Skip to main content
ShippedNo vapor

The AI that actually shipped

VerdictMarco Polignano (m-polignano)

Editor's first pass (AI-assisted)

Scored by an AI research pass from the linked sources; a human editor will re-score it. How we score →

Real3.5Adapters are public; sizes 0.8B, 4B, 9B and 27B exist on the Hub.
Useful3.0Gains over the baseline are small, about 0.0006 to 0.002 NDCG@10 over the no-decision-model setting.
Notable2.5Narrow research release.
Novel4.0Applies the decision format to recommender candidate ranking.
Hype gap▬ 0.0 level
Shipped

Readers

Upvotes count the readers who want this seen. Ratings are 1 to 5 scores on the four dimensions; the rating count is the number of readers who rated it. The editor’s score is shown on its own and is the headline figure. Reader ratings join the ranking only once 5 or more readers have rated, and a reader mean from fewer than 5 ratings is too few to count. How ranking works →

Decision4Rec releases Kev models that rerank recommender candidates

Apache-2.0 adapters from 0.8B to 27B that read a pool of 30 candidates and output a probability for each. Development results only.

Marco Polignano and co-authors published decision4rec-kev-9b on Hugging Face on 19 October 2026, by repository creation date. Sibling repositories at 0.8B, 4B and 27B appear on the Hub. The card describes a decision model for recommender systems. It reads the 30 best candidates from a multi-agent pool, with item text, knowledge-graph statements and the agents that found each candidate, then outputs one probability per candidate in a single forward pass.

It uses rank-16 LoRA adapters plus a pointer head on a frozen Qwen/Qwen3.5-9B-Base, starting from the jaredpalmer/kev-9b adapter. The adapter and head are Apache-2.0; the base keeps its own licence. Training was one epoch on 8,000 sampled records from Amazon Video Games, Amazon Musical Instruments and Steam.

On development users the card reports NDCG@10 of 0.0736 on Video Games, 0.0485 on Musical Instruments, 0.0798 on Steam and 0.0406 on Industrial and Scientific, which was unseen in training. The pool-plus-ranker setting without the decision model scores 0.0730, 0.0468, 0.0786 and 0.0386.

The author notes these are development results only, with a confirmatory test planned. No inference provider hosts it.

A decision model that ranks, not routes. The margins are small and the card says so.

Sources

Editor's first pass (AI-assisted)

Primary evidence

Comments