Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Item Association Factorization Mixed Markov Chains for Sequential Recommendation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Item-association graph lifts next-item recall up to 19%

desk verdict IAFMC is a plausible incremental extension of Fossil, but the experiments don't yet isolate the item-association signal as the source of the reported gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01429 v1 pith:Z43KUNJD submitted 2024-11-18 cs.IR

DongYu Du , Yue Chan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords itemassociationsequentialrecommendationMarkovchainfactorizationimplicitfeedbackcoldstartBayesianpersonalizedranking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a sequential recommender can be improved by explicitly modeling associations between items, not just the order in which users interact with them. Adding a graph-derived item-association term to Fossil — a hybrid of factored item-similarity and Markov-chain models — the authors propose IAFMC, which costs only about 2% more parameters. On four Amazon datasets, IAFMC raises Recall@10 by 7.18% to 19.44% over baselines and wins most metrics, while helping items and users with very little interaction history. If correct, this offers a low-cost upgrade path for sparse implicit-feedback recommendation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the item association graph: from each user's interaction sequence, adjacent item pairs are counted, and the frequency of adjacency becomes the weight on the edge between items. Each item is then represented as a weighted combination of its neighbors' latent vectors plus its own intrinsic vector, and this association-enhanced representation is multiplied into the next-item scoring function alongside Fossil's long-term FISM component and short-term Markov-chain component. The balancing hyperparameter $\beta$ controls how much weight the association term carries, and the whole model is trained with a pairwise BPR-style objective under stochastic gradient descent.

What would settle it

Run IAFMC with the item association graph replaced by a randomized graph that preserves each item's degree (the same number of neighbors and similar edge weights, but with neighbors drawn at random). If Recall@10 still improves by roughly the same margin over Fossil, the claim that genuine item-association structure drives the improvement is falsified. A second check: choose $\beta$ without using the validation/test labels and see whether the gains shrink.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that item association information — defined by how often items appear adjacent to each other in user behavior sequences — can be factorized and injected into a Markov-chain recommendation model so that it captures overall item correlation without substantially increasing parameter count. IAFMC builds an item association graph from the training sequences, represents each item by the frequency-weighted embeddings of its neighboring items, and adds this term to Fossil's scoring function under a balancing weight $\beta$. The result is that Recall@10 improves by 7.18%–19.44% across the four Amazon datasets, NDCG improves on almost every metric (the exception is NDCG@5 on Toys), and items with three or fewer interactions jump from near-zero recall under Fossil to 7‰–81‰ under IAFMC.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the item association graph, built from co-occurrence frequencies in the same training sequences, carries signal beyond what Fossil's item-similarity and Markov-chain factors already capture; if it does not, the reported gains could come from extra parameters or from tuning $\beta$ on the validation set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • IAFMC's Recall@10 gains of 7.18%–19.44% on four Amazon datasets imply that item-association structure is a useful signal for next-item ranking in sparse implicit-feedback settings.
  • The parameter increase stays between 2.12% and 2.17% relative to Fossil, so the improvement is not bought by a larger model.
  • Users with long interaction histories and items with very few interactions benefit most; the paper attributes this to associations letting rare items borrow signal from frequent neighbors.
  • The paper's convergence curves show IAFMC learns faster in the first 100 iterations than Fossil, which it credits to pre-computing item relations before training.
  • The authors' planned next steps — higher-order association information and injecting the association graph into deep-learning recommenders — are direct corollaries of treating the graph as a cheap, orthogonal signal.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the association graph is built from the same training sequences that feed Fossil's FISM term, the marginal gains could partly reflect extra model capacity or regularization rather than genuine association structure; a randomized-graph ablation would clarify this.
  • The adjacency-frequency weights are essentially a first-order item-transition matrix; one could test whether adding temporal decay or higher-order proximity further improves the term.
  • The cold-start result suggests the same graph could be used to initialize embeddings for newly appearing items in online or streaming settings, a regime the paper does not test.
  • The $\beta$-tuning experiments select the best $\beta$ using the validation set per dataset; a fairer comparison would fix $\beta$ from training data alone, since tuning on validation can overstate the contribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Item Association Factorization Mixed Markov Chains (IAFMC), an extension of the Fossil sequential recommendation model. IAFMC augments Fossil's scoring function with an item association term derived from an item association graph, which is constructed from adjacent-item co-occurrence frequencies in the training sequences. The model is trained with a BPR pairwise loss optimized by SGD. Experiments on four Amazon datasets (Beauty, Office, Tools, Toys) report Recall@10 improvements of 7.18–19.44% over Fossil and other baselines, with only a modest increase in the number of parameters (about 2.1–2.2%). The paper also includes a study of the balancing hyperparameter β, learning curves, and subgroup analyses for users and items with different interaction frequencies.

Significance. If the reported gains hold, IAFMC would be a simple, low-cost improvement over a well-known baseline, with clear value for sparse implicit-feedback sequential recommendation. The model is conceptually straightforward and the parameter overhead is indeed small. The paper's strength is that the core idea is easy to implement and the empirical comparisons cover several standard baselines. However, the evidence for the central claim—that the item association signal is responsible for the gains—is currently incomplete: there are no ablation or control experiments, hyperparameters appear to be selected on the test set, and no uncertainty estimates are provided. These issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope and do not invalidate the approach, but they must be addressed before the claim can be considered supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.5.1 (Effect of The Hyperparameter β)] The hyperparameter β is selected by evaluating Recall@10 on the test data, and the text states that "the best performance is achieved" on the test data. This selection-on-test-set procedure biases the reported improvements in Table 3, because the model configuration is chosen using the same data on which performance is reported. Please select β (and other hyperparameters) using the validation set only, then report test performance for the chosen configuration, ideally averaged over multiple runs.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Section 4.5.2] The central claim that the item association graph is responsible for the 7.18–19.44% Recall@10 improvements over Fossil is not supported by any ablation or control experiment. Since the graph is built from adjacent-item co-occurrence in the same training sequences, its signal overlaps with Fossil's FISM and Markov-chain terms. Add control conditions: (i) IAFMC with randomly shuffled association weights, (ii) IAFMC with the association term removed but retaining the added m+1 parameters, and (iii) an equivalent model with an equal number of additional free parameters but no association structure. Without such controls, the gains could be due to added model capacity or the self-term rather than to item association information.
  3. [Section 3.3] The construction of the item association graph is only described informally in Fig. 1. Please provide a formal definition: what counts as an adjacent pair (e.g., all co-occurring items within a window, or only consecutive items), whether the graph is directed or undirected, how weights are aggregated across users and normalized, and whether the self-term w_i is a separate learnable parameter or a fixed quantity. Equation (2) should be written explicitly with all indices and sums, since the current text leaves the definition of the item association vector ambiguous.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Table 3] No standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported for any of the metrics. Given that the reported gains over Fossil are sometimes small (e.g., NDCG@5 on some datasets), it is important to show that the differences are stable. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least 3 random seeds, and specify the number of negative samples per positive sample used in BPR sampling, as this affects the ranking metrics.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3] The model is named FIAMC in the first sentence of Section 3 and IAFMC elsewhere; make the acronym consistent.
  2. [Section 4] The subsection number 4.5.1 appears three times (Number of Trained parameters, Effect of The Hyperparameter β, Improvements Analysis); renumber the subsections.
  3. [Section 4.4] Typo "he optimal sequence length" should be "the optimal sequence length", and "implicit feedbackpersonalized" needs a space.
  4. [Section 3.2] The sentence "It updates the model through the multiplication of two low-dimensional matrices" is too vague; please specify the FISM scoring function.
  5. [Section 4.2] The phrase "we rank the predicted scores calculated by function in Eq. (1)" should refer to the correct equation number (the scoring function), and clarify whether the ranking is over all items or a sampled candidate set.
  6. [Abstract] The claim "significantly enhances" is not backed by statistical tests; soften the wording or add significance tests.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning found: IAFMC is an empirical extension of Fossil with an item-association feature; its claims are falsifiable even if not yet isolated by ablation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard model-extension argument. The item association graph of Section 3.3 is constructed from co-occurrence frequencies of adjacent items in the training sequences (Fig. 1), and this graph is then integrated as an extra term in the Fossil scoring function (Eq. 1, Section 3.3). This is feature construction from training data, not a definition of the target metric in terms of the model's own outputs. The reported Recall@10 and NDCG@10 gains in Section 4.5.2 are measured against held-out next-item interactions after training, so the target quantity is not statistically forced by a fitted parameter. The hyperparameter beta is selected by Recall@10 performance (Section 4.5.1), which may introduce selection bias if the selection uses test data, but that is an experimental-design concern about optimistic evaluation, not circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the base model Fossil [7], FISM [18], and BPR [29] are external, independently published methods, and the paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same authors to forbid alternatives. The absence of a randomized-graph ablation affects whether the item-association signal is the cause of the gains, but it does not make the derivation circular. The paper's contribution is an empirical extension whose central claim is falsifiable; no equation in the paper reduces the predicted ranking to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the co-occurrence association graph, tuning of beta per dataset, and standard BPR and 5-core assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced; the association graph is a data-derived feature whose independent value is the main unproven premise.

