Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Revisiting Self-attention for Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation

T0 review · 6 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that negative transfer in cross-domain sequential recommendation can be mitigated by optimizing the self-attention already present in transformer recommenders, without adding domain-specific modules.

desk verdict Consistent gains from a simple Pareto-tuned cross-domain attention penalty, but the selective-negative-transfer story needs a control before I'd trust the mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21811 v1 pith:2WDQE4AM submitted 2025-05-27 cs.IR cs.AI

Clark Mingxuan Ju , Leonardo Neves , Bhuvesh Kumar , Liam Collins , Tong Zhao , Yuwei Qiu , Qing Dou , Sohail Nizam
show 2 more authors
Sen Yang Neil Shah
This is my paper
classification cs.IRcs.AI
keywords cross-domainsequentialrecommendationnegativetransferself-attentionParetomulti-objectiveoptimizationinformationbottlenecktokensSASRecBERT4Recretrieval
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

Cross-domain sequential recommendation usually fights negative transfer by adding domain-specific modules to transformer recommenders. This paper tries to show that the self-attention layer already in those models can do the job on its own, if the attention that flows between domains is optimized explicitly. The proposed AutoCDSR adds a second objective that minimizes cross-domain attention scores, reconciles it with the recommendation loss through a preference-aware Pareto-optimal update, and thereby suppresses harmful transfers while keeping helpful ones. Plugging this into SASRec and BERT4Rec yields average Recall@10 gains of about 9.8% and 16.0%, and makes the simple backbones competitive with state-of-the-art CDSR systems. If the claim holds, any deployed transformer-based recommender can gain cross-domain capability without new modules or heavy tuning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cross-domain attention score $a_{\text{cd}}$ (Eq. 5), the sum of softmax attention weights between items whose domain labels differ. It serves as the paper's measure of knowledge transfer and as the auxiliary loss being minimized. The optimizer is a preference-aware Pareto solver built on multiple-gradient descent and Frank-Wolfe iterations: it partitions the Pareto front with preference vectors, selects the vector closest to the recommendation task, and computes a common descent direction that only permits cross-domain attention to grow when it trades off favorably against recommendation loss. AutoCDSR+ adds learned information-bottleneck tokens that act as the sole channel for cross-domain attention, so that domain interaction is structured rather than free.

What would settle it

Train the same model with the same Pareto machinery but replace the cross-domain attention score in the auxiliary loss with a random or fixed scalar, or with attention weights from randomly chosen pairs of positions. If Recall gains persist, the cross-domain attention score is not the operative mechanism. A complementary check: take a trained cross-domain base model and manually zero the cross-domain attention at inference; if predictions barely change, high cross-domain attention is not what causes the errors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that self-attention alone is sufficient to mitigate negative transfer in cross-domain sequential recommendation when it is optimized with a Pareto-optimal two-task objective. Cross-domain attention scores $a_{\text{cd}}=\sum_{i,j}\operatorname{softmax}(A)_{i,j}\mathbb{I}(d(x_i)\neq d(x_j))$ are treated as a measurable proxy for knowledge transfer; the model minimizes this quantity as an auxiliary task while solving the recommendation task, using a preference-aware Pareto update so that cross-domain attention is reduced only when it does not help the recommendation loss. Empirically, AutoCDSR on SASRec and BERT4Rec improves Recall@10 by 9.8% and 16.0%, and NDCG@10 by 12.0% and 16.7% on average, enabling simple models to match or exceed existing CDSR systems at about four times lower training cost. AutoCDSR+ funnels cross-domain communication through information-bottleneck tokens and performs even better when domain labels are reliable.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the total attention weight flowing between different domains is a faithful measure of the knowledge transfer that hurts performance, so shrinking that weight is what improves the model—not the extra training signal or the extra tuning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any transformer-based sequential recommender can be retrofitted with cross-domain capability simply by adding the AutoCDSR objective; no domain-specific blocks are required.
  • Simple SASRec and BERT4Rec models with AutoCDSR match or exceed state-of-the-art CDSR systems while running about four times faster.
  • AutoCDSR selectively suppresses cross-domain attention for examples where single-domain knowledge suffices and preserves it for examples where cross-domain knowledge helps.
  • AutoCDSR+ gains further accuracy by routing cross-domain transfer through information-bottleneck tokens, at the cost of sensitivity to noisy domain labels.
  • Manual tuning of the transfer penalty is unnecessary; the Pareto solver adapts the trade-off per sequence and per training step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if $a_{\text{cd}}$ is causal, the same Pareto-gated attention could serve as a general transfer regulator in any multi-source sequence model, not just recommenders.
  • Editorial inference: the paper does not isolate the attention score from the extra loss; a constructive test would apply the same loss to random attention pairs and compare, since the observed gains could in principle come from extra regularization alone.
  • Editorial inference: the preference-vector machinery could likely be replaced by a per-sequence learned scalar; if a simpler weighting matches AutoCDSR, the Pareto framing would not be the operative source of the gain.
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

