NeurIPS 2025 Papers

Recommender systems are among the most impactful AI applications, interacting with billions of users every day, guiding them to relevant products, services, or information tailored to their preferences. However, the research and development of recommender systems are hindered by existing datasets that fail to capture realistic user behaviors and inconsistent evaluation settings that lead to ambiguous conclusions. This paper introduces the \textbf{O}pen \textbf{R}ecommendation \textbf{B}enchmark for Reproducible Research with H\textbf{I}dden \textbf{T}ests (\textbf{ORBIT}), a unified benchmark for consistent and realistic evaluation of recommendation models. ORBIT offers a standardized evaluation framework of public datasets with reproducible splits and transparent settings for its public leaderboard. Additionally, ORBIT introduces a new webpage recommendation task, ClueWeb-Reco, featuring web browsing sequences from 87 million public, high-quality webpages. ClueWeb-Reco is a synthetic dataset derived from real, user-consented, and privacy-guaranteed browsing data. It aligns with modern recommendation scenarios and is reserved as the hidden test part of our leaderboard to challenge recommendation models' generalization ability. ORBIT measures 12 representative recommendation models on its public benchmark and introduces a prompted LLM baseline on the ClueWeb-Reco hidden test. Our benchmark results reflect general improvements of recommender systems on the public datasets, with variable individual performances. The results on the hidden test reveal the limitations of existing approaches in large-scale webpage recommendation and highlight the potential for improvements with LLM integrations. ORBIT benchmark, leaderboard, and codebase are available at \url{https://www.open-reco-bench.ai}.

Recent work on large language models (LLMs) has increasingly focused on post-training and alignment with datasets curated to enhance instruction following, world knowledge, and specialized skills. However, most post-training datasets used in leading open- and closed-source LLMs remain inaccessible to the public, with limited information about their construction process. This lack of transparency has motivated the recent development of open-source post-training corpora. While training on these open alternatives can yield performance comparable to that of leading models, systematic comparisons remain challenging due to the significant computational cost of conducting them rigorously at scale, and are therefore largely absent. As a result, it remains unclear how specific samples, task types, or curation strategies influence downstream performance when assessing data quality. In this work, we conduct the first comprehensive side-by-side analysis of two prominent open post-training datasets: Tulu-3-SFT-Mix and SmolTalk. Using the Magpie framework, we annotate each sample with detailed quality metrics, including turn structure (single-turn vs. multi-turn), task category, input quality, and response quality, and we derive statistics that reveal structural and qualitative similarities and differences between the two datasets. Based on these insights, we design a principled curation recipe that produces a new data mixture, **TuluTalk**, which contains 14% fewer samples than either source dataset while matching or exceeding their performance on key benchmarks. Our findings offer actionable insights for constructing more effective post-training datasets that improve model performance within practical resource limits. To support future research, we publicly release both the annotated source datasets and our curated TuluTalk mixture.

LLMs have emerged as powerful evaluators in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, offering significant efficiency and flexibility compared to human judgments. However, previous methods primarily rely on single-point evaluations, overlooking the inherent diversity and uncertainty in human evaluations. This approach leads to information loss and decreases the reliability of evaluations. To address this limitation, we propose a novel training framework that explicitly aligns the LLM-generated judgment distribution with human evaluation distributions. Specifically, we propose a distributional alignment objective based on KL divergence, combined with an auxiliary cross-entropy regularization to stabilize the training process. Furthermore, due to limited human annotations, empirical human distributions are merely noisy estimates of the true underlying distribution. We therefore incorporate adversarial training to ensure a robust alignment with this true distribution, rather than overfitting to its imperfect approximation. Extensive experiments across various LLM backbones and evaluation tasks demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms existing closed-source LLMs and conventional single-point alignment methods, with superior alignment quality, strong robustness, and competitive evaluation accuracy.