Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

MixRec: Individual and Collective Mixing Empowers Data Augmentation for Recommender Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MixRec claims that two convex-mixing operations on user/item embeddings, plus a dual contrastive loss, beat twenty baselines on four recommender datasets.

desk verdict A clever beta-weighted dual-mixing augmentation that is plausible and worth checking, but its SOTA claim rests on partially duplicated baselines and an unspecified Dirichlet concentration. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13579 v3 pith:3LS6Q3QW submitted 2025-01-23 cs.IR

Yi Zhang , Yiwen Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords recommendersystemcollaborativefilteringdataaugmentationself-supervisedlearningcontrastiveTop-Nrecommendationembeddingmixinggraphconvolutionalnetwork
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 sets out to show that data augmentation for recommender systems can be reduced to two cheap convex-mixing operations on user and item embeddings, with no graph perturbation, clustering, or repeated sampling. Individual mixing interpolates an embedding with a randomly shuffled batch mate; collective mixing forms a convex combination of all embeddings in the batch. The two new views are used as a positive and a hard negative in a dual contrastive loss, and the individual mix also supplies extra negatives for the ranking loss. On four real-world datasets, MixRec reports the best Recall@20 and NDCG@20 against twenty baselines, with faster convergence and larger gains on the sparsest users. If these results hold, a nearly hyperparameter-free augmentation layer could be appended to existing embedding-based recommenders to improve Top-N recommendation cheaply.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the pair of views built by dual mixing. Individual mixing (Eq. 3) forms $e^{\mathrm{im}}_u = \beta_u e_u + (1-\beta_u)e^{\mathrm{dis}}_u$, with $\beta_u$ drawn from $\mathrm{Beta}(\alpha,\alpha)$; collective mixing (Eq. 4) forms $e^{\mathrm{cm}}_u = \sum_{o \in B} \theta_o e_o$ with $\theta$ drawn from a Dirichlet distribution (Eq. 5). These views feed the dual-mixing contrastive losses (Eqs. 7-8), which align the original embedding with its individual mix while pushing it away from the collective mix and shuffled-batch views; the same $\beta$ weights the positive and negative contrastive terms (Eqs. 9-10), and an individual-mix-extended BPR loss (Eq. 12) gives the ranking task harder negatives. The whole construction is linear in batch size and needs no extra encoder passes, which is why the framework can be appended to most embedding-based recommenders.

What would settle it

Re-run MixRec on Amazon-Book and Tmall with the collective-mixing Dirichlet concentration set to several fixed values (e.g., all $\alpha_i = 0.01$, $0.1$, $1$, and $10$); if the Recall@20 gap over the best baseline disappears or reverses for any plausible concentration, the claim that collective mixing is a robust, essentially parameter-free augmentation is falsified. A more direct check is to replace the sampled Dirichlet coefficients with a uniform average over the batch, which should weaken the hard-negative role and shrink the reported 5.05% Amazon-Book improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim, stated in the paper's own terms, is that MixRec is a simple, efficient, and scalable data-augmentation framework: it outperforms all twenty baselines on all four datasets, improving Recall@20 over the best baseline by 1.78% on Yelp, 5.05% on Amazon-Book, 1.81% on Tmall, and 2.13% on Douban-Book. The gains are attributed to the two mixing views and the dual-mixing contrastive objective, which uses the original view as the anchor and turns the collective mix into a hard negative and the shuffled-batch view into an easy negative. MixRec further reports that it converges in far fewer epochs than baselines, that a single GCN layer suffices to beat three-layer SimGCL and BIGCF, and that the smallest interaction quartile receives the largest relative gains, 12% and 10% NDCG@20 on Tmall and Amazon-Book.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the unstated choice of Dirichlet concentration parameters for collective mixing; with no value given, a practitioner's arbitrary choice changes the hard negative and the reported gains may not reproduce.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With LightGCN as encoder, MixRec raises Recall@20 by 26.6% on Tmall and 31.6% on Amazon-Book over the base model, and even MF+MixRec surpasses NGCF and LightGCN on those datasets.
  • On Amazon-Book, MixRec-1 trains in 15 minutes and MixRec-3 in 19 minutes, versus 58 minutes for SimGCL and 6 hours 26 minutes for LightGCN.
  • MixRec with one GCN layer outperforms SimGCL and BIGCF with three layers on Tmall and Amazon-Book, so high-order graph propagation is not needed for the reported advantage.
  • For the sparsest user quartile, MixRec improves NDCG@20 by about 12% on Tmall and 10% on Amazon-Book relative to the comparison methods.
  • Only $\lambda_1$ requires per-dataset tuning: $\alpha = 0.1$ and $\tau = 0.2$ are reported to work across all four datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the collective mix is effectively a batch-level soft prototype, so the reported gains may owe more to a stable prototype-style negative than to the Dirichlet sampling per se; sweeping the never-specified concentration parameters would separate these explanations.
  • Inference: because MixRec only needs the embeddings an encoder already produces, the same dual-mixing contrastive recipe could transfer to other sparse prediction tasks with learned encoders, such as CTR prediction or sequential recommendation; the paper does not test this transfer.
  • Inference: the reported training stability (no early performance drop) could be quantified with the alignment and uniformity metrics used in the contrastive-learning literature, giving a direct test of the claimed balance between the two objectives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MixRec, a plug-in data augmentation framework for embedding-based collaborative filtering. Individual mixing (Eq. 3) interpolates an anchor embedding with a shuffled in-batch embedding to produce a positive view; collective mixing (Eq. 4) forms a convex combination of all embeddings in the batch, sampled from a Dirichlet distribution (Eq. 5), to produce a hard-negative view. A dual-mixing contrastive loss (Eqs. 7-10) uses both the original and disordered anchors, and the main BPR loss is augmented with mixed negatives (Eqs. 11-13). Experiments on Yelp, Amazon-Book, Tmall, and Douban-Book compare against twenty baselines and report state-of-the-art Recall@20 and NDCG@20, together with efficiency, sparsity, and ablation studies.

Significance. If validated, MixRec is a useful contribution: it is a simple, encoder-agnostic augmentation with linear-time mixing, and the ablation study (Table 5) supports the contribution of each module. The sparsity-group experiments (Fig. 4) and efficiency comparison (Table 3) are valuable additions beyond a single accuracy table. The claim that only one augmentation-specific hyperparameter needs tuning is attractive for practitioners. However, the validation currently rests on two load-bearing gaps: the Dirichlet parameters of Eq. 5 are never specified, and part of the Table 2 baseline numbers are admitted to be duplicated from prior papers rather than produced under a unified protocol. These gaps must be fixed before the headline claim is fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3.2, Eq. (5); §3.1.3; Table 7] The concentration parameters {α_i} of the Dirichlet distribution in Eq. (5) are never given a value or a sampling scheme anywhere in the paper. Algorithm 1 (line 7) repeats this unspecified sampling, and Table 7 does not list the parameters. This is not cosmetic: Table 5 shows that removing collective mixing degrades Recall@20 by roughly 1.3 to 1.8 points across the four datasets, so the collective-mixing view is load-bearing for the reported performance. Please specify the exact concentration vector (for example, a symmetric Dirichlet with a stated α value, or α_i set to a function of batch size) and provide a sensitivity analysis over that choice.
  2. [§3.1.2, Table 2 footnote, §3.1.3] The footnote to Table 2 states that part of the baseline results are duplicated from original papers for consistency, while §3.1.3 states that all baselines were tuned by grid search. These statements are hard to reconcile, and the headline claim in §3.2.1 depends on the margins over the best baseline (1.78% to 5.05% in Recall@20). If the duplicated numbers come from different train/test splits, ranking protocols, or negative-sampling procedures, those margins could reflect protocol mismatch rather than genuine improvement. Please either rerun all baselines under the same evaluation harness or provide, for every duplicated entry, the exact source and a demonstration that the preprocessing and evaluation protocol match. The code link in §3.1.3 currently points to an unrelated repository, which makes independent audit impossible.
  3. [Table 2; Table 5] No standard deviations, confidence intervals, or number of seeds are reported for any result, despite the paired t-test p-values in Table 2. Without variance information, the reader cannot assess whether the reported gains, some of which are below 2%, are stable across runs. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds for MixRec and the strongest baselines, and state the random-seed handling in §3.1.3.
  4. [§2.4, Eq. (7); §2.3.2, Eq. (4)] In Eq. (7), the denominator sums over all v∈U, which includes v=u; the corresponding negative e_cm_u is built from Eq. (4) and therefore contains the anchor e_u itself as one convex-combination component. This means the anchor's own mixed representation always appears among the negatives in the contrastive denominator. The paper does not discuss this self-inclusion, and it may weaken the intended hard-negative semantics. Please justify this design choice explicitly or provide an ablation that excludes the self term from the denominator.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4, Eq. (6)] Eq. (6) is missing a minus sign before the log and should read L_cl = -log(...); as written it is not a loss.
  2. [§2.3.1] The statement that a smaller α 'constrains the sampled β to yield larger values' is imprecise: Beta(α,α) is symmetric, so with α=0.1 roughly half of the sampled β values are below 0.5, making the mixed view closer to the shuffled sample rather than to the anchor. Please revise the sentence to describe the U-shaped concentration behavior that is actually intended.
  3. [Abstract; §3.3.2] The abstract claims 'only one parameter that does not need to be set multiple times,' but Table 7 lists several hyperparameters (τ, λ1, λ2). Please clarify that the claim refers to one additional tunable augmentation-specific hyperparameter beyond the encoder's defaults, or soften the wording.
  4. [Fig. 5; Appendix A.2] The x-axis labels in Fig. 5(b) are corrupted Unicode escapes and should be replaced with readable text. In addition, Appendix A.2 gives search ranges for many baselines but not the final selected values; please include a table of the chosen hyperparameters for all baselines so the grid search is auditable.
  5. [§2.2] The problem formulation writes 'N items (U = {i_1,...,i_N})', reusing the symbol U for the item set; this should be a distinct symbol such as I.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MixRec is an empirical method paper whose reported gains come from held-out evaluation, not from any quantity fitted to its own conclusions.