6 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes AutoCDSR, a method that augments the standard training loss of transformer-based sequential recommenders (SASRec, BERT4Rec) with an auxiliary loss that penalizes cross-domain attention scores, optimized via a preference-aware Pareto multi-task formulation. A variant, AutoCDSR+, uses information-bottleneck tokens to structure cross-domain exchange. Experiments on Amazon Reviews, KuaiRand-1K, and an internal production dataset report consistent improvements over base models (average Recall@10 gains of 9.8% and 16.0% for SASRec and BERT4Rec), competitive performance with existing CDSR systems, and roughly 4x faster training than the SyNCRec baseline. The paper argues that self-attention alone, when properly optimized, can mitigate negative transfer without domain-specific modules.

Significance. If the results hold, the practical contribution is real: a light, plug-and-play loss that can be dropped into any transformer-based sequential recommender, with code released. The Pareto-MTL formulation for attention scores is novel and the empirical gains are sizable. However, the paper's mechanistic claims—that the method selectively suppresses harmful cross-domain attention and encourages helpful transfer—are not supported by the presented analyses; the robustness experiment and attention statistics point toward a less specific effect. With a corrected formulation, specified hyperparameters, and additional ablations, the contribution would be valuable, but in its current form the central interpretation is not established.

major comments (6)
  1. [4.3.2, Eq. (13)] The definition of a_cd for AutoCDSR+ sums, for each domain d, attention from items i = T..M_d to the first T tokens j = 1..T of the same domain's sequence. This is a sum of within-domain item-to-IB-token attention, not cross-domain attention. As written, the auxiliary loss does not implement the described mechanism of cross-domain exchange between IB tokens of different domains. Please correct the indexing or clarify how A^d encodes cross-domain pairs; this is load-bearing because the AutoCDSR+ objective is computed from this quantity.
  2. [4.3.1 and 5] The number of Pareto sub-regions K, the choice of preference vector p_1, and the number of IB tokens T are never specified or ablated. The method's behavior and the 'preference-aware Pareto-optimal' claim depend on K and p_1; without numerical values or sensitivity studies, the experiments are not reproducible and the choice of p_1 (the vector closest to the recommendation task) is not justified. The sensitivity study in Section A.3 covers only the Frank-Wolfe iteration count, not K or T.
  3. [5.5, Tables 3 and 5] The 0% corruption results in Table 5 (AutoCDSR Type A Recall@20 = 0.124; AutoCDSR+ = 0.127) are inconsistent with the corresponding entries in Table 3 (BERT4Reccd + AutoCDSR = 0.173; BERT4Reccd + AutoCDSR+ = 0.139). This discrepancy is not explained; if the robustness study uses a different evaluation setting, data split, or backbone, that must be disclosed. As presented, the robustness claims cannot be assessed against the main results.
  4. [5.5, Figure 5] The robustness mechanism is not what the paper claims. Under label corruption, AutoCDSR drives the task weight to zero, meaning it stops applying the attention penalty rather than successfully identifying and suppressing harmful cross-domain interactions. Since no corrupted baseline without AutoCDSR is reported, the 'recovery' interpretation is unsupported; the experiment is consistent with the method simply turning off the auxiliary loss, and the claim that the method is robust to noisy domain knowledge is overstated.
  5. [5.3, Figure 3] For the beneficial stratum ('Single-domain ✗, Cross-domain ✓'), cross-domain attention decreases by 3% after AutoCDSR is applied, so the data do not show that the method 'encourages complementary knowledge exchange'. Without error bars or a statistical test, the statement that this decrease is 'not significant' is unsupported, and the claim of selective preservation of useful cross-domain interactions is not substantiated.
  6. [5.1 and 5.4] All studies are repeated five times, but no standard deviations or significance tests are reported anywhere. Given that several improvements in Table 3 (especially the Internal dataset) are smaller than 5%, the headline gains need variance information to be credible. Additionally, Section 5.4 states that embedding-table parameters are excluded from the Pareto gradient computation; this invalidates the theoretical Pareto-optimality guarantee from MGDA over the full parameter set, and no experiment compares the full-parameter update with the simplified one.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (9)] The denominator in the closed-form expression for alpha_1 should be the squared norm (i.e., ||...||_F^2); as written, the expression is dimensionally inconsistent.
  2. [Baselines, Section 5.1 and Table 2] C2DSR and CGRec are both cited as reference [2], but reference [2] is a single paper ('Contrastive cross-domain sequential recommendation'); please verify which baseline each citation refers to and correct the references.
  3. [Abstract] The model name is spelled inconsistently: the abstract uses 'Bert4Rec' while the body uses 'BERT4Rec'. Please standardize.
  4. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'Without loss of generality' before 'taking BERT4Rec as an example' is not appropriate; the analysis is specific to one model and no generality claim is established.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; held-out recommendation gains are independently evaluated, with only a minor built-in attention-reduction observation.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.3, Eq. (6); Section 5.3, Figure 3]
    "Based on the observation above, we propose to mitigate negative transfer in CDSR by directly minimizing the cross-domain attention scores a_cd. We initially formalize the corresponding loss as: L=α1·Lrec+α2·Lcd-attn, with Lcd-attn=a_cd, (6) ... In these two columns, the cross-domain attention scores are significantly reduced (i.e., -17% on the latter case), indicating that AutoCDSR successfully reduces attention scores for samples where the model suffers from negative transfer."

    In Eq. (6) the auxiliary objective is literally Lcd-attn = a_cd, so any optimizer minimizing this loss is engineered to lower cross-domain attention. Figure 3's observation that a_cd drops on negative-transfer strata is therefore a direct consequence of the training objective, not an independent confirmation of the mechanism. The paper's central claim, however, is the held-out Recall@10/NDCG gain of AutoCDSR over SASRec/BERT4Rec, which is measured on next-item prediction and is not determined by the loss definition. The built-in reduction only affects the 'why/how' interpretation (RQ3), so this is a minor self-definitional element rather than a circular derivation of the main empirical result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (a) observe post-hoc that cross-domain attention scores are higher on examples where cross-domain training hurts (Table 1, Figure 2); (b) define Lcd-attn = a_cd and reconcile it with Lrec via Pareto-aware multi-task optimization (Eqs. 6-12); (c) report large held-out Recall@10/NDCG improvements (Tables 2-3). The final step is genuinely independent: no parameter is fitted to test labels, and the comparison is against external baselines (SASRec, BERT4Rec, SyNCRec, C2DSR, CGRec). The 'cross-domain attention score is a reasonable proxy' claim in Section 4.2 is an empirically motivated assumption, not a definitional equivalence; if the proxy is wrong, the method may be no more than a generic attention regularizer, but that is a correctness/validity concern rather than circularity. Self-citations are present but not load-bearing: reference [21] supports the convergence of the Frank-Wolfe approximation in Eq. (12), yet the paper also provides its own sensitivity study (Table 7) showing performance saturates at 100 iterations, so the claim does not rest solely on the self-citation. The only mild circularity is that Figure 3's demonstration of reduced cross-domain attention is partly by construction, because a_cd is exactly the loss being minimized; this affects the mechanistic interpretation (RQ3) but not the held-out performance claim. The robustness experiment in Table 5, showing AutoCDSR is stable under domain-label corruption, is a competing explanation (generic regularization) rather than circularity, and the paper acknowledges the related limitation in A.5. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained against held-out benchmarks and does not reduce to a fit or a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method relies on one key domain assumption (attention scores proxy transfer), one standard optimization theorem (MGDA convergence), and one paper-specific heuristic (embedding exclusion). The auxiliary loss and IB tokens add architectural elements but are not fitted parameters that encode the answer.

