REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 19 references
Conf-GNNRec: Quantifying and Calibrating the Prediction Confidence for GNN-based Recommendation Methods
T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read GNN-based recommenders overstate confidence, and a two-part calibration scheme realigns confidence with accuracy while lifting top-20 precision.
desk verdict A plausible but under-specified calibration heuristic for GNN recommenders; the central claim is blocked by an unresolved training-vs-post-hoc ambiguity and missing quantitative calibration metrics. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing pieces are (i) the perfect-calibration condition of Eq. (3), which serves as the target; (ii) the rating recalibration formula of Eq. (5), which leaves ratings at or below the user's mean untouched and nonlinearly compresses ratings above it with a temperature-controlled logarithm; and (iii) the confidence loss of Eq. (6), which multiplies $(1 - p_{u,i})$ by a confidence-scaled log term to penalize high-confidence mistakes on negative samples. The reliability diagram, using ten equal bins, is the measuring device that both exposes the overconfidence and demonstrates the fix.
What would settle it
On a held-out test set, apply only the rating calibration of Eq. (5) to the frozen outputs of a trained model and rebuild the reliability diagram; if the bins stay as far from the diagonal as before, then the calibration claim fails and the reported improvement would have to come entirely from the loss term during training.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery is that the confidence output of GNN-based recommenders does not match accuracy, violating the ideal calibration condition $P(\hat{y}_{u,i} = y_{u,i} \mid \hat{p}_{u,i} = p) = p$ for all $p \in [0,1]$. The paper quantifies this with reliability diagrams on LightGCN and KGCL, showing confidence bars far above the diagonal, and then shows that its two-part scheme—user-specific log compression of ratings above the user's mean, plus a confidence loss that grows nonlinearly with confidence on wrong predictions—brings confidence closer to accuracy while improving ranking metrics.
Load-bearing premise
The paper never states clearly whether Conf-GNNRec is applied only to a frozen model's ratings or used as an additional training loss, and the empirical claims depend on which one it is.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If the central claim is right, any GNN-based recommender that outputs probabilities through a normalization layer is likely overconfident, so calibration should become a standard evaluation step.
- Conf-GNNRec acts as a drop-in correction that improves top-20 precision and accuracy across LightGCN, KGAT, MVIN, and KGCL.
- The improvement is larger on denser datasets and on more complex models such as KGCL, suggesting that models with more information aggregation accumulate more overconfidence that the fix can correct.
- Reliability diagrams become closer to the diagonal after the fix, meaning that high-confidence predictions are genuinely more reliable, which matters for high-stakes recommendation domains.
Reading between the lines
- The paper does not pin down whether the confidence loss is applied during training or only after; if it is a training loss, the reported gains mix calibration with representation learning, and a pure post-hoc test of Eq. (5) alone would be needed to isolate the calibration effect.
- The method's reliance on a per-user mean rating may behave differently for cold-start users with few interactions; this is a natural failure mode worth testing.
- Because the overconfidence stems from the final normalization layer's relative magnitudes, similar miscalibration is plausible in non-GNN recommenders that share that output structure; Conf-GNNRec's components might transfer there.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper argues that GNN-based recommender systems output overconfident predictions, defines a perfect-calibration condition in Eq. (3), and proposes Conf-GNNRec to quantify and calibrate confidence via a rating-compression step (Eq. (5)) and a confidence-aware regularization loss (Eq. (6)). It reports that applying Conf-GNNRec to LightGCN, KGAT, MVIN, and KGCL improves Precision@20 and Accuracy@20 on Gowalla, Yelp2018, and Amazon-Book, and presents reliability diagrams before and after the intervention. The central claims are that existing methods violate the calibration condition and that Conf-GNNRec brings confidence closer to accuracy while improving ranking accuracy.
Significance. If established, the paper would address a genuinely underexplored issue: confidence calibration for GNN-based recommendation rather than node classification. The choice of representative baselines, public datasets, and the public code link are strengths, and the reported ranking improvements are consistent across all model-dataset combinations. However, the current manuscript does not contain a quantitative calibration metric, does not specify the experimental protocol that defines '+Conf-GNNRec,' and contains a rating-calibration formula whose monotonicity is questionable. These issues are load-bearing because the paper's headline claim is about calibration, not only ranking accuracy.
major comments (5)
- [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (5)] The rating calibration function as written is not monotone and therefore cannot preserve ranking information. For any r_{u,i} just above the threshold, r_c(r_{u,i}) = \bar{r}_u + \tau \log(r_{u,i} - \bar{r}_u) tends to -\infty as r_{u,i} approaches \bar{r}_u from above, while r_{u,i} = \bar{r}_u is left unchanged. This creates a discontinuity and inverts the relative order of items near the mean, contradicting the stated design goals of retaining relative ranking and maintaining recommendation performance. The formula needs to be corrected or accompanied by an explicit admissible range for the scores and a reported value of \tau, and the experiments need to be re-run under the corrected transformation.
