Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 64 references

FedCGR: Federated Cross-Domain Generative Recommendation

T0 review · 2 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 A shared discrete vocabulary for items lets federated recommender systems transfer knowledge across domains without sharing user behavior.

desk verdict A genuinely new federated CDR design built on shared semantic IDs, but the local CF extractor's training split is under-specified and could leak test items; the numbers should not be trusted until that is resolved. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10929 v1 pith:YRGUB2TS submitted 2026-08-11 cs.AI

Zhuodong Liu , Hugen Lv , Xiangyu Li , Bohan Guo , Peiyu Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords federatedcross-domainrecommendationgenerativesemanticIDsresidualquantizationlearningpersonalizedaggregationcold-startreliability-awarefusion
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

The paper argues that the hard part of federated cross-domain recommendation—aligning item spaces across clients without sharing interaction data—can be sidestepped by treating items as discrete semantic ID (SID) sequences produced once from public item-side metadata. Because every client uses the same frozen tokenizer, cross-domain alignment is inherited from the shared vocabulary instead of being learned from private behavior. Two problems then remain, and the paper's method FedCGR targets each: the frozen tokenizer blocks local collaborative-filtering knowledge, so FedCGR injects that knowledge through reliability-gated residual signals; and naive federated averaging causes negative transfer among heterogeneous domains, so FedCGR aggregates shared generator parameters by domain relatedness. On six cross-domain scenarios built from public review data, FedCGR consistently outperforms federated generative baselines and is competitive with strong non-federated sequential and federated cross-domain baselines. If correct, this shows federated CDR can be staged over a shared discrete item language with local adaptation, rather than by aligning private embedding spaces.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fixed RQ-VAE SID vocabulary: a discrete tokenizer trained on public item metadata, such as titles, categories, and descriptions, that assigns every item a short sequence of codes and gives all clients the same item language without any interaction data. On top of it, a reliability-aware semantic interface fuses SID token embeddings with a client-local collaborative-filtering residual: item frequency gives a confidence weight, a learned gate calibrates each domain's overall collaborative contribution, and a local adapter maps the local embedding coordinates into the generator's hidden space. The second mechanism is a prototype-personalized federated generator: shared layers use a mixture-of-experts block with shared experts plus a client-private expert, clients upload only shared parameters and a domain prototype, and the server forms each domain's aggregate by softmax weights over cosine similarity between prototypes, falling back to data-volume federated averaging as the temperature diverges. These two mechanisms answer the paper's two constraints: information loss from frozen tokenization and negative transfer under heterogeneity.

What would settle it

Run FedCGR on a domain pair whose metadata vocabularies are deliberately disjoint—for instance, one domain described with a category taxonomy the other never uses—and compare against training each domain locally: if the federated method no longer beats the local models on cold-start users, the claim that the shared SID vocabulary induces alignment is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that federated cross-domain recommendation can be reformulated as autoregressive generation over a stable semantic item language, and that this reformulation converts privacy-sensitive alignment into a property of a fixed vocabulary. Items are mapped by a residual-quantization tokenizer over metadata embeddings into short discrete codes; the tokenizer is trained once and never updated, preserving token consistency across clients. To compensate for the resulting semantic-only bottleneck, each client learns a local collaborative-filtering embedding from its own interaction sequences and inserