tempo alignment with video content.
\item Synchronization between cuts and music beats.
\item Balanced audio volume and speech clarity.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{[D3] SFX \& Sticker Design (25)}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Effectiveness of transition, emphasis, ambient, and emotional SFX.
\item Consistency and readability of subtitles, tags, arrows, and motion effects.
\end{itemize}
\textbf{[D4] Instruction--Visual Alignment (25)}
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
\item Consistency between instruction keywords and visual content.
\item Narrative flow and temporal coherence.
\item Absence of visual-information gaps or dead-air segments.
\end{itemize}
\medskip
\textbf{Output Format}
\begin{verbatim}
{
"instruction_attractiveness": {"total": 0},
"bgm_compatibility": {"total": 0},
"sfx_sticker_design": {"total": 0},
"instruction_visual_alignment": {"total": 0},
"final_summary": {
"total_score": 0,
"grade": "S/A/B/C/D"
}
}
\end{verbatim}
\textbf{Rules}
The total score ranges from 0 to 100. Grades are defined as:
S (90+), A (75+), B (60+), C (45+), and D ($<$45).
All evaluations should be evidence-based and supported by specific visual or temporal observations.
\end{promptbox}
\section{Details of Generative Recommendation Model}
\label{app:GRM}
Our Generative Recommendation Model (GRM) follows an architecture similar to GR4AD~\cite{xue2026gr4ad}.
In training, the model takes two inputs: (1) user context $\mathbf{C}$, consisting of static profile features $\mathcal{F}_{\text{prof}}$ (e.g., age, gender, region, device type) and multi-granularity behavior sequences $\mathcal{F}_{\text{seq}}$, where each interaction is encoded via a sparse embedding table into latent interest tokens; and (2) prefix SID sequence {\small $(BOS, s_{\text{content}}^1, s_{\text{content}}^2, s_{\text{creative}}^1,\\ s_{\text{creative}}^2)$} derived from the target item. We formulate GRM as an autoregressive sequence modeling problem, predicting the full SID sequence conditioned on the prefix, where the generated SIDs serve as a discrete representation of user interests, optimized via token-level cross-entropy loss, followed by reinforcement learning fine-tuning with constrained GDPO to further improve user feedback and interest alignment.
Concretely, each SID token is retrieved from a sparse embedding table and projected into a 768-dimensional latent space, then processed by a 7-layer Transformer decoder (LazyDecoder) with hidden size 768, FFN size 3072, 12 attention heads, and vocabulary size 8192. FlashAttention~\cite{dao2023flashattention2} is adopted for efficient computation. We train the model on 8 GPUs with batch size 8192 using Adam ($lr = 1\times10^{-4}$). During inference, beam search (beam size 512) is used, achieving 130 QPS throughput.
% \section{Overview of Personalized Video Generation}
% The holistic workflow of personalized video generation comprises three primary components: user interest prediction, interest decoding, and video generation. Initially, the interest prediction stage leverages a Generative Recommendation Model (GRM), which takes user profiles and historical behaviors as input to predict the current Interest Semantic IDs (SIDs). During the interest decoding stage, we first perform a Preprocess operation to revert the discrete SID into its continuous form, thereby reconstructing the underlying content features, creative features, and relevant metadata (e.g., topic and product images). These outputs are then processed by the Instruction Model (IM) to derive the predicted user interest in a textual format. Finally, the Video Generation Agents (VGAs) performs multi-stage planning based on the predicted interest text to generate multi-track instructions. These instructions orchestrate a set of generative video and audio models, where each stage produces corresponding visual and audio segments. The generated segments are then assembled by a video renderer to form the final coherent video output.
% \section{Appendix: Detailed Implementations and Evaluations by Module}
% \label{app:implement details}
% While RaG is a universal framework applicable to general recommendation and personalized content creation tasks, a concrete evaluation scenario is necessary to rigorously assess its real-world effectiveness. In this appendix, we present the specific implementation details of our RaG framework instantiated in an ad video recommendation setting. For each module, we systematically describe the data construction pipeline, model training procedures and implementation details, evaluation metrics, and the corresponding experimental results.
% \begin{figure}[h]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Figures/prod_crea_v7.pdf}
% \vspace{-0.2in}
% \caption{\small Illustration of product-creative factorization of ad video content. We explicitly decouple advertising videos into two types of representations: \textbf{product embedding}, which capture the attributes and semantics of the promoted products; \textbf{creative embedding}, which focus on creative elements such as video editing structure, visual presentation, and dialogue content.}
% \label{fig:uni-emb-model}
% \end{figure}
% % ==========================================
% % Module 1: DBS Encoder
% % ==========================================
% % \subsection{Module 1: Dual-Branch Semantic (DBS) Encoder}
% \subsection{Module 1: Semantic Encoder}
% \label{app:dbs_encoder}
% % On current video-ad platforms, the features of a video are inherently complex and heterogeneous. As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:uni-emb-model}, the \textit{product branch} encodes the product image alongside its metadata (e.g., title, category, and attributes), while the \textit{creative branch} processes 16-frame video samples paired with creative texts (e.g., slogans, OCR, and ASR transcripts). To seamlessly process these features, we introduce a the \textbf{Dual-Branch Semantic~(DBS) Encoder} builds upon the Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct backbone ($d=3584$) to explicitly extract disentangled product and creative representations. For each branch, the embedding of the final token is projected through a branch specific LM-head into its corresponding feature space, yielding product embedding $\mathbf{e}_{prod}$ and creative embedding $\mathbf{e}_{crea}$.
% As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:uni-emb-model}, in ad videos content naturally decomposes into two complementary dimensions: the \textit{product dimension}, which captures the core marketing subject (i.e., what is being sold), and the \textit{creative dimension}, which reflects the persuasion strategy and visual storytelling (i.e., how it is being sold). This distinction motivates our design of the Dual-Branch Semantic (DBS) Encoder, which explicitly encodes disentangled representations for each dimension.
% The \textit{product branch} encodes the product image alongside its metadata (e.g., title, category, and attributes), while the \textit{creative branch} processes 16-frame video samples paired with creative texts (e.g., slogans, OCR, and ASR transcripts).
% Building upon the Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct backbone, each branch projects the final-token embedding through a branch-specific LM-head into its corresponding feature space ($d=3584$), yielding a product embedding $\mathbf{e}_{prod}$ and a creative embedding $\mathbf{e}_{crea}$, respectively.
% \subsubsection{Data Construction}
% To train the DBS Encoder, we curate the dataset based on advertising videos. Specifically, we construct data samples by extracting features from two heterogeneous dimensions: the creative dimension and the product dimension.