- [Sec. 2.3 and Sec. 3.2.1, Eq. (6) and Table 2] The paper never states whether the '+Conf-GNNRec' rows in Table 2 are obtained by (a) applying Eq. (5) post hoc to frozen baseline models, (b) retraining each baseline with Eq. (6) added to the original objective, or (c) both. This distinction is essential: Eq. (6) requires gradients and therefore changes the trained model, so any observed improvement in Precision/Accuracy and any change in reliability diagrams could be a generic regularization or training effect rather than a property of the calibration method. The Introduction calls the approach a post-calibration strategy, but Section 2.3 introduces a training loss. Please specify the exact intervention for each experiment and, if retraining is used, include a control baseline trained with an additional regularizer of comparable strength.
- [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (6)] The confidence loss does not implement the described penalty. In Section 2.2, \hat{p}_{u,i} is defined as max_i z_{u,i}, which is a user-level quantity and is identical for every item i of user u. As a result, Eq. (6) sums (1 - p_{u,i}) multiplied by a user-level constant and cannot specifically penalize 'wrongly predicted items with high confidence.' Moreover, p_{u,i} in Eq. (6) is not defined in the paper; presumably it should be the item-specific probability \sigma(r_{u,i}). An item-specific confidence and an explicit indicator for incorrect prediction are needed for the loss to match the stated purpose.
- [Sec. 3.2.2, Figs. 2 and 3] The central calibration claim is supported only by visual comparison of reliability diagrams. The paper should report a scalar calibration error, such as ECE or ACE computed with the same ten-bin protocol, for every model and dataset before and after applying Conf-GNNRec. Without a quantitative metric, the statement that Conf-GNNRec 'significantly reduces the error between confidence and accuracy' is not verifiable from the reported evidence. The value of the temperature factor \tau used in the experiments and its sensitivity should also be reported.
- [Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 3.1.3, Eq. (3)] The calibration condition in Eq. (3) is stated for a single prediction \hat{y}_{u,i}, but the experimental evaluation is for top-k recommendation. The text says 'For the top-k task, we use the mean value instead,' but it is not explained how each user's multiple test items are mapped into the probability P(\hat{y} = y | \hat{p} = p). Please define precisely how the confidence bins and bin-wise accuracy are computed for the reliability diagrams, including how ties among multiple positive test items are handled.
minor comments (4)
- [Sec. 2.3, after Eq. (5)] The text defines \bar{z}_u as the mean of all elements in z_u, but Eq. (5) uses \bar{r}_u. These notations should be reconciled, and the variable being averaged should be stated unambiguously.
- [Table 2] The reported Precision@20 and Accuracy@20 improvements are small (roughly 1.5% to 6.7%) and are presented without error bars or significance tests. Reporting variance over multiple random seeds would strengthen the claim that Conf-GNNRec improves all models and datasets.
- [Sec. 3.1.2] The KGCL experiments use a knowledge-graph-augmented dataset that is not the one described in Table 1. The paper should state explicitly how the knowledge graph changes the data split and whether the comparison with other baselines is affected by this difference.
- [Sec. 3.2.2] The caption of Figure 3 should state whether the diagrams correspond to post-hoc Eq. (5), retraining with Eq. (6), or both, so that the reader can interpret the comparison with Figure 2.
Circularity Check
No exhibitable circularity: the central claims are evaluated on held-out test splits against external baselines; the self-citations are background only, and the unreported temperature parameter and the post-hoc-versus-loss ambiguity are correctness concerns, not demonstrated circular steps.