free parameters (4)
  • K (Pareto subregion count) = not reported
    The number of preference vectors K is used to define the preference vector p_1, but the paper never specifies its value or how it is chosen. It is a hidden hyperparameter affecting the trade-off between the two losses.
  • Frank-Wolfe iteration count = 100
    Section 5.4 sets the number of iterations in Eq (12) to 100. Section A.3 shows performance saturates at 100, but this is still a tuned value.
  • IB token count T (AutoCDSR+) = not reported
    The number of information bottleneck tokens T is introduced in Section 4.3.2 and used in Eq (13), but no value or tuning protocol is given.
  • Preference vector p_1 = cos(pi/(2K)), sin(pi/(2K)) with unstated K
    The preference vector prioritizes L_rec but allows some weight on L_cd_attn; the angle depends on K, which is not disclosed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Softmax attention scores between items from different domains (a_cd) quantify cross-domain knowledge transfer.
    Section 4.2 defines a_cd in Eq (5) and uses it as the auxiliary loss. The paper provides correlational evidence (Figure 2) but not a causal proof that attention values directly control transfer.
  • domain assumption Minimizing a_cd mitigates negative transfer while the Pareto trade-off preserves beneficial transfer.
    The entire method rests on the premise that suppressing cross-domain attention reduces harmful interference without blocking useful signal; the paper demonstrates this empirically on select datasets but gives no formal guarantee.
  • standard math The Multiple Gradient Descent Algorithm (MGDA) converges to a Pareto-optimal solution for the two-task problem.
    Equations (8)-(9) follow from Désidéri (2012) and Sener & Koltun (2018), which the paper cites; the proof is external and standard.
  • ad hoc to paper Excluding embedding-table parameters from the Pareto gradient computation does not materially change the solution.
    Section 5.4 states they exclude embedding parameters to cut overhead; this is a heuristic deviation from the MGDA update described in Section 4.3.1 and is justified only by 'little to no performance degradation'.
invented entities (1)
  • Information bottleneck (IB) tokens in AutoCDSR+
    purpose: Dedicated learnable tokens placed in each domain sequence to act as the only channel for cross-domain information exchange.
    The tokens are a new architectural element introduced in Section 4.3.2; they are evaluated within the paper but have no external falsifiable handle beyond the reported performance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting Self-attention for Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2WDQE4AM

@misc{pith2026250521811,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting Self-attention for Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2WDQE4AM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21811}
}
read the original abstract

Sequential recommendation is a popular paradigm in modern recommender systems. In particular, one challenging problem in this space is cross-domain sequential recommendation (CDSR), which aims to predict future behaviors given user interactions across multiple domains. Existing CDSR frameworks are mostly built on the self-attention transformer and seek to improve by explicitly injecting additional domain-specific components (e.g. domain-aware module blocks). While these additional components help, we argue they overlook the core self-attention module already present in the transformer, a naturally powerful tool to learn correlations among behaviors. In this work, we aim to improve the CDSR performance for simple models from a novel perspective of enhancing the self-attention. Specifically, we introduce a Pareto-optimal self-attention and formulate the cross-domain learning as a multi-objective problem, where we optimize the recommendation task while dynamically minimizing the cross-domain attention scores. Our approach automates knowledge transfer in CDSR (dubbed as AutoCDSR) -- it not only mitigates negative transfer but also encourages complementary knowledge exchange among auxiliary domains. Based on the idea, we further introduce AutoCDSR+, a more performant variant with slight additional cost. Our proposal is easy to implement and works as a plug-and-play module that can be incorporated into existing transformer-based recommenders. Besides flexibility, it is practical to deploy because it brings little extra computational overheads without heavy hyper-parameter tuning. AutoCDSR on average improves Recall@10 for SASRec and Bert4Rec by 9.8% and 16.0% and NDCG@10 by 12.0% and 16.7%, respectively. Code is available at https://github.com/snap-research/AutoCDSR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21811 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cross-domain sequences with different characteris [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cross-domain and single-domain attention scores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of attention scores across different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The performance of base BERT4Rec model super [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Task weight trajectory derived by AutoCDSR. behaviors during the training and examine if AutoCDSR can re￾cover the performance of the base transformer without this cor￾ruption. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A systematic overview of our proposal. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Generative Recommendation with Semantic IDs: A Practitioner's Handbook