% For the \textbf{product dimension}, training data is built upon over 100 million fine-grained product clusters. Positive samples are constructed by calculating the fused feature similarity of products within the same cluster; only intra-cluster pairs exceeding a specific similarity threshold are selected, while inter-cluster products serve as negatives. To address products lacking explicit cluster assignments, we utilize their rich metadata (names, attributes, images) for strict multimodal retrieval, assigning them to clusters only under high similarity conditions. Through this rigorous pipeline, we generated 20 million high-quality positive pairs.
% For the \textbf{creative dimension}, our objective is to capture the distinct creative styles and presentation techniques employed in advertising videos. We first leverage a carefully fine-tuned Qwen3-Omni model to perform an in-depth, shot-by-shot analysis of each advertising video. The model directly processes the video's visual and audio modalities, generating a structured script for each video encompassing:
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
% \item \textbf{Visual and Temporal Attributes}: Detailed descriptions of on-screen actions, subjects, and special effects; shot duration and dynamic characteristics.
% % \item \textbf{Strategic Creative Intents}: The core persuasive or narrative purpose of each shot, such as 'Golden 3-Seconds Hook', 'User Pain Point', 'Product Selling Point', and 'Call to Action'.
% \item \textbf{Strategic Creative Intents}: The core persuasive or narrative purpose of each shot, identifying key narrative drivers such as \textit{Opening Hook Mechanisms}, \textit{Pain-point Resonance}, \textit{Core Selling Propositions}, and \textit{Action Calling}.
% \item \textbf{Key Content Indicators}: Specific details regarding product displays, mentions of welfare or benefits, and character information.
% \end{itemize}
% % To formalize these scripts, we map each video to a high-dimensional feature vector $\mathbf{f} = [f_1, f_2, \dots, f_D]^\top \in \mathbb{R}^{4000}$, where each component $f_k$ represents a specific stylistic descriptor. Specifically, $f_k$ can be a statistical aggregate (e.g., average shot duration), a binary indicator for narrative anchors (e.g., the presence of a ``Golden 3-Seconds'' hook), or an $n$-gram frequency (for $n=1,2,3$) that captures the transition flow between strategic intents. Since these 4,000 features have different numerical scales, we apply a standardization process to zero-mean each dimension, followed by a heuristic weighting factor to emphasize core narrative elements. The final vector $\mathbf{f}$ is $L_2$-normalized for similarity calculation.
% To formalize these scripts, we map each video to a high-dimensional feature vector $\mathbf{f} = [f_1, f_2, \dots, f_m]^\top \in \mathbb{R}^{m}$. Each component $f_k$ encodes specific video feature, such as statistical aggregates of multimodal elements, binary indicators for key narrative structures, and $n$-gram frequencies that capture the sequential transitions of creative intents. Given the distinct numerical scales of these heterogeneous features, we first apply Z-score normalization to each dimension to achieve zero mean and unit variance. Subsequently, we apply heuristic weighting factors to prioritize core narrative elements. These processed features are then concatenated into the unified vector $\mathbf{f}$, which is finally $L_2$-normalized to facilitate stable downstream similarity calculations.
% Thus, a video pair $(v_i, v_j)$ becomes positive samples once satisfying rule as follow:
% $$ (v_i, v_j) \in \mathcal{P}_{\text{creative}} \quad \text{iff} \quad \text{Sim}(\mathbf{f}_i, \mathbf{f}_j) \ge \tau_C \quad \text{and} \quad \text{Sim}(\mathbf{p}_i, \mathbf{p}_j) \le \tau_P $$
% where $\mathbf{f}_{i},\mathbf{f}_{j}$ are the derived creative vectors, $\text{Sim}(\cdot,\cdot)$ represents cosine similarity, $\mathbf{p}_{i},\mathbf{p}_{j}$ are product feature vectors, and $\tau_{C},\tau_{P}$ are empirical thresholds. This pipeline yields 20 million high-quality positive sample pairs.
% % \noindent\textbf{Model Architecture.}
% % The HBF Encoder is built on the Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct backbone with two input branches that share the same model parameters but differ in their inputs and output projection heads. The \textit{product branch} takes the product's structured marketing information (e.g., title, selling points) and its landing page images as input, capturing intrinsic product attributes. The \textit{creative branch} takes sampled video frames alongside the video's ASR transcripts, OCR text, and a content summary as input, capturing the visual style and narrative execution of the ad.
% \subsubsection{Model Training and Implementation Details}
% % \noindent\textbf{Dual-Branch Contrastive Optimization.} To achieve strict semantic decoupling, we formulate a dual-branch contrastive learning strategy that independently optimizes the two factors. For each branch $k \in \{p, c\}$, we extract factor-specific visual features $\mathbf{v}_{k}$ and textual features $\mathbf{t}_{k}$ from the respective streams.
% % For product branch, $\mathbf{v}_{p}$ includes the images in the landing page and meta data, while $\mathbf{t}_{p}$ includes the product title, attributes and selling points.
% % For creative branch, $\mathbf{v}_{c}$ includes the keyframes extracted from the video stream, while $\mathbf{t}_{c}$ includes the asr, ocr and video summary text produced by the Qwen3-Omni model.
% % We employ a joint InfoNCE objective to maximize the intra-factor alignment within each semantic subspace:
% % \begin{equation}
% % \mathcal{L}_{align} = \sum_{k \in \{p, c\}} \left( -\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \log \frac{\exp(\text{sim}(\mathbf{v}_{k,i}, \mathbf{t}_{k,i}) / \tau)}{\sum_{j=1}^{N} \exp(\text{sim}(\mathbf{v}_{k,i}, \mathbf{t}_{k,j}) / \tau)} \right),
% % \end{equation}
% % where $N$ is the batch size and $\tau$ is the temperature hyper-parameter. This decoupled optimization ensures that the encoder captures mutually exclusive features—intrinsic product attributes versus dynamic creative styles—thereby providing granular representations for downstream tasks.
% % \noindent\textbf{Training Protocol.} Our training pipeline comprises two progressive stages: an initial cross-modal alignment phase using 50 million data samples (comprising 70\% advertisement videos and 30\% general videos), followed by a fusion-modal training phase using 30 million ad-exclusive samples to refine domain-specific semantics. The model is optimized using the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of $2 \times 10^{-5}$ and a total batch size of 1536.
% To ensure the two embeddings $\mathbf{e}_{prod}, \mathbf{e}_{crea}$ capture mutually exclusive semantics, we utilize the branch-specific training data and optimize each branch with a dedicated contrastive objective.
% % For the product branch, videos sharing the same product are treated as positive pairs, while other videos serve as negatives, encouraging the product embedding to focus on product-level identity regardless of creative presentation.
% % For the creative branch, we retrieve videos from the same user's interaction history and use a video-language model to select style-similar videos (e.g., similar narrative tone, shooting technique) across different products as positives, while videos showing same products but with different creative styles serve as negatives, encouraging the creative embedding to capture stylistic patterns independent of product content.
% The two contrastive objectives follow the standard InfoNCE formulation:
% $$\mathcal{L}_{k} = -\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \log \frac{\exp(\text{sim}(\mathbf{e}_{k,i}, \mathbf{e}_{k,i}^+) / \tau)}{\sum_{j=1}^{N} \exp(\text{sim}(\mathbf{e}_{k,i}, \mathbf{e}_{k,j}) / \tau)}, \quad k \in \{prod, crea\},$$
% where $\mathbf{e}_{k,i}$ is the embedding of the $i$-th sample from branch $k$, $\mathbf{e}_{k,i}^+$ is its corresponding positive sample, and $\tau$ is a temperature hyper-parameter.
% To further prevent the two branches from encoding redundant information, we introduce a sample-level orthogonality regularization term:
% $\mathcal{L}_{orth} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \left|\mathbf{e}_{prod,i}^\top\cdot \mathbf{e}_{crea,i}\right|$.
% For every video, both branches are simultaneously forwarded with their respective prompts and inputs to produce $\mathbf{e}_{prod}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{crea}$, so $\mathcal{L}_{orth}$ is computed over all training samples. In contrast, $\mathcal{L}_{prod}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{crea}$ are each computed only over their branch-specific positive and negative pairs, and are alternated across batches. The final training objective is:
% $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_{prod/crea} + \lambda\mathcal{L}_{orth},$
% where $\mathcal{L}_{prod/crea}$ denotes whichever contrastive loss is active in the current batch, and $\lambda$ is a hyper-parameter controlling the strength of the orthogonality constraint.
% \noindent\textbf{Discrete Tokenization for Generation.} To facilitate generative recommendation within the latent space, we transform the continuous multimodal embeddings into a sequence of discrete tokens, termed Semantic IDs (SIDs).
% Given a historical ad video, we concatenate the decoupled continuous embeddings $\mathbf{e}_{prod} \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{crea} \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ to form the joint representation $\mathbf{e}_{v} \in \mathbb{R}^{2d}$.
% This vector is passed through a Residual Quantization (RQ) K-means algorithm~\cite{luo2024qarm}, where it is approximated by a sum of codebook vectors. This process maps the high-dimensional dense vector into a 4-layer discrete tuple $(s^1, s^2, s^3, s^4)$, with each layer maintaining a codebook size of 8192. These tokens serve as the vocabulary for the subsequent Latent Intetest Model to reason within the user interest space.
% \subsubsection{Evaluation Metrics \& Results}
% \label{app:encoder_exp}
% We evaluate the representation capability of the proposed Dual-Branch Semantic (DBS) Encoder from two distinct perspectives: the semantic similarity between two embeddings $\mathbf{e}_{prod}, \mathbf{e}_{crea}$ and source video, and the creative discriminability of the quantized Semantic IDs (SIDs).
% To evaluate the semantic similarity between $\mathbf{e}_{prod}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{crea}$ source video, we perform approximate nearest neighbor (ANN) search. Our test sets are constructed to assess retrieval within specific categories: 50,000 unique product categories for $\mathbf{e}_{prod}$ and 12,702 unique creative styles for $\mathbf{e}_{crea}$. For each category, two distinct samples form a ground truth positive pair. Recall@K (R@K) is adopted as the primary evaluation metric, measuring the proportion of queries for one sample whose ground truth counterpart is found among the top K nearest neighbors.We evaluate the quantitative results of semantic relevance of embeddings in Table~\ref{tab:UA-Emb-Relevance} and Figure~\ref{fig:tsne_uniemb}.
% \begin{table}[hbt]
% \centering
% \caption{\small Offline Evaluation for Semantic Relevance on product/creative embedding of Dual-Branch Semantic (DBS) Encoder.}
% \label{tab:UA-Emb-Relevance}
% \resizebox{0.8\columnwidth}{!}{%
% \small
% \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
% \toprule
% \multirow{2}{*}{\textbf{Methods}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Product-level Recall}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Creative-level Recall}} \\
% \cmidrule(lr){2-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-7}
% & \textbf{R@1}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@5}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@10}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@1}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@5}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@10}$\uparrow$ \\
% \midrule
% VLM2Vec-V2~\cite{meng2025vlm2vec} & - & - & - & 0.485 & 0.690 & 0.756 \\
% QARM~\cite{luo2024qarm} & - & - & - & 0.541 & 0.812 & 0.893 \\
% Qwen2.5-VL-7B~\cite{qwen3embedding} & 0.806 & 0.915 & 0.944 & 0.769 & 0.948 & 0.977 \\
% \textbf{Ours (DBS Encoder)} & \textbf{0.879} & \textbf{0.955} & \textbf{0.975} & \textbf{0.896} & \textbf{0.985} & \textbf{0.994} \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% }
% \vspace{-1em}
% \end{table}
% \begin{figure}[h]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/tsne_uniemb_fig_v2.pdf}
% \vspace{-0.2in}
% \caption{\small t-SNE visualization of the embeddings learned by the DBS Encoder on 15 creative categories.}
% \label{fig:tsne_uniemb}
% \end{figure}
% % \begin{table}[hbt]
% % \centering
% % \caption{\small Offline Evaluation of Dual-Branch Semantic (DBS) Encoder.}
% % \label{tab:UA-Emb}
% % \resizebox{0.8\columnwidth}{!}{%
% % \small
% % \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
% % \toprule
% % \textit{Semantic Relevance} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Product-level Recall}} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{Creative-level Recall}} \\
% % \cmidrule(lr){2-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-7}
% % & \textbf{R@1}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@5}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@10}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@1}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@5}$\uparrow$ & \textbf{R@10}$\uparrow$ \\
% % \cmidrule(lr){2-5} \cmidrule(lr){5-7}
% % \ \ VLM2Vec-V2~\cite{meng2025vlm2vec} & - & - & - & 0.485 & 0.690 & 0.756 \\
% % \ \ QARM~\cite{luo2024qarm} & - & - & - & 0.541 & 0.812 & 0.893 \\
% % \ \ Qwen2.5-VL-7B~\cite{qwen3embedding} & 0.806 & 0.915 & 0.944 & 0.769 & 0.948 & 0.977 \\
% % \ \ \textbf{Ours (DBS Encoder)} & \textbf{0.879} & \textbf{0.955} & \textbf{0.975} & \textbf{0.896} & \textbf{0.985} & \textbf{0.994} \\
% % \midrule
% % \textit{Creative Discriminability} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Compression Score}$\downarrow$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Collision Ratio}$\downarrow$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Utilization Ratio}$\uparrow$} \\
% % \cmidrule(lr){2-7}
% % \ \ QARM~\cite{luo2024qarm} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{1.36} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{37.24\%} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.10\textperthousand} \\
% % \ \ \textbf{Ours (DBS Encoder)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{1.05}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{18.02\%}} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{0.34\textperthousand}} \\
% % \bottomrule
% % \end{tabular}
% % }
% % \vspace{-1em}
% % \end{table}
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
% \item \textbf{Semantic Relevance.} As shown in Table~\ref{tab:UA-Emb-Relevance}, our method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Compared to the strong baseline Qwen2.5-VL-7B, our approach achieves an R@1 of 0.879 (Product) and 0.896 (Creative). This consistency confirms that our discrete tokens effectively capture core product identities and specific nuances of creatives.
% \item \textbf{Qualitative Visualization.} We also adopt t-SNE visualization for qualitative evaluation, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tsne_uniemb}, our method achieves a significantly higher Silhouette Coefficient (SC: 0.397) compared to baselines, resulting in more distinct and compact semantic clusters.
% \end{itemize}
% We evaluate the Interest Discriminability of SIDs in Table~\ref{tab:UA-SID-Discriminability}. While Semantic IDs (SIDs) are evaluated using two specific metrics to assess the representational efficiency: Compression Score (Cpr) and Collision Ratio (Col).
% \begin{equation}
% \mathrm{Cpr} = \frac{\text{\# Video}}{\text{\# SID}}, \quad
% \mathrm{Col} = 1-\frac{\text{\# one-on-one SID}}{\text{\# SID}}
% % , \quad
% % \mathrm{Util} = \frac{\text{\# Video}}{\text{\# Codebook Space}},
% \end{equation}
% where \#Video represents the total number of videos in the training set, \#SID is the distinct SID count after discrete tokenization, and `one-on-one SID' represents the total SID cluster count associated with only one video.
% \begin{table}[hbt]
% \centering
% \caption{\small Offline Evaluation for Interest Discriminability of SIDs from Dual-Branch Semantic (DBS) Encoder.}
% \label{tab:UA-SID-Discriminability}
% \resizebox{0.6\columnwidth}{!}{%
% \small
% \begin{tabular}{lccc}
% \toprule
% \textbf{Methods} & \textbf{Compression Score}$\downarrow$ & \textbf{Collision Ratio}$\downarrow$ \\ % & \textbf{Utilization Ratio}$\uparrow$
% \midrule
% QARM~\cite{luo2024qarm} & 1.36 & 37.24\% \\ % & 0.10\textperthousand
% \textbf{Ours (DBS Encoder)} & \textbf{1.05} & \textbf{18.02\%} \\ % & \textbf{0.34\textperthousand}
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% }
% \vspace{-1em}
% \end{table}
% \textbf{Interest Discriminability.}
% Our method drastically lowers the collision ratio to 18.02\%, down from QARM’s 37.24\%. Along with a reduced compression score (1.05), our framework effectively establishes a more discriminative and representative latent interest space.
% % ==========================================
% % Module 2: Latent Interest Modeling
% % ==========================================
% \subsection{Module 2: Latent Interest Modeling (LIM)}
% \label{app:LIM}
% \subsubsection{Model Training and Implementation Details}
% Our LIM design for advertising scenarios largely follows the model configuration of GR4AD~\cite{xue2026gr4ad}.
% In the training stage, the model takes two inputs: (1) user context $\mathbf{C}$, constructed from static profile attributes $F_{prof}$ (e.g., age, gender, region, device) and multiple historical behavior sequences $F_{seq}$, where each historical interaction is embedded via sparse embedding table, forming a sequence of latent interest tokens that captures the user's evolving preferences in the semantic space; and (2) a prefix SID sequence $[BOS, s^1, s^2, s^3]$ derived from the target product. The model auto-regressively predicts the full SID tuple $(s^1, s^2, s^3, s^4)$ on each prefix token, the output representing the user's latent interest. We apply a standard cross-entropy loss to the four predicted tokens for model training.
% Specifically, every token id in the interest sequence will query the sparse embedding table to obtain a embedding feature, which is subsequently projected and mapped into a standard 768-dimensional LazyDecoder hidden space for further processing. The LazyDecoder is instantiated as a 7-layer Transformer decoder with a vocabulary size of 8192, a feed-forward dimension of 3072, and 12 attention heads. All attention layers are implemented using Flash Attention~\cite{dao2023flashattention2} to improve training and inference efficiency. During training, we employ 8 GPUs with a total batch size of 8192, and optimize the model using Adam optimizer with a learning rate of $1\times10^{-4}$. For inference, we apply beam search for SID generation with a beam size of 512, achieving an overall throughput of 130 QPS.
% % ==========================================
% % Module 3: Creative Instruction Model
% % ==========================================
% \subsection{Module 3: Creative Instruction Model}
% \label{app:creative_instruction_model}
% \subsubsection{Data Construction}
% For the creative instruction model, we curate a high-quality dataset which consist of 1M online ad videos. For each video, we extract ground truth embeddings $\mathbf{e}_{prod}^{gt}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{crea}^{gt}$ using the above mentioned DBS Encoder. Simultaneously, a proprietary Video-Language Model (VLM) parses the video to generate a ground truth summary $Y_{gt}$, comprehensively covering audience analysis and visual narrative style, which acts as the creative
% instruction for the following process.
% \subsubsection{Model Training and Safeguards of Inference}
% The Creative Instruction Model uses a LLM as backbone, which accepts heterogeneous multimodal inputs: (i) the abstract latent user interest embedding, and (ii) fine-grained textual metadata describing the currently available themes.
% We optimize the model using a comprehensive three-stage multimodal alignment paradigm:
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
% \item \textbf{Stage 1: Modality Alignment.} We freeze the pre-trained LLM backbone and exclusively train the projector $\phi$ to align the latent user interest space with the LLM's textual embedding space.
% \item \textbf{Stage 2: Instruction Tuning.} We unfreeze all parameters to jointly optimize the projector and the LLM via Next Token Prediction (NTP):
% $$ \mathcal{L}_{NTP} = - \sum_{t=1}^{L} \log P(y_t | y_{<t}, \mathbf{H}_{in}) $$
% \item \textbf{Stage 3: RL Fine-tuning.} We utilize Qwen3-Embedding-8B~\cite{qwen3embedding} as a feature extractor to calculate the text embedding cosine similarity between the generated creative instruction $\hat{Y}$ and $Y_{gt}$, acting as the reward signal of GRPO~\cite{shao2024deepseekmath}.
% \end{itemize}
% \textbf{Safeguards of Inference:}
% In the inference stage, we apply reverse RQ-KMeans decoding to reconstruct the predicted SID sequence back into its continuous dense representation $\mathbf{e}_{v} \in \mathbb{R}^{2d}$, which is then split into $\mathbf{e}_{prod} \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\mathbf{e}_{crea} \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$.
% To mitigate hallucinations during online inference, we implement a rigorous \textit{Two-Step Consistency Filter}:
% \noindent\textbf{Step 1:Pre-decoding Retrieval \& Embedding Check.}
% Upon receiving a product embedding $\mathbf{e}_{prod}$, we first retrieve the nearest neighbor from the full product catalogue and obtain its corresponding theme metadata $T_\text{hist}$. If the similarity between the retrieved embedding $\mathbf{e}_{hist}$ and the query $\mathbf{e}_{prod}$ falls below a threshold $\tau$, i.e., $\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{e}_{prod}, \mathbf{e}_{hist}) < 0.9$, the request is discarded, preventing unreliable or non-existing products from propagating into downstream generation.
% \noindent\textbf{Step 2:Post-decoding Hallucination Verification.}
% Once the model produces the creative instruction $\hat{Y}$, an auxiliary LLM cross-examines $\hat{Y}$ against the retrieved metadata $T_\text{meta}$, identifying any claimed product attributes, features, or descriptions that are absent from or inconsistent with $T_\text{meta}$. Output with hallucinated content is rejected before it can propagate into the video generation pipeline.
% \subsubsection{Evaluation Metrics \& Results}
% \label{app:cim_exp}
% \begin{figure}[h]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Figures/pcd_ablation_bar_line.pdf}
% \vspace{-0.1in}
% \caption{\small Ablation study of Creative Instruction Model on different scales of data and parameters.}
% \label{fig:pcd_ablation_bar_line}
% \end{figure}
% We select decoding fidelity as the metric, which is quantified by extracting text embeddings from generated creative instructions and ground-truth summary using Qwen3-Embedding-8B and computing their average cosine similarity.
% We conduct ablation studies across varying data scales (100K vs. 1M training samples) and model architectures (Qwen3-8B vs. Qwen3-32B), evaluating them on a held-out test set of 5,000 samples.
% As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:pcd_ablation_bar_line}, performance consistently improves with both data volume and model capacity. The 32B model trained on 1M samples achieves the highest semantic alignment, yielding a similarity score of 0.8212, which indicates a high level of faithfulness on user interests. Thus, we adopt this configuration for online deployment.
% % ==========================================
% % Module 4: Agentic Video Generation System
% % ==========================================
% \subsection{Module 4: Agentic Video Generator}
% \label{app:avgs}
% \subsubsection{Data Curation}
% \label{app：avgsdata}
% \paragraph{Training Data Construction.}
% To cultivate the dual retrieval and generation capabilities of the Agentic Video Generator, we curated a training dataset from real-world video advertisements with superior business value (e.g., high conversion rates). This dataset was further refined through a rigorous filtering process to exclude content with low aesthetic quality\footnote{\url{https://github.com/LAION-AI/aesthetic-predictor}}, niche categories (e.g., serialized short dramas), and redundant video samples.
% \textbf{Retrieval Training Data.} The key challenge in retrieval is not filtering out obviously wrong clips, but recognizing candidates that \emph{look} relevant but are actually a poor fit. For example, a luxury showcase clip may visually resemble a ``quality lifestyle'' handbag ad, yet carry a completely different marketing target. To address this, we design a two-tier hard-negative sampling strategy that directly targets this type of confusion.
% For each ground-truth video, we build a candidate pool that includes its ground-truth clip-instruction pairs along with two types of hard negatives: some from different categories and some from different products. We then remove any negatives that are too similar to the ground truth using cosine similarity scores from our domain-adapted CLIP encoder, to avoid mislabeling noisy samples as negatives.
% This two-level design exposes the model to a range of difficulty levels, from obvious mismatches to subtle semantic differences, pushing the model to build increasingly precise judgment under realistic conditions.
% \textbf{Generative Training Data.} The agent need to recognize when the available corpus is insufficient for a given creative instruction and invoke generative tools to bridge the gap. To optimize this, We prepare the data through two complementary masking strategies. First, we mask a subset of ground-truth clips and remove them from the candidate pool. The agent can still retrieve a video from the remaining creative instruction, but the resulting output inevitably exhibits semantic gaps at the masked clips, causing the reward models (trained on ground-truth data) to assign lower scores. By masking these clips, we encourage the agent to generate proper prompts for video or image generation tools, in order to fill the semantic gaps and recover high rewards.
% Second, we systematically replace partial ground-truth instructions with high-quality invocation calls. This teaches the model to decide \emph{whether} a invocation calls is needed and \emph{what} generation settings best match the expectations of the target interest group.
% Together, these two masking mechanisms enable the agent to learn a cost-aware policy that balances existing material reuse, and personalized content generation within a single unified training objective.
% \textbf{Reward Model Training Data.} Beyond the training data for agent RL, we also curate supervision data for reward model training. This pipeline is shared across $R_{\text{param}}$ and most step-level reward models. For each source video, the clip-instruction pair serve as perfect positive samples.
% Subsequently, a Large Language Model (LLM) is employed to introduce controlled perturbations into these annotations. We then quantitatively re-evaluate the modified annotations to assign updated quality scores.
% % We then use an LLM to rewrite these annotations at three levels of distortion~(\emph{minor}, \emph{moderate}, and \emph{severe}) to produce imperfect variants that progressively deviate from the original intent, while remaining fluent and plausible. Since perturbation level alone is a coarse proxy for true alignment quality, we apply a LLM model to re-score each rewritten pair and produce fine-grained continuous scores as supervision signals.
% Finally, these (pair, score) samples are then used to train the reward models to distinguish nuanced differences in alignment quality, providing dense and calibrated learning signals for RL optimization.
% \subsubsection{Model Training and Implementation Details}
% To optimize Agentic Video Generator while maintaining structural integrity and semantic alignment, we adopt GDPO~\cite{liu2026gdpo} as our reinforcement learning backbone. GDPO is a multi-reward RL optimization method designed for fine-grained credit assignment, which we apply across five hierarchical production tracks $\mathcal{I} = ({\mathcal{I}_{\text{visual}}, \mathcal{I}_{\text{voice}}, \mathcal{I}_{\text{bgm}}, \mathcal{I}_{\text{subtitle}}, \mathcal{I}_{\text{effect}}})$.
% Following GDPO, we decouple the advantage calculation for all reward dimensions $k \in \mathcal{K}$. The normalized advantage $\hat{A}_{i,t}^{(k)}$ is computed independently per dimension:
% \begin{equation} \hat{A}_{i,t}^{(k)} = \frac{r_{i,t}^{(k)} - \bar{r}_t^{(k)}}{\max(\sigma(r_t^{(k)}), \delta)} \end{equation}
% The final combined advantage for policy update is $A_{i,t} = \sum_{k \in \mathcal{K}} \lambda_k \cdot \hat{A}_{i,t}^{(k)}$. This ensures that sparse hard-constraint penalties and dense quality signals contribute balanced gradients.
% We train a Qwen-32B model using the VERL framework~\cite{sheng2024hybridflow}, we set the rollout sampling size to 16 and train for two epochs over 20K curated examples.
% \subsubsection{Implementation Details of the Workflow-Based Video Generation Baseline}
% \label{app:baseline_details}
% The workflow-based video generation serves as our primary baseline, operating as a decoupled, multi-stage system. It consists of the following sequential modules:
% \noindent\textbf{Script Generation.}
% The script generation module is driven by the Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct model, which takes Creative Instruction $\hat{Y}$ as the input. The candidate visual assets are constructed by candidate asset collection $\mathcal{A}$, which is same as~\ref{sec:decoding} and videos generated based on product information but without taking user interest as condition.
% \noindent\textbf{Rough Cut (Visual Matching).}
% To align the generated script with visual assets, the system employs a CLIP-based matching model containing approximately 1B parameters. This model calculates the semantic similarity to accurately match individual script lines with corresponding video clips\cite{yin2024text}.
% \noindent\textbf{Fine Cut (Multi-Element Assembly).}
% The fine-grained video editing is handled by several specialized lightweight models and rule-based strategies:
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*, parsep=0pt, itemsep=2pt, topsep=2pt]
% \item \textbf{Background Music (BGM):} Selected using a ViT-B/32 based model with approximately 0.1B parameters\cite{xin2025music}.
% \item \textbf{Sound Effects and Stickers:} Predicted and matched via an independent CLIP-based model, also containing approximately 0.2B parameters\cite{liu2025d}.
% \item \textbf{TTS and Subtitles:} Selected through a rule-based configuration strategy, which samples voice timbres and subtitle styles from predefined, industry-specific candidate sets.
% \end{itemize}
% \noindent\textbf{Execution Efficiency.}
% Despite the fundamental architectural differences between this decoupled multi-model pipeline and our unified framework, the end-to-end single-run execution time for this baseline is approximately 180 seconds. This duration is strictly comparable to the inference latency of our proposed Agentic VGS, which also completes a single generation pass in approximately 180 seconds. This ensures that all downstream quantitative and qualitative comparisons are conducted under fair and equivalent computational time constraints.
% \subsubsection{Reward Formulations}
% \label{app:reward_details}
% In our GDPO framework, each generation step corresponds to a specific track $t \in \{1, 2, 3, 4, 5\}$. The total reward for track $t$ is defined as:
% \begin{equation}
% R_t = w_t \, R_{\text{global}} + r_t
% \end{equation}
% where $R_{\text{global}}$ is a shared global interest faithfulness reward, $r_t$ is the step-level correctness reward, and $w_t$ controls the magnitude of global alignment signal injected into each track. We set $w_1 = 0.5$ for the visual track and $w_2 = w_3 = w_4 = w_5 = 0.125$ for other tracks. Since the visual backbone is the primary carrier of user-interest semantics, a larger $w_1$ amplifies its advantage signal under GDPO, producing stronger policy gradients toward globally coherent visual generation. Other tracks receive a smaller global weight, ensuring their optimization is primarily driven by modality-specific quality while still being softly anchored to the user intent.
% \paragraph{Global Interest Alignment Reward ($R_{\text{global}}$).}
% The global reward evaluates the overall Alignment between the user interest and the generated instructions or video. It is shared across all tracks and defined as:
% \begin{equation}
% R_{\text{global}} = R_{\text{param}} + R_{\text{embed}}
% \end{equation}
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
% \item \textbf{Parametric Alignment} ($R_{\text{param}}$): Evaluates the logical consistency between track-wise instruction set $\mathcal{I}$ and creative instructions $\hat{Y}$ using a pre-trained reward model $\text{RM}_{\phi}(\hat{Y}, \mathcal{I}) \in [0, 1]$.
% To train this reward model, we first take the ground-truth instruction set $\mathcal{I}_{gt}$ and apply an LLM to rewrite it at varying degrees of structural distortion. Each rewritten variant is then assigned a graded quality score. These pairs serve as supervised training data, teaching $\text{RM}_{\phi}$ to assess how faithfully a generated track-wise instruction set $\mathcal{I}$ preserves the intent of the original $\hat{Y}$.
% \item \textbf{Embedding Alignment} ($R_{\text{embed}}$): To avoid the cost of video rendering, we use lightweight proxies (keyframes/T2I frames) to compute consistency with user target interests: $R_{\text{embed}} = \frac{1 + \mathrm{sim}(\hat{e}_{v}, e_\text{proxy}\; )}{2} \in [0, 1].$
% \end{itemize}
% \paragraph{Step-Level Correctness Reward ($r_t$).}
% To ensure numerical stability and balanced optimization, we standardize all local reward components to the range $[0, 1]$. All quality-based reward models (RMs) are trained in-house on curated annotation data specific to each modality. Each track reward $r_t \in [0, 1]$ consists of weighted quality scores and multiplicative gating functions. The five track rewards are detailed below.
% \vspace{4pt}
% \noindent\underline{\textit{Visual Track Reward ($r_1$):}}
% As the primary track establishing the visual backbone, $r_1$ is gated by an existence check $\mathbb{I}_{\text{exist}}$ (where $\mathbb{I}_{\text{exist}}=0$ if any selected asset is invalid, otherwise $1$) and composed of four metrics:
% \begin{equation}
% r_1 = \mathbb{I}_{\text{exist}} \cdot \left( 0.1 R_1^1 + 0.3 R_1^2 + 0.3 R_1^3 + 0.4 R_1^4 \right).
% \end{equation}
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
% \item \textbf{Aesthetic Score ($R_1^1$)}: This is a continuous reward evaluating visual clarity, lighting, and composition. We adopt the \textit{LAION Aesthetic Predictor}\footnote{\url{https://github.com/LAION-AI/aesthetic-predictor}}, a CLIP-based regression head trained on human preference annotations, as the backbone.