free parameters (4)
  • Balancing weight beta = 0.2 (Beauty), 0.3 (Office), 0.1 (Tools), 0.3 (Toys)
    Searched in [0,1] using Recall@10, apparently on the test set (Section 4.5.1); controls the contribution of the item association term.
  • Sequence length L = searched from {1,2,3} for IAFMC and Fossil
    Number of recent interactions used in the high-order Markov term; selected per model and dataset (Section 4.4).
  • L2 regularization parameter = searched from {0.1, 0.01, 0.001}
    Regularization strength for all models; chosen by search (Section 4.4).
  • Embedding dimension d = 20
    Fixed for all models in Section 4.4; not tuned, but bounds model capacity.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption BPR pairwise ranking assumption: users prefer observed items over unobserved ones, and pairwise loss approximates top-N ranking quality.
    Used to define the objective function in Section 3.3; standard for implicit feedback but not a factual guarantee.
  • ad hoc to paper The item association graph built from adjacent-item frequencies in user sequences is a valid and non-redundant proxy for item relevance.
    Introduced in Fig. 1 and Section 3.3; no control experiment with a random graph is provided.
  • domain assumption 5-core filtering and chronological split yield a fair evaluation of cold-start and long-tail items.
    Section 4.1; standard preprocessing, but it shapes the data and the cold-start analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Item Association Factorization Mixed Markov Chains for Sequential Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z43KUNJD

@misc{pith2026250101429,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Item Association Factorization Mixed Markov Chains for Sequential Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z43KUNJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01429}
}
read the original abstract

Sequential recommendation refers to recommending the next item of interest for a specific user based on his/her historical behavior sequence up to a certain time. While previous research has extensively examined Markov chain-based sequential recommendation models, the majority of these studies has focused on the user's historical behavior sequence but has paid little attention to the overall correlation between items. This study introduces a sequential recommendation algorithm known as Item Association Factorization Mixed Markov Chains, which incorporates association information between items using an item association graph, integrating it with user behavior sequence information. Our experimental findings from the four public datasets demonstrate that the newly introduced algorithm significantly enhances the recommendation ranking results without substantially increasing the parameter count. Additionally, research on tuning the prior balancing parameters underscores the significance of incorporating item association information across different datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01429 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of the transformation of item association information. (a) Show the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A pareto-efficient algorithm for multiple objective optimization in e- commerce recommendation,

    X. Lin, H. Chen, C. Pei, F. Sun, X. Xiao, H. Sun, Y. Zhang, W. Ou, and P. Jiang, “A pareto-efficient algorithm for multiple objective optimization in e- commerce recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on recommender systems, 2019, pp. 20– 28

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Sequence-aware recommender systems,

    M. Quadrana, P. Cremonesi, and D. Jannach, “Sequence-aware recommender systems,” ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1–36, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Factorization meets the neighborhood: a multifaceted collaborative filtering model,

    Y. Koren, “Factorization meets the neighborhood: a multifaceted collaborative filtering model,” in Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge 21 / 26 discovery and data mining, 2008, pp. 426–434

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Collaborative filtering with network representation learning for citation recommendation,

    W. Wang, T. Tang, F. Xia, Z. Gong, Z. Chen, and H. Liu, “Collaborative filtering with network representation learning for citation recommendation,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 1233–1246, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Factorizing personalized Markov chains for next- basket recommendation,

    S. Rendle, C. Freudenthaler, and L. Schmidt -Thieme, “Factorizing personalized Markov chains for next- basket recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 19th inter - national conference on World wide web, 2010, pp. 811–820

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Using temporal data for making recommendations,

    A. Zimdars, D. M. Chickering, and C. Meek, “Using temporal data for making recommendations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.2320 , 2013

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Fusing similarity models with Markov chains for sparse sequential recommendation,