full rationale

MixRec contains no derivation chain in which a predicted quantity is defined in terms of the result it is said to establish. The augmentation views e_im and e_cm are constructed from existing embeddings via Eqs. 3-5, and the losses in Eqs. 7-13 use those views as supervision; the final recommendation scores in Table 2 are measured on held-out interactions, not recovered from the mixing coefficients or loss weights. The reuse of beta_u as both a mixing coefficient and a loss weight (Eqs. 3, 9, 13) is a design choice, not a self-fulfilling definition, because beta is sampled stochastically and the overall objective is not algebraically equal to a fixed target metric. Hyperparameter selection (lambda_1 and alpha) is standard tuning and is not presented as a prediction. Self-citations such as BIGCF [40] and CVGA [41] appear as baselines or related work, but no load-bearing argument reduces to them. The footnote 'Part of the results are duplicated from original papers for consistency' raises a legitimate external-validity concern about protocol alignment, and the unspecified Dirichlet concentration in Eq. 5 is a reproducibility gap, but neither is a circularity: the MixRec entries themselves are produced by the authors' own pipeline. There is no fitted input renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. The central empirical claim stands or falls on the integrity of the comparison, not on circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on several unproved modelling choices: linear mixing preserves enough semantics for positives and hard negatives; batch-shuffled embeddings are valid negatives; the Dirichlet batch-average is a valid hard negative even though it contains the anchor's own embedding; and beta is the correct weight for combining the two contrastive losses. The only genuinely fitted quantities are the contrastive loss weight lambda1 (per dataset), the Beta shape alpha, and the temperature tau; the Dirichlet concentration parameters are not even reported.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (Beta shape, individual mixing) = 0.1
    Empirically set to 0.1 in Section 3.3.2; controls how much of the original embedding is preserved in the mixed positive sample.
  • lambda1 (contrastive loss weight) = 0.3 (Yelp), 1.1 (Amazon-Book), 0.6 (Tmall), 0.1 (Douban-Book)
    Tuned per dataset via grid search to maximize Recall@20; reported in Table 7.
  • tau (temperature) = 0.2
    Fixed at 0.2 for all datasets, standard for CL-based recommenders; not tuned.
  • Dirichlet concentration parameters {alpha_i} (collective mixing) = not specified
    Eq. 5 samples coefficients from Dirichlet(alpha_1,...,alpha_|B|) but the values are never given; load-bearing for the collective-mixing view.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Linear interpolation of user/item embeddings yields semantically valid positive and hard-negative views for contrastive learning.
    Invoked in Eq. 3 and Eq. 4; no theoretical justification, relies on the embedding space being sufficiently convex for mixup.
  • domain assumption Randomly shuffled in-batch embeddings are valid negative samples for the anchor user or item.
    Used in the denominators of Eq. 7 and Eq. 8; standard batch-negative assumption but untested here.
  • ad hoc to paper A convex combination of all embeddings in a batch, including the anchor's own embedding, is a valid hard negative for that anchor.
    Eq. 4 constructs e^cm_u from all users in the batch including e_u; Eq. 7 uses it as a negative for e_u without discussing this contamination.
  • ad hoc to paper The mixing coefficient beta_u appropriately weights the two contrastive losses in Eq. 9.
    Used to combine L_pos_u and L_neg_u; no derivation is given for why beta is the correct weight.
  • standard math The graph Laplacian normalization in Eq. 2 yields embeddings suitable for mixing.
    Adopts the LightGCN encoder; standard in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MixRec: Individual and Collective Mixing Empowers Data Augmentation for Recommender Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3LS6Q3QW