% \item \textbf{Gen-Consistency ($R_1^2$)}: This measures semantic stability across generated clips or retrieved clips. This is assessed by a consistency RM trained on annotated frame-pair data to provide a continuous confidence score $\in [0, 1]$.
% \item \textbf{Duration Validation ($R_1^3$)}: This is a standardized piecewise reward based on the ratio $\rho = T_{act} / T_{tgt}$, ensuring the generated content meets the required temporal constraints:
% \begin{equation}
% R_1^3(\rho) = \begin{cases}
% \rho, & \text{if } \rho < 1.0 \\
% 1.0, & \text{if } 1.0 \le \rho \le 1.5 \\
% \max(0, 1.0 - 0.5(\rho - 1.5)), & \text{if } \rho > 1.5
% \end{cases}
% \end{equation}
% \item \textbf{Instruction Score ($R_1^4$)}: This reflects the intrinsic quality of the creative instruction. The score is derived from a quality RM fine-tuned on manually annotated pairs.
% \end{itemize}
% \vspace{4pt}
% \noindent\underline{\textit{Voice Track Reward ($r_2$):}}
% Focuses on the quality of synthesized speech or selected voiceover:
% \begin{equation}
% r_2 = R_2^1\,(\mathcal{I}_{\text{visual}},\mathcal{I}_{\text{voice}}) \in [0, 1]
% \end{equation}
% The \textit{TTS Quality Score} assesses audio-visual coherence, naturalness, and prosody. The RM is trained on manually annotated video-audio pairs, providing fine-grained supervision beyond binary acceptability to ensure the voice matches the visual rhythm.
% \vspace{4pt}
% \noindent\underline{\textit{BGM Track Reward ($r_3$):}}
% Evaluates the background music's suitability for the theme metadata $T_\text{meta}$:
% \begin{equation}
% r_3 = R_3^1\,(\mathcal{I}_{\text{visual}},\mathcal{I}_{\text{bgm}}) \in [0, 1]
% \end{equation}
% This score measures the emotional resonance and rhythmic alignment of music with visual cuts. The RM is trained on annotated music--video pairs where annotators rated marketing tone appropriateness and energy match.
% \vspace{4pt}
% \noindent\underline{\textit{Subtitle Track Reward ($r_4$):}}
% Assesses textual elements overlaid on the video:
% \begin{equation}
% r_4 = 0.6 R_4^1\,(\mathcal{I}_{\text{visual}},\mathcal{I}_{\text{subtitle}}) + 0.4 R_4^2\,(\mathcal{I}_{\text{visual}},\mathcal{I}_{\text{title}}) \in [0, 1]
% \end{equation}
% \textit{Subtitle Quality ($R_4^1$)} focuses on readability and grammatical correctness across varied languages. \textit{Title Quality ($R_4^2$)} evaluates marketing appeal and font-style appropriateness based on paired human preference annotations.
% \vspace{4pt}
% \noindent\underline{\textit{Effect Track Reward ($r_5$):}}
% Focuses on final visual enrichment through stickers and special effects:
% \begin{equation}
% r_5 = \mathbb{I}_{\text{pos}} \cdot R_5^1\,(\mathcal{I}_{\text{visual}},\mathcal{I}_{\text{effect}}) \in [0, 1]
% \end{equation}
% The reward is gated by a \textit{Position Check} $\mathbb{I}_{\text{pos}}$, which returns $0$ if generated effect coordinates are invalid. $R_5^1$ evaluates the relevance and aesthetic integration of stickers/VFX given the underlying visual sequences.
% \subsubsection{Evaluation Metrics \& Results}
% \label{app:reward_eval}
% We evaluate Agentic VGS from three complementary perspectives:
% \textbf{interest consistency}, \textbf{automated quality assessment},
% and \textbf{human evaluation}.
% \paragraph{Interest Alignment.}
% To assess how faithfully each generated video adheres to its creative instruction, we employ Gemini~3.0 Pro as an automatic judge on a benchmark of 1{,}000 instances containing multiple categories. The Prompt is introduced in Box~\ref{box:prompt_alignment}. Each video receives an alignment score in $[0,1]$, and we compare our Agentic VGS system against a conventional retrieval pipeline baseline. Agentic VGS achieves an absolute improvement of +0.1212 ($0.7067 \rightarrow 0.8279$), indicating a substantial gain in consistency with customer intent.
% \paragraph{Automated Quality Assessment.}
% Beyond instruction alignment, we leverage Gemini~3.0 Pro for fine-grained, multi-dimensional quality scoring along four axes: \emph{Creative Instruction Attractiveness}, \emph{BGM fit}, \emph{SFX and sticker design}, and \emph{Instruction--visual alignment} , which are introduced in Box~\ref{box:prompt} in a brief overview.
% % (the full evaluation prompt is provided in Box~\ref{box:prompt}).
% Under this protocol, Agentic VGS raises the mean score by +8.9 and the median by +14, and prevails in 70.11\% win rate(1.15\%tie) of pairwise Good-Same-Bad (GSB) comparisons versus 28.74\% for the baseline, demonstrating a clear advantage in objective quality.
% \paragraph{Human Evaluation.}
% To complement automatic metrics with subjective judgment, we recruit 20 evaluators spanning diverse roles including algorithm engineers, product managers, and real advertising clients, performing 50 paired comparisons for each. In the aggregated GSB results, Agentic VGS wins 52.87\%(12.75\%tie) of comparisons against 34.38\% for the baseline, corroborating its superiority under human assessment.
% % ---- Interest Alignment Prompt Box ----
% \begin{promptbox}[Scoring Prompt for Interest Alignment Evaluation\label{box:prompt_alignment}]
% \# Role\\
% You are an expert evaluator assessing the \textit{interest alignment} between
% a creative instruction (text) and a generated video. Focus \textbf{only} on
% semantic and creative consistency; ignore video production quality
% (resolution, smoothness, aesthetics, artifacts).
% \medskip
% \# Inputs\\
% $\bullet$ \textbf{Creative Instruction}: \{creative\_instruction\}\\
% $\bullet$ \textbf{Video}: \{video\}
% \medskip
% \# Task: Score the video along five dimensions, each in $[0,1]$.
% \medskip
% \textbf{[A1] Content Fidelity}\\
% $\bullet$ Subjects/objects described in the instruction appear in the video.\\
% $\bullet$ Actions and events are accurately depicted.\\
% $\bullet$ Scenes/environments match the description.
% \medskip
% \textbf{[A2] Attribute Accuracy}\\
% $\bullet$ Visual attributes (color, shape, size, quantity, appearance) match.\\
% $\bullet$ Spatial and temporal relationships are correctly represented.