    cs.IR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An open-source framework and ablation study showing which semantic-ID generative recommendation components actually matter, with results that challenge several standard defaults.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Iz Beltagy, Matthew E Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long- document transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05150(2020)

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Jiangxia Cao, Xin Cong, Jiawei Sheng, Tingwen Liu, and Bin Wang. 2022. Con- trastive cross-domain sequential recommendation. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 138–147

    2022

  3. [3]

    Junyoung Chung, Caglar Gulcehre, KyungHyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.3555(2014)

    arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    Zeyu Cui, Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. 2022. M6-rec: Generative pretrained language models are open-ended recommender systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.08084(2022)

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Gabriel de Souza Pereira Moreira, Sara Rabhi, Jeong Min Lee, Ronay Ak, and Even Oldridge. 2021. Transformers4rec: Bridging the gap between nlp and sequential/session-based recommendation. InProceedings of the 15th ACM con- ference on recommender systems. 143–153

    2021

  6. [6]

    Jean-Antoine Désidéri. 2012. Multiple-gradient descent algorithm (MGDA) for multiobjective optimization.Comptes Rendus Mathematique350, 5-6 (2012), 313–318

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Xinyan Fan, Zheng Liu, Jianxun Lian, Wayne Xin Zhao, Xing Xie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2021. Lighter and better: low-rank decomposed self-attention networks for next-item recommendation. InProceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 1733–1737

    2021

  8. [8]

    Qixiang Fang, Zhihan Zhou, Francesco Barbieri, Yozen Liu, Leonardo Neves, Dong Nguyen, Daniel Oberski, Maarten Bos, and Ron Dotsch. 2024. General-Purpose User Modeling with Behavioral Logs: A Snapchat Case Study. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2431–2436

    work page 2024

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Chongming Gao, Shijun Li, Yuan Zhang, Jiawei Chen, Biao Li, Wenqiang Lei, Peng Jiang, and Xiangnan He. 2022. KuaiRand: An Unbiased Sequential Recommen- dation Dataset with Randomly Exposed Videos. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowle...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Sheng Gao, Hao Luo, Da Chen, Shantao Li, Patrick Gallinari, and Jun Guo. 2013. Cross-domain recommendation via cluster-level latent factor model. InMachine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2013, Prague, Czech Republic, September 23-...

    2013

  3. [11]

    Shijie Geng, Shuchang Liu, Zuohui Fu, Yingqiang Ge, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2022. Recommendation as language processing (rlp): A unified pretrain, personalized prompt & predict paradigm (p5). InProceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 299–315

    2022

  4. [12]

    Carlos A Gomez-Uribe and Neil Hunt. 2015. The netflix recommender system: Algorithms, business value, and innovation.ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS)(2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    B Hidasi. 2015. Session-based Recommendations with Recurrent Neural Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06939(2015)

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chaoqun Hou, Yuanhang Zhou, Yi Cao, and Tong Liu. 2024. ECAT: A Entire space Continual and Adaptive Transfer Learning Framework for Cross-Domain Recommendation. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2885–2889

    2024

  7. [15]

    Yupeng Hou, Jiacheng Li, Zhankui He, An Yan, Xiusi Chen, and Julian McAuley

  8. [16]