@misc{pith2026250113579,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MixRec: Individual and Collective Mixing Empowers Data Augmentation for Recommender Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3LS6Q3QW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13579}
}
read the original abstract

The core of the general recommender systems lies in learning high-quality embedding representations of users and items to investigate their positional relations in the feature space. Unfortunately, data sparsity caused by difficult-to-access interaction data severely limits the effectiveness of recommender systems. Faced with such a dilemma, various types of self-supervised learning methods have been introduced into recommender systems in an attempt to alleviate the data sparsity through distribution modeling or data augmentation. However, most data augmentation relies on elaborate manual design, which is not only not universal, but the bloated and redundant augmentation process may significantly slow down model training progress. To tackle these limitations, we propose a novel Dual Mixing-based Recommendation Framework (MixRec) to empower data augmentation as we wish. Specifically, we propose individual mixing and collective mixing, respectively. The former aims to provide a new positive sample that is unique to the target (user or item) and to make the pair-wise recommendation loss benefit from it, while the latter aims to portray a new sample that contains group properties in a batch. The two mentioned mixing mechanisms allow for data augmentation with only one parameter that does not need to be set multiple times and can be done in linear time complexity. Besides, we propose the dual-mixing contrastive learning to maximize the utilization of these new-constructed samples to enhance the consistency between pairs of positive samples. Experimental results on four real-world datasets demonstrate the advantages of MixRec in terms of effectiveness, simplicity, efficiency, and scalability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13579 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The complete information flow of the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a)-(c) Top examples of construction process for three new views, and the computation processes of (d) positive mixing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Training curves of LightGCN (best), SimGCL and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sparsity tests on (a) Tmall and (b) Amazon-Book [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hyper-parameter sensitivities for (a) the weight of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Haoyue Bai, Le Wu, Min Hou, Miaomiao Cai, Zhuangzhuang He, Yuyang Zhou, Richang Hong, and Meng Wang. 2024. Multimodality Invariant Learning for Multimedia-Based New Item Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 47th In- ternational ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 677–686

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Xuheng Cai, Chao Huang, Lianghao Xia, and Xubin Ren. 2023. LightGCL: Simple Yet Effective Graph Contrastive Learning for Recommendation. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Jiawei Chen, Hande Dong, Xiang Wang, Fuli Feng, Meng Wang, and Xiangnan He. 2023. Bias and debias in recommender system: A survey and future directions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 3 (2023), 1–39

    2023

  4. [4]

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) . 1597–1607

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Xavier Glorot and Yoshua Bengio. 2010. Understanding the Difficulty of Training Deep Feedforward Neural Networks. InProceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (ICAIS) . 249–256

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Wei He, Guohao Sun, Jinhu Lu, and Xiu Susie Fang. 2023. Candidate-aware Graph Contrastive Learning for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1670–1679

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Xiangnan He, Kuan Deng, Xiang Wang, Yan Li, Yongdong Zhang, and Meng Wang

  8. [8]