    R. He and J. McAuley, “Fusing similarity models with Markov chains for sparse sequential recommendation,” in 2016 IEEE 16th international conference on data mining (ICDM). IEEE, 2016, pp. 191–200

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Translation -based recommendation,

    R. He, W. -C. Kang, and J. McAuley, “Translation -based recommendation,” in Proceedings of the eleventh ACM conference on recommender systems, 2017, pp. 161–169

    work page 2017

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Translation -based factorization machines for sequential recommendation,

    R. Pasricha and J. McAuley, “Translation -based factorization machines for sequential recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 2018, pp. 63–71

    2018

  2. [10]

    Vista: A visually, socially, and temporally- aware model for artis- tic recommendation,

    R. He, C. Fang, Z. Wang, and J. McAuley, “Vista: A visually, socially, and temporally- aware model for artis- tic recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on recommender systems, 2016, pp. 309–316

    2016

  3. [11]

    Statistical models of music- listening sessions in social media,

    E. Zheleva, J. Guiver, E. Mendes Rodrigues, and N. Milic´-Frayling, “Statistical models of music- listening sessions in social media,” in Proceedings of the 19th 22 / 26 international conference on World wide web, 2010, pp. 1019–1028

    2010

  4. [12]

    Session-based social recommendation via dynamic graph attention networks,

    W. Song, Z. Xiao, Y. W. Song, Z. Xiao, Y. Wang, L. Charlin, M. Zhang and J. Tang, “Session-based social recommendation via dynamic graph attention networks,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, 2019, pp. 555–563

    2019

  5. [13]

    Learning hierarchical representation model for next basket recommendation,

    P. Wang, J. Guo, Y. Lan, J. Xu, S. Wan, and X. Cheng, “Learning hierarchical representation model for next basket recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2015, pp. 403–412

    2015

  6. [14]

    Session-based recommendations with recurrent neu ral networks,

    B. Hidasi, A. Karatzoglou, L. Baltrunas, and D. Tikk, “Session-based recommendations with recurrent neu ral networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06939, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Personalized top -n sequential recommendation via convolutional sequence embed - ding,

    J. Tang and K. Wang, “Personalized top -n sequential recommendation via convolutional sequence embed - ding,” in Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on web search and data mining, 2018, pp. 565– 573

    2018

  8. [16]

    Neural attentive session -based recommendation,

    J. Li, P. Ren, Z. Chen, Z. Ren, T. Lian, and J. Ma, “Neural attentive session -based recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2017, pp. 1419–1428

    2017

  9. [17]

    Af -gcn: Attribute - fusing graph convolution network for recommendation,

    G. Yue, R. Xiao, Z. Zhao, and C. Li, “Af -gcn: Attribute - fusing graph convolution network for recommendation,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 597–607, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Fism: factored item similarity models for top-n 23 / 26 recommender systems,

    S. Kabbur, X. Ning, and G. Karypis, “Fism: factored item similarity models for top-n 23 / 26 recommender systems,” in Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 2013, pp. 659–667

    2013

  11. [19]

    Introduction to recommender systems handbook,

    F. Ricci, L. Rokach, and B. Shapira, “Introduction to recommender systems handbook,” in Recommender systems handbook. Springer, 2010, pp. 1–35

    2010

  12. [20]

    Structural balance theory - based e -commerce recommendation over big rating data,

    L. Qi, X. Xu, X. Zhang, W. Dou, C. Hu, Y. Zhou, and J. Yu, “Structural balance theory - based e -commerce recommendation over big rating data,” IEEE Transactions o n Big Data, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 301–312, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Social information filtering: Algorithms for automating word of mouth,

    U. Shardanand and P. Maes, “Social information filtering: Algorithms for automating word of mouth,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems , 1995, pp. 210–217

    1995

  14. [22]

    Recommending and evaluating choices in a virtual com - munity of use,

    W. Hill, L. Stead, M. Rosenstein, and G. Furnas, “Recommending and evaluating choices in a virtual com - munity of use,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 1995, pp. 194 – 201

    1995

  15. [23]

    Grouplens: Applying collaborative filtering to usenet news,

    J. A. Konstan, B. N. Miller, D. Maltz, J. L. Herlocker, L. R. Gordon, and J. Riedl, “Grouplens: Applying collaborative filtering to usenet news, ” Communications of the ACM, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 77–87, 1997

    1997

  16. [24]