    Yupeng Hou, Junjie Zhang, Zihan Lin, Hongyu Lu, Ruobing Xie, Julian McAuley, and Wayne Xin Zhao. 2024. Large language models are zero-shot rankers for recommender systems. InEuropean Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 364–381

    2024

  9. [17]

    Junyoung Hwang, Hyunjun Ju, SeongKu Kang, Sanghwan Jang, and Hwanjo Yu

  10. [18]

    Martin Jaggi. 2013. Revisiting Frank-Wolfe: Projection-free sparse convex opti- mization. InProcs. of ICML

    2013

  11. [19]

    InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    Multi-Domain Sequential Recommendation via Domain Space Learning. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2134–2144

  12. [20]

    Mingxuan Ju, William Shiao, Zhichun Guo, Yanfang Ye, Yozen Liu, Neil Shah, and Tong Zhao. [n. d.]. How Does Message Passing Improve Collaborative Filtering?. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

  13. [21]

    Clark Mingxuan Ju, Leonardo Neves, Bhuvesh Kumar, Liam Collins, Tong Zhao, Yuwei Qiu, Qing Dou, Yang Zhou, Sohail Nizam, Rengim Ozturk, et al . 2025. Learning Universal User Representations Leveraging Cross-domain User Intent at Snapchat.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21838(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2018. Self-attentive sequential recom- mendation. In2018 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM). IEEE, 197–206

    2018

  15. [23]

    Mingxuan Ju, Tong Zhao, Qianlong Wen, Wenhao Yu, Neil Shah, Yanfang Ye, and Chuxu Zhang. 2023. Multi-task Self-supervised Graph Neural Networks Enable KDD ’25, August 3–7, 2025, Toronto, ON, Canada Clark Mingxuan Ju, et al. Stronger Task Generalization. InProcs. of ICLR

    2023

  16. [24]

    Giwoong Lee, Eunho Yang, and Sung Hwang. 2016. Asymmetric multi-task learning based on task relatedness and loss. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 230–238

    2016

  17. [25]

    Matthew Kolodner, Mingxuan Ju, Zihao Fan, Tong Zhao, Elham Ghazizadeh, Yan Wu, Neil Shah, and Yozen Liu. 2024. Robust Training Objectives Improve Embedding-based Retrieval in Industrial Recommendation Systems.RobustRecSys Workshop at RecSys(2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Jing Li, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Zhaochun Ren, Tao Lian, and Jun Ma. 2017. Neural attentive session-based recommendation. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 1419–1428

    2017

  19. [27]

    Chenglin Li, Yuanzhen Xie, Chenyun Yu, Bo Hu, Zang Li, Guoqiang Shu, Xiaohu Qie, and Di Niu. 2023. One for all, all for one: Learning and transferring user embeddings for cross-domain recommendation. InProceedings of the Sixteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and...

    2023

  20. [28]

    Xi Lin, Hui-Ling Zhen, Zhenhua Li, Qing-Fu Zhang, and Sam Kwong. 2019. Pareto multi-task learning.Advances in neural information processing systems32 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Guanyu Lin, Chen Gao, Yu Zheng, Jianxin Chang, Yanan Niu, Yang Song, Kun Gai, Zhiheng Li, Depeng Jin, Yong Li, et al . 2024. Mixed Attention Network for Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation. InProceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Meng Liu, Jianjun Li, Guohui Li, and Peng Pan. 2020. Cross domain recom- mendation via bi-directional transfer graph collaborative filtering networks. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management. 885–894

    2020

  23. [31]

    Langming Liu, Liu Cai, Chi Zhang, Xiangyu Zhao, Jingtong Gao, Wanyu Wang, Yifu Lv, Wenqi Fan, Yiqi Wang, Ming He, et al. 2023. Linrec: Linear attention mechanism for long-term sequential recommender systems. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Resea...