    Xiangnan He, Lizi Liao, Hanwang Zhang, Liqiang Nie, Xia Hu, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2017. Neural Collaborative Filtering. InProceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW) . 173–182

    2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Tinglin Huang, Yuxiao Dong, Ming Ding, Zhen Yang, Wenzheng Feng, Xinyu Wang, and Jie Tang. 2021. Mixgcf: An improved training method for graph neural network-based recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining . 665–674

    2021

  2. [10]

    Sungnyun Kim, Gihun Lee, Sangmin Bae, and Se-Young Yun. 2020. Mixco: Mix-up contrastive learning for visual representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.06300 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Opti- mization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations. Toulon, France

    2017

  5. [13]

    Honghao Li, Lei Sang, Yi Zhang, and Yiwen Zhang. 2024. SimCEN: Simple Contrast-enhanced Network for CTR Prediction. In Proceedings of the 32th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    2024

  6. [14]

    Sihang Li, Xiang Wang, An Zhang, Yingxin Wu, Xiangnan He, and Tat-Seng Chua

  7. [15]

    Dawen Liang, Rahul G Krishnan, Matthew D Hoffman, and Tony Jebara. 2018. Variational Autoencoders for Collaborative Filtering. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference (WWW). 689–698

    2018

  8. [16]

    Zihan Lin, Changxin Tian, Yupeng Hou, and Wayne Xin Zhao. 2022. Improving graph collaborative filtering with neighborhood-enriched contrastive learning. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 . 2320–2329

    2022

  9. [17]

    Fan Liu, Zhiyong Cheng, Lei Zhu, Zan Gao, and Liqiang Nie. 2021. Interest-aware Message-Passing GCN for Recommendation. InProceedings of the Web Conference

    2021

  10. [18]

    Xiao Liu, Fanjin Zhang, Zhenyu Hou, Li Mian, Zhaoyu Wang, Jing Zhang, and Jie Tang. 2021. Self-supervised learning: Generative or contrastive.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35, 1 (2021), 857–876

    2021

  11. [19]

    Xubin Ren, Lianghao Xia, Jiashu Zhao, Dawei Yin, and Chao Huang. 2023. Disen- tangled contrastive collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 1137–1146

    2023

  12. [20]

    Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, Zeno Gantner, and Lars Schmidt-Thieme

  13. [21]

    Francesco Ricci, Lior Rokach, and Bracha Shapira. 2011. Introduction to Rec- ommender Systems Handbook. In Recommender Systems Handbook . Springer, 1–35

    2011

  14. [22]

    Chenyang Wang, Yuanqing Yu, Weizhi Ma, Min Zhang, Chong Chen, Yiqun Liu, and Shaoping Ma. 2022. Towards representation alignment and uniformity in collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 1816–1825

    2022

  15. [23]

    Feng Wang and Huaping Liu. 2021. Understanding the Behaviour of Contrastive Loss. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2495–2504

    2021

  16. [24]

    Tongzhou Wang and Phillip Isola. 2020. Understanding Contrastive Represen- tation Learning through Alignment and Uniformity on the Hypersphere. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) . 9929–9939

    2020

  17. [25]

    Wenjie Wang, Yiyan Xu, Fuli Feng, Xinyu Lin, Xiangnan He, and Tat-Seng Chua

  18. [26]

    Xiang Wang, Xiangnan He, Meng Wang, Fuli Feng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2019. Neural Graph Collaborative Filtering. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 165–174

    2019

  19. [27]

    Xiang Wang, Tinglin Huang, Dingxian Wang, Yancheng Yuan, Zhenguang Liu, Xiangnan He, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Learning intents behind interactions with knowledge graph for recommendation. In Proceedings of the Web Conference

    2021

  20. [28]

    Yu Wang, Yuying Zhao, Yi Zhang, and Tyler Derr. 2023. Collaboration-aware graph convolutional network for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 91–101

    2023

  21. [29]

    Jiancan Wu, Xiang Wang, Fuli Feng, Xiangnan He, Liang Chen, Jianxun Lian, and Xing Xie. 2021. Self-Supervised Graph Learning for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) . 726–735

    2021

  22. [30]