    Amazon. com recom mendations: Item -to-item collaborative filtering,

    G. Linden, B. Smith, and J. York, “Amazon. com recom mendations: Item -to-item collaborative filtering,” IEEE Internet computing , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 76–80, 2003

    2003

  17. [25]

    Item -based top -n rec ommendation algorithms,

    M. Deshpande and G. Karypis, “Item -based top -n rec ommendation algorithms,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 143 –177, 2004

    2004

  18. [26]

    Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback,

    T. Joachims, L. Granka, B. Pan, H. Hembrooke, and G. Gay, “Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback,” in Acm Sigir Forum, vol. 51, no. 1. 24 / 26 Acm New York, NY, USA, 2017, pp. 4 –11

    2017

  19. [27]

    Collaborative filtering for implicit feedback datasets,

    Y. Hu, Y. Koren, and C. Volinsky, “Collaborative filtering for implicit feedback datasets,” in 2008 Eighth IEEE international conference on data mining. IEEE, 2008, pp. 263 – 272

    2008

  20. [28]

    One-class collaborative filtering,

    R. Pan, Y. Zhou, B. Cao, N. N. Liu, R. Lukose, M . Scholz, and Q. Yang, “One-class collaborative filtering,” in 2008 Eighth IEEE international conference on data mining. IEEE, 2008, pp. 502–511

    2008

  21. [29]

    Bpr: Bayesian personalized ranking from imp licit feedback,

    S. Rendle, C. Freudenthaler, Z. Gantner, and L. Schmidt -Thieme, “Bpr: Bayesian personalized ranking from imp licit feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.2618, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Neural collaborative filtering,

    X. He, L. Liao, H. Zhang, L. Nie, X. Hu, and T. -S. Chua, “Neural collaborative filtering,” in Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web, 2017, pp. 173–182

    2017

  23. [31]

    Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolu tion network for recommendation,

    X. He, K. Deng, X. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Zhang, and M. Wang, “Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolu tion network for recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, 2020, pp. 639 –648

    2020

  24. [32]

    Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems,

    Y. Koren, R. Bell, and C. Volinsky, “Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems,” Computer, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 30–37, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Mining sequential pat - terns,

    R. Agrawal and R. Srikant, “Mining sequential pat - terns,” in Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on da ta engineering. IEEE, 1995, pp. 3 –14

    1995

  26. [34]

    Effective next -items recommendation via 25 / 26 personalized sequential pattern mining,

    G.-E. Yap, X. -L. Li, and P. S. Yu, “Effective next -items recommendation via 25 / 26 personalized sequential pattern mining,” in Database Systems for Advanced Applications: 17th International Conference, DASFAA 2012, Busan, Sou th Korea, April 15-19, 2012, Proceedings, Part I...

    2012

  27. [35]

    Collaborative filtering with temporal dynamics,

    Y. Koren, “Collaborative filtering with temporal dynamics,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , 2009, pp. 447–456

    2009

  28. [36]

    Using sequential and non -sequential patterns in predictive web usage mining tasks,

    B. Mobasher, H. Dai, T. Luo, and M. Nakagawa, “Using sequential and non -sequential patterns in predictive web usage mining tasks,” in 2002 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, 2002. Proceedings. IEEE, 2002, pp. 669 –672

    2002

  29. [37]

    An mdp -based recommender system

    G. Shani, D. Hecke rman, R. I. Brafman, and C. Boutilier, “An mdp -based recommender system.” Journal of Ma- chine Learning Research , vol. 6, no. 9, 2005

    2005

  30. [38]

    A stochastic approximation method,

    H. Robbins and S. Monro, “A stochastic approximation method,” The annals of mathematical statistics , pp. 400– 407, 1951

    1951

  31. [39]

    Image-based recommendations on styles and substitutes,

    J. McAuley, C. Targett, Q. Shi, and A. Van Den Hengel, “Image-based recommendations on styles and substitutes,” in Proceedings of the 38th international ACM SI- GIR conference on research and development in information retrieval , 2015, pp. 43–52

    2015

  32. [40]

    Ups and downs: Modeling the visual evolution of fashion trends with one -class collaborative filtering,

    R. He and J. McAuley, “Ups and downs: Modeling the visual evolution of fashion trends with one -class collaborative filtering,” in proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web, 2016, pp. 507 –517

    2016

  33. [41]

    Self -attentive seque ntial recommendation,

    W.-C. Kang and J. McAuley, “Self -attentive seque ntial recommendation,” in 2018 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 197–206. 26 / 26

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.