% \medskip
% \textbf{[A3] Intent \& Theme Alignment}\\
% $\bullet$ Core creative intent of the instruction is captured.\\
% $\bullet$ Mood, tone, and atmosphere align with the request.\\
% $\bullet$ Stylistic cues (cinematic / cartoon / realistic, etc.) are reflected
% when specified.
% \medskip
% \textbf{[A4] Completeness}\\
% $\bullet$ All key elements in the instruction are represented.\\
% $\bullet$ Penalize missing, extra, or hallucinated elements deviating from
% the instruction.
% \medskip
% \textbf{[A5] Narrative Coherence}\\
% $\bullet$ Sequence/story follows the intended progression.\\
% $\bullet$ Temporal flow is logical and consistent with described events.
% \medskip
% \# Scoring Scale (per dimension, continuous in $[0,1]$)\\
% 0.9--1.0 perfect; 0.7--0.9 strong (minor deviations);
% 0.5--0.7 moderate (noticeable deviations);
% 0.3--0.5 weak (major elements missing);
% 0.0--0.3 poor (largely unrelated).
% \medskip
% \# Output: JSON only.
% \begin{verbatim}
% {"content_fidelity":{"score":0.0,"justification":""},
% "attribute_accuracy":{"score":0.0,"justification":""},
% "intent_theme_alignment":{"score":0.0,"justification":""},
% "completeness":{"score":0.0,"justification":""},
% "narrative_coherence":{"score":0.0,"justification":""},
% "overall_alignment_score":0.0,
% "overall_summary":"",
% "key_mismatches":[],
% "strengths":[]}
% \end{verbatim}
% \# Rules: All scores are continuous in $[0,1]$. The
% \texttt{overall\_alignment\_score} is a holistic judgment, not necessarily
% the arithmetic mean of sub-scores. Evidence (specific objects, actions,
% timestamps, or quoted phrases) is required; no vague judgments. Do
% \textbf{not} reward or penalize based on video production quality unless
% the instruction explicitly specifies such attributes.
% \end{promptbox}
% % ---- The compact prompt window ----
% \begin{promptbox}[Scoring Prompt for Automated Video Quality Assessment\label{box:prompt}]
% \# Role\\
% You are a professional short-video advertising analyst, evaluating ad quality
% from editing and audio-visual perspectives.
% \medskip
% \# Task: Score the video along four dimensions (100 pts total).
% \medskip
% \textbf{[D1] Creative Instruction Attractiveness (25)}\\
% $\bullet$ Hook (0--10): pain-point / suspense / benefit-first / contrast /
% shock. 8--10 sharp, 5--7 mild, 0--1 chaotic.\\
% $\bullet$ Pacing (0--8): logical progression, no redundancy ($>$5s repeat),
% memory anchors.\\
% $\bullet$ CTA (0--7): explicit call-to-action, urgency, echo of opening.
% \medskip
% \textbf{[D2] BGM Fit \& Impact (25)}\\
% $\bullet$ Mood match (0--10): tempo/mood aligned with content tone.\\
% $\bullet$ Beat sync (0--10): cuts and keyframes aligned with beats.\\
% $\bullet$ Volume balance (0--5): voice clarity, no clipping/silence.
% \medskip
% \textbf{[D3] SFX \& Sticker Design (25)}\\
% $\bullet$ SFX (0--12): transition / emphasis / ambient / emotional
% (0--3 each; penalize over-stacking).\\
% $\bullet$ Stickers (0--13): subtitles, price tags, arrows, emoji, motion FX;
% style must be consistent.
% \medskip
% \textbf{[D4] Instruction--Visual Alignment (25)}\\
% $\bullet$ Keyword match (0--12): extract 3--5 key nouns, check visual
% correspondence per timestamp.\\
% $\bullet$ Narrative flow (0--8): visual order follows instruction logic.\\
% $\bullet$ Info gaps (0--5): deduct 1 per dead-air or copy-without-visual break.
% \medskip
% \# Output: JSON only.
% \begin{verbatim}
% {"script_attractiveness":{"total":0,"hook":{...},
% "pacing":{...},"cta":{...}},
% "bgm_fit":{"total":0,"mood_match":{...},
% "beat_sync":{...},"volume_balance":{...}},
% "sfx_sticker":{"total":0,"sfx":{...},"sticker":{...}},
% "script_visual_alignment":{"total":0,"keyword_match":{...},
% "narrative_flow":{...},"info_gap":{...}},
% "final_summary":{"total_score":0,"grade":"S/A/B/C/D",
% "strengths":[],"weaknesses":[],"top3_improvements":[]}}
% \end{verbatim}
% \# Rules: Total = 25$\times$4 = 100. Grades: S(90+)/A(75+)/B(60+)/C(45+)/D($<$45).
% Evidence (timestamp, quote, visual) required; no vague judgments.
% \end{promptbox}
% \subsection{Industrial Deployment and Scalability Results}
% \label{app:ism}
% \begin{table}[htbp]
% \centering
% \caption{\small Inference efficiency of each core component.}
% \small
% \label{tab:infer_time}
% \begin{tabular}{l c c c c }
% \toprule
% \textbf{Component} & \textbf{Semantic Encoding} & \textbf{LIM}
% & \textbf{Interest Sampling}
% & \textbf{Agentic VGS} \\
% \midrule
% \textbf{Inference Time} & \textasciitilde 4s & \textasciitilde 100ms & \textasciitilde 200ms & \textasciitilde 180s \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \end{table}
% Since we need to model hundreds of millions of users’ interests and generate corresponding videos, the overall RaG pipeline has strict latency requirements. As shown in Table~\ref{tab:infer_time}, the most time-consuming part is the Agentic VGS.
% To reconcile the high-throughput LIM with computationally demanding video generation, we introduce an Interest Sampling Procedure which is a `resource-aware execution' pipeline coupled with dynamic interest sampling:
% \begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
% \item \textbf{Filtering:} Due to the high redundancy among predicted SIDs, we maintain a dynamic lookup table for existing video assets. The SIDs with pre-existing videos will bypass the generation pipeline to optimize system efficiency.
% % Predicted SIDs mapping to available inventory are directly routed to the ranking system, bypassing generation.
% \item \textbf{Aggregation:} For the remaining part of the predicted SIDs sequence, we employ a temporal sliding window where SIDs are partitioned by their frequency. This metric serves as an indicator of local popularity for each SID.
% \item \textbf{Interest Sampling:} Finally, rather than generating a video for every single request, we sample the Top-K popular SIDs within each window, with the value of K scaled according to the current generation system throughput.
% \end{itemize}
% By leveraging dynamic interests sampling, this approach facilitates our Agentic VGS that robustly handles large-scale traffic under stringent latency constraints.