    Yihong Wu, Le Zhang, Fengran Mo, Tianyu Zhu, Weizhi Ma, and Jian-Yun Nie

  23. [31]

    Liangwei Yang, Zhiwei Liu, Chen Wang, Mingdai Yang, Xiaolong Liu, Jing Ma, and Philip S Yu. 2023. Graph-based alignment and uniformity for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 4395–4399

    2023

  24. [32]

    Yonghui Yang, Zhengwei Wu, Le Wu, Kun Zhang, Richang Hong, Zhiqiang Zhang, Jun Zhou, and Meng Wang. 2023. Generative-Contrastive Graph Learning for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 46th international ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieva...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Rex Ying, Ruining He, Kaifeng Chen, Pong Eksombatchai, William L Hamilton, and Jure Leskovec. 2018. Graph Convolutional Neural Networks for Web-Scale Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining . 974–983

    2018

  26. [34]

    Yuning You, Tianlong Chen, Yongduo Sui, Ting Chen, Zhangyang Wang, and Yang Shen. 2020. Graph Contrastive Learning with Augmentations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) . 5812–5823

    2020

  27. [35]

    Junliang Yu, Hongzhi Yin, Xin Xia, Tong Chen, Lizhen Cui, and Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen. 2022. Are graph augmentations necessary? simple graph contrastive learning for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Info...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Junliang Yu, Hongzhi Yin, Xin Xia, Tong Chen, Jundong Li, and Zi Huang. 2023. Self-supervised learning for recommender systems: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 36, 1 (2023), 335–355

    2023

  29. [37]

    An Zhang, Leheng Sheng, Zhibo Cai, Xiang Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. Empowering Collaborative Filtering with Principled Adversarial Contrastive Loss. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2023

  30. [38]

    Dan Zhang, Yangliao Geng, Wenwen Gong, Zhongang Qi, Zhiyu Chen, Xing Tang, Ying Shan, Yuxiao Dong, and Jie Tang. 2024. RecDCL: Dual Contrastive Learning for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference

    2024

  31. [39]

    Hongyi Zhang, Moustapha Cisse, Yann N Dauphin, and David Lopez-Paz. 2018. mixup: Beyond Empirical Risk Minimization. InInternational Conference on Learn- ing Representations

    2018

  32. [40]

    Yi Zhang, Lei Sang, and Yiwen Zhang. 2024. Exploring the individuality and collectivity of intents behind interactions for graph collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 1253–1262

    2024

  33. [41]

    Yi Zhang, Yiwen Zhang, Dengcheng Yan, Shuiguang Deng, and Yun Yang. 2023. Revisiting Graph-based Recommender Systems from the Perspective of Vari- ational Auto-encoder. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 41, 3 (2023), 1–28

    2023

  34. [42]

    Yi Zhang, Yiwen Zhang, Yuchuan Zhao, Shuiguang Deng, and Yun Yang. 2024. Dual Variational Graph Reconstruction Learning for Social Recommendation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 36, 11 (2024), 6002–6015

    2024

  35. [43]

    Yu Zheng, Chen Gao, Xiang Li, Xiangnan He, Yong Li, and Depeng Jin. 2021. Disentangling user interest and conformity for recommendation with causal embedding. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 . 2980–2991. WWW ’25, April 28–May 2, 2025, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Yi Zhang...

    2021

  36. [49]

    Specifically, the MF encoder does not incor- porate graph information, while NGCF adopts the complete GCN design for CF task

    and NGCF [26]. Specifically, the MF encoder does not incor- porate graph information, while NGCF adopts the complete GCN design for CF task. We fine-tune the optimal hyper-parameters for each method, and the performance are shown in Table 6. It can be observed that the perform...

  37. [2009]

    InProceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI)

    BPR: Bayesian Personalized Ranking from Implicit Feedback. InProceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI) . 452– 461

  38. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    LightGCN: Simplifying and Powering Graph Convolution Network for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 639–648

  39. [2022]

    In International Conference on Machine Learning

    Let Invariant Rationale Discovery Inspire Graph Contrastive Learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 13052–13065

  40. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    Diffusion Recommender Model. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 832–841

  41. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    Unifying Graph Convolution and Contrastive Learning in Collaborative Fil- tering. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 3425–3436

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.