full rationale
The paper's central claims — that representative GNN recommenders are overconfident (Section 2.2, Figure 2) and that Conf-GNNRec reduces confidence-accuracy error while improving Precision@20 and Accuracy@20 (Section 3.2, Table 2, Figure 3) — are empirical claims evaluated on held-out test splits (7:1:2 split reported in Section 3.1.3) against externally published baselines (LightGCN [6], KGAT [8], MVIN [9], KGCL [7]). The confidence measure (max softmax) and the calibration target (Eq. 3) are standard definitions, and the method (Eqs. 5-6) is introduced as a direct design choice rather than imported from a citation; no equation defines a target quantity in terms of the method's own output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations ([2], [17], [18], [19], sharing authors Ziyu Guan, Wei Zhao, Cai Xu, Meng Yan) appear only as background context for noise propagation and e-commerce applications and are not load-bearing for the calibration argument; the binning procedure is attributed to external work [16]. Two genuine gaps exist but are not circularity: the temperature parameter tau in Eq. (5) is never reported nor is its selection protocol described, so the reliability-diagram improvement in Figure 3 cannot be fully audited against the possibility that tau was chosen to make the diagram approach the diagonal; and the paper never states whether the '+Conf-GNNRec' rows come from post-hoc application of Eq. (5), retraining with Eq. (6), or both, which leaves open that some gains are generic training effects. Both gaps are correctness and reproducibility risks, not reductions of a prediction to its inputs. On the quoted evidence, no circular step is exhibitable, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity; the small nonzero score reflects the minor non-load-bearing self-citations and the unverifiable tau, which are weighed but do not rise to demonstrated circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (2)
- Temperature factor tau in Eq (5) =
not reported
- Weight of confidence loss L_rcREC =
not reported
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption The softmax output of the final layer is a meaningful confidence measure that should satisfy Eq (3).
- domain assumption Noise in user-item interactions accumulates through message passing and is the main cause of overconfidence.
- ad hoc to paper A single logarithmic compression above the user mean calibrates overconfidence across all users and datasets.
- ad hoc to paper The confidence loss in Eq (6) improves calibration without hurting ranking accuracy.
- domain assumption Baseline hyperparameters suggested by the original authors are optimal for the 7:1:2 splits used here.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Conf-GNNRec: Quantifying and Calibrating the Prediction Confidence for GNN-based Recommendation Methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NE2YYYOH
@misc{pith2026250516466,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Conf-GNNRec: Quantifying and Calibrating the Prediction Confidence for GNN-based Recommendation Methods},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NE2YYYOH}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16466}
}
read the original abstract
Recommender systems based on graph neural networks perform well in tasks such as rating and ranking. However, in real-world recommendation scenarios, noise such as user misuse and malicious advertisement gradually accumulates through the message propagation mechanism. Even if existing studies mitigate their effects by reducing the noise propagation weights, the severe sparsity of the recommender system still leads to the low-weighted noisy neighbors being mistaken as meaningful information, and the prediction result obtained based on the polluted nodes is not entirely trustworthy. Therefore, it is crucial to measure the confidence of the prediction results in this highly noisy framework. Furthermore, our evaluation of the existing representative GNN-based recommendation shows that it suffers from overconfidence. Based on the above considerations, we propose a new method to quantify and calibrate the prediction confidence of GNN-based recommendations (Conf-GNNRec). Specifically, we propose a rating calibration method that dynamically adjusts excessive ratings to mitigate overconfidence based on user personalization. We also design a confidence loss function to reduce the overconfidence of negative samples and effectively improve recommendation performance. Experiments on public datasets demonstrate the validity of Conf-GNNRec in prediction confidence and recommendation performance.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[16]
Be confident! towards trustworthy graph neural networks via confidence calibration,
X. Wang, H. Liu, C. Shi, and C. Yang, “Be confident! towards trustworthy graph neural networks via confidence calibration, ” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 23 768–23 779, 2021
work page 2021
-
[1]
Trustworthiness-aware knowledge graph representation for recommendation,
Y. Ge, J. Ma, L. Zhang, X. Li, and H. Lu, “Trustworthiness-aware knowledge graph representation for recommendation, ”Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 278, p. 110865, 2023
work page 2023
-
[2]
Skipnode: On alleviating performance degradation for deep graph convolutional networks,
W. Lu, Y. Zhan, B. Lin, Z. Guan, L. Liu, B. Yu, W. Zhao, Y. Yang, and D. Tao, “Skipnode: On alleviating performance degradation for deep graph convolutional networks, ”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2024
work page 2024
-
[3]
Chat-rec: Towards interactive and explainable llms-augmented recommender system,
Y. Gao, T. Sheng, Y. Xiang, Y. Xiong, H. Wang, and J. Zhang, “Chat-rec: Towards interactive and explainable llms-augmented recommender system, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14524, 2023
arXiv 2023
-
[4]
M. T. Ramakrishna, V. K. Venkatesan, R. Bhardwaj, S. Bhatia, M. K. I. Rahmani, S. A. Lashari, and A. M. Alabdali, “Hcof: Hybrid collaborative filtering using social and semantic suggestions for friend recommendation, ”Electronics, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 1365, 2023
work page 2023
-
[5]
Adaptive denoising graph con- trastive learning with memory graph attention for recommendation,
G.-F. Ma, X.-H. Yang, L.-Y. Gao, and L.-H. Lian, “Adaptive denoising graph con- trastive learning with memory graph attention for recommendation, ”Neurocom- puting, vol. 610, p. 128595, 2024
work page 2024
-
[6]
Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation,
X. He, K. Deng, X. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Zhang, and M. Wang, “Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation, ” inProceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, 2020, pp. 639–648
work page 2020
-
[7]
Kgcl: A knowledge-enhanced graph contrastive learning framework for session-based recommendation,
X. Zhang, H. Ma, F. Yang, Z. Li, and L. Chang, “Kgcl: A knowledge-enhanced graph contrastive learning framework for session-based recommendation, ”Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 124, p. 106512, 2023
work page 2023
Show all 19 references
-
[8]
Kgat: Knowledge graph at- tention network for recommendation,
X. Wang, X. He, Y. Cao, M. Liu, and T.-S. Chua, “Kgat: Knowledge graph at- tention network for recommendation, ” inProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining , 2019, pp. 950–958
2019
-
[9]
Mvin: Learning multiview items for recommendation,
C.-Y. Tai, M.-R. Wu, Y.-W. Chu, S.-Y. Chu, and L.-W. Ku, “Mvin: Learning multiview items for recommendation, ” inProceedings of the 43rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval , 2020, pp. 99–108
2020
-
[10]
Graph-augmented co-attention model for socio-sequential recommendation,
B. Wu, X. He, L. Wu, X. Zhang, and Y. Ye, “Graph-augmented co-attention model for socio-sequential recommendation, ”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 4039–4051, 2023
2023
-
[11]
Self-supervised global graph neural networks with enhance-attention for session-based recommendation,
Q. Wang, H. Cui, J. Zhang, Y. Du, and X. Lu, “Self-supervised global graph neural networks with enhance-attention for session-based recommendation, ”Applied Soft Computing, vol. 150, p. 111026, 2024
2024
-
[12]
Robust graph recommendation via noise- aware adversarial perturbation,
J. Tang, Z. Sun, W. Yao, and X. Chen, “Robust graph recommendation via noise- aware adversarial perturbation, ” inInternational Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications. Springer, 2024, pp. 134–150. Conf-GNNRec WWW Companion ’25, April 28-May 2, 2025, Sydney, N...
2024
-
[13]
E-commerce search via content collaborative graph neural network,
G. Xv, C. Lin, W. Guan, J. Gou, X. Li, H. Deng, J. Xu, and B. Zheng, “E-commerce search via content collaborative graph neural network, ” inProceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2023, pp. 2885–2897
2023
-
[14]
Youtube video recommendation using user-based collab- orative filtering and graph neural networks approaches to improve users per- sonalized experience
T. J. Jebaseeli et al., “Youtube video recommendation using user-based collab- orative filtering and graph neural networks approaches to improve users per- sonalized experience. ”Grenze International Journal of Engineering & Technology (GIJET), vol. 10, 2024
2024
-
[15]
Dual variational graph recon- struction learning for social recommendation,
Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhao, S. Deng, and Y. Yang, “Dual variational graph recon- struction learning for social recommendation, ”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2024
2024
-
[17]
Nodemixup: Tackling under- reaching for graph neural networks,
W. Lu, Z. Guan, W. Zhao, Y. Yang, and L. Jin, “Nodemixup: Tackling under- reaching for graph neural networks, ” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 13, 2024, pp. 14 175–14 183
2024
-
[18]
Agmixup: Adaptive graph mixup for semi-supervised node classification,
W. Lu, Z. Guan, W. Zhao, Y. Yang, Y. Zhan, Y. Lu, and D. Tao, “Agmixup: Adaptive graph mixup for semi-supervised node classification, ”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08144, 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[19]
Truthsr: trustworthy sequential recommender systems via user-generated multimodal content,
M. Yan, H. Huang, Y. Liu, J. Zhao, X. Gao, C. Xu, Z. Guan, and W. Zhao, “Truthsr: trustworthy sequential recommender systems via user-generated multimodal content, ” inInternational Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applica- tions. Springer, 2024, pp. 180–195
2024
Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.