Mosaic: A Fleet of User Embedding Specialists for Recommendation at Meta

User representation is one of the highest-leverage modeling problems in industrial recommendation systems: a single advancement in how users are encoded can propagate across retrieval, ranking, and integrity tasks at platform scale. Prior industrial user representation work builds either a single user model that emits one or more embedding vectors or a shared backbone with task-specific adaptation. In this paper, we present Mosaic, a foundational user modeling platform that employs a fleet of specialists to learn user embeddings. The fleet comprises four architecturally diverse model families - memorization-driven, dense-heavy, sequential-based, and CoTrain models - each focusing on a distinct facet of user behavior. We developed MRM (Multi-task Relations Mining) and CRL (Cosine Redundancy Loss) techniques to maximize the marginal information contribution of each new specialist. We also introduce CoEval and User Tower Zero-Out, new logging-free embedding evaluation framework that improves development velocity while preserving downstream-aligned accuracy. Our hybrid CPU/GPU, online-and-offline serving stack allows each specialist to choose the adequate serving strategy to meet the freshness, latency, and computational requirements. Mosaic delivers consistent and significant offline NE improvements in addition to online gains.

Beyond Accuracy: Measuring Bias Acknowledgment in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Responsible AI Evaluation

Reasoning models are increasingly used in settings where the final answer is not the only object of review: educational tools may show students intermediate steps, decision-support systems may require human oversight, and audit workflows may inspect traces for misleading or biased input. In such settings, two responses can receive the same final-answer score while differing in whether the trace explicitly flags injected biasing content. Accuracy-only evaluation collapses these cases. We study this gap as a measurement blind spot for responsible evaluation and introduce a minimal trace-level diagnostic with two axes: \emph{susceptibility} (whether the bias breaks a previously correct answer) and \emph{acknowledgment} (whether the trace contains a rubric-defined surface reference to the injected content). Across thousands of biased GSM8K trials, GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet~4 have similar susceptibility rates ($1.3\%$ vs.\ $1.2\%$) but substantially different acknowledgment rates ($13.0\%$ vs.\ $75.0\%$) under the same rubric.