    2023

  24. [32]

    Muyang Ma, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Zhaochun Ren, Lifan Zhao, Peiyu Liu, Jun Ma, and Maarten de Rijke. 2022. Mixed information flow for cross-domain sequential recommendations.ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD)16, 4 (2022), 1–32

    2022

  25. [33]

    Qiao Liu, Yifu Zeng, Refuoe Mokhosi, and Haibin Zhang. 2018. STAMP: short- term attention/memory priority model for session-based recommendation. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge dis- covery & data mining. 1831–1839

    2018

  26. [34]

    Julian McAuley, Christopher Targett, Qinfeng Shi, and Anton Van Den Hengel

  27. [35]

    2019.𝜋-net: A parallel information-sharing network for shared-account cross- domain sequential recommendations

    Muyang Ma, Pengjie Ren, Yujie Lin, Zhumin Chen, Jun Ma, and Maarten de Rijke. 2019.𝜋-net: A parallel information-sharing network for shared-account cross- domain sequential recommendations. InProceedings of the 42nd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and developmen...

    2019

  28. [36]

    Nikil Pancha, Andrew Zhai, Jure Leskovec, and Charles Rosenberg. 2022. Pinner- former: Sequence modeling for user representation at pinterest. InProceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 3702–3712

    2022

  29. [37]

    Chung Park, Taesan Kim, Taekyoon Choi, Junui Hong, Yelim Yu, Mincheol Cho, Kyunam Lee, Sungil Ryu, Hyungjun Yoon, Minsung Choi, et al. 2023. Cracking the Code of Negative Transfer: A Cooperative Game Theoretic Approach for Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation. InProceedings ...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Arsha Nagrani, Shan Yang, Anurag Arnab, Aren Jansen, Cordelia Schmid, and Chen Sun. 2021. Attention bottlenecks for multimodal fusion.Advances in neural information processing systems34 (2021), 14200–14213

    2021

  31. [39]

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

  32. [40]

    Aravind Sankar, Yozen Liu, Jun Yu, and Neil Shah. 2021. Graph neural networks for friend ranking in large-scale social platforms. InProceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 2535–2546

    2021

  33. [41]

    Chung Park, Taesan Kim, Hyungjun Yoon, Junui Hong, Yelim Yu, Mincheol Cho, Minsung Choi, and Jaegul Choo. 2024. Pacer and Runner: Cooperative Learning Framework between Single-and Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Confere...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Ozan Sener and Vladlen Koltun. 2018. Multi-task learning as multi-objective optimization.Advances in neural information processing systems31 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Ajit P Singh and Geoffrey J Gordon. 2008. Relational learning via collective matrix factorization. InProceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 650–658

    2008

  36. [44]

    Fei Sun, Jun Liu, Jian Wu, Changhua Pei, Xiao Lin, Wenwu Ou, and Peng Jiang

  37. [45]

    J Ben Schafer, Joseph Konstan, and John Riedl. 1999. Recommender systems in e-commerce. InProcs. of ACM conference on Electronic commerce

    1999

  38. [46]

    Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Shaojie Bai, Paul Pu Liang, J Zico Kolter, Louis-Philippe Morency, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2019. Multimodal transformer for unaligned multimodal language sequences. InProceedings of the conference. Association for computational linguistics. Meeting, Vol...

    2019

  39. [47]

    Aaron Van den Oord, Sander Dieleman, and Benjamin Schrauwen. 2013. Deep content-based music recommendation. InProcs. of NeurIPS

    2013

  40. [48]

    A Vaswani. 2017. Attention is all you need.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems(2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Ruoxi Wang, Rakesh Shivanna, Derek Cheng, Sagar Jain, Dong Lin, Lichan Hong, and Ed Chi. 2021. Dcn v2: Improved deep & cross network and practical lessons for web-scale learning to rank systems. InProcs. of WWW

    2021

  42. [50]

    Qiaoyu Tan, Jianwei Zhang, Jiangchao Yao, Ninghao Liu, Jingren Zhou, Hongxia Yang, and Xia Hu. 2021. Sparse-interest network for sequential recommendation. InProceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on web search and data mining. 598–606

    2021

  43. [51]

    Likang Wu, Zhi Zheng, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hao Wang, Hongchao Gu, Tingjia Shen, Chuan Qin, Chen Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Qi Liu, et al . 2024. A survey on large language models for recommendation.World Wide Web27, 5 (2024), 60

    2024

  44. [52]

    Chengfeng Xu, Jian Feng, Pengpeng Zhao, Fuzhen Zhuang, Deqing Wang, Yanchi Liu, and Victor S Sheng. 2021. Long-and short-term self-attention network for sequential recommendation.Neurocomputing423 (2021), 580–589

    2021

  45. [53]

    Peng Xu, Xiatian Zhu, and David A Clifton. 2023. Multimodal learning with transformers: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45, 10 (2023), 12113–12132

    2023

  46. [54]

    Rex Ying, Ruining He, Kaifeng Chen, Pong Eksombatchai, William L Hamilton, and Jure Leskovec. 2018. Graph convolutional neural networks for web-scale recommender systems. InProcs. of SIGKDD

    2018

  47. [55]

    Chao-Yuan Wu, Amr Ahmed, Alex Beutel, Alexander J Smola, and How Jing. 2017. Recurrent recommender networks. InProceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining. 495–503

    2017

  48. [56]

    Junjie Zhang, Ruobing Xie, Yupeng Hou, Xin Zhao, Leyu Lin, and Ji-Rong Wen

  49. [57]

    Qian Zhang, Dianshuang Wu, Jie Lu, Feng Liu, and Guangquan Zhang. 2017. A cross-domain recommender system with consistent information transfer.Decision Support Systems104 (2017), 49–63

    2017

  50. [58]

    Yuyu Zhang, Liang Pang, Lei Shi, and Bin Wang. 2014. Large scale purchase prediction with historical user actions on B2C online retail platform.arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.6515(2014)

    2014 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Zijian Zhang, Shuchang Liu, Jiaao Yu, Qingpeng Cai, Xiangyu Zhao, Chunxu Zhang, Ziru Liu, Qidong Liu, Hongwei Zhao, Lantao Hu, et al. 2024. MDMTRec: An Adaptive Multi-Task Multi-Domain Recommendation Framework. In47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Developm...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Tianzi Zang, Yanmin Zhu, Haobing Liu, Ruohan Zhang, and Jiadi Yu. 2022. A survey on cross-domain recommendation: taxonomies, methods, and future directions.ACM Transactions on Information Systems41, 2 (2022), 1–39

    2022

  53. [61]

    Kun Zhou, Hui Wang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Yutao Zhu, Sirui Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Zhongyuan Wang, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2020. S3-rec: Self-supervised learning for se- quential recommendation with mutual information maximization. InProceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on inf...

    2020

  54. [62]

    Feng Zhu, Chaochao Chen, Yan Wang, Guanfeng Liu, and Xiaolin Zheng. 2019. Dtcdr: A framework for dual-target cross-domain recommendation. InProceed- ings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management. 1533–1542

    2019

  55. [63]

    Feng Zhu, Yan Wang, Chaochao Chen, Jun Zhou, Longfei Li, and Guanfeng Liu

  56. [64]

    Xianghui Zhu, Mengqun Jin, Hengyu Zhang, Chang Meng, Daoxin Zhang, and Xiu Li. 2024. Modeling Domains as Distributions with Uncertainty for Cross- Domain Recommendation. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Ret...

    2024

  57. [65]

    9" as Type A and

    Yaochen Zhu, Liang Wu, Qi Guo, Liangjie Hong, and Jundong Li. 2024. Collab- orative large language model for recommender systems. InProceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024. 3162–3172. Revisiting Self-attention for Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation KDD ’25, August 3–...

    2024

  58. [66]

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  59. [2009]

    BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback. InUAI

  60. [2015]

    InProceedings of the 38th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval

    Image-based recommendations on styles and substitutes. InProceedings of the 38th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 43–52

  61. [2019]

    InProceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management

    BERT4Rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder rep- resentations from transformer. InProceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management. 1441–1450

  62. [2021]

    Cross-domain recommendation: challenges, progress, and prospects.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.01696(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  63. [2023]

    Recommendation as instruction following: A large language model em- powered recommendation approach.ACM Transactions on Information Systems (2023)

    2023

  64. [2024]

    Bridging Language and Items for Retrieval and Recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03952(2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.