Recent studies indicate a fundamental incompatibility between ID representations and language model (LM) representations, as they capture behavioral and semantic spaces respectively. This mismatch leads LM representations to consistently underperform ID representations in recommendation tasks. In this work, we revisit this problem and show, from an information-theoretic perspective, that LLM representations retain all discriminative information in ID representations. Based on this, we introduce a Profile-then-Embedding (PtE) framework for recommendation, consisting of a Profile Stage, in which semantic user and item profiles are generated jointly through LLM-based bidirectional reasoning over user-item interactions, and a Personalized Embedding Stage, which encodes these profiles into task-aligned recommendation embeddings. We demonstrate PtE’s effectiveness across three benchmark datasets, including cold-start and long-tail scenarios, achieving substantial gains in both discriminative and generative recommendation models.

LLMs have shown impressive progress in natural language processing. However, they still face significant challenges in TableQA, where real-world complexities such as diverse table structures, multilingual data, and domain-specific reasoning are crucial. Existing TableQA benchmarks are often limited by their focus on simple flat tables and suffer from data leakage. Furthermore, most benchmarks are monolingual and fail to capture the cross-lingual and cross-domain variability in practical applications. To address these limitations, we introduce TableEval, a new benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs on realistic TableQA tasks. Specifically, TableEval includes tables with various structures (such as concise, hierarchical, and nested tables) collected from four domains (including government, finance, academia, and industry reports). Besides, TableEval features cross-lingual scenarios with tables in Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, and English. To minimize the risk of data leakage, we collect all data from recent real-world documents. Considering that existing TableQA metrics fail to capture semantic accuracy, we further propose SEAT, a new evaluation framework that assesses the alignment between model responses and reference answers at the sub-question level. Experimental results have shown that SEAT achieves high agreement with human judgment. Extensive experiments on TableEval reveal critical gaps in the ability of state-of-the-art LLMs to handle these complex, real-world TableQA tasks, offering insights for future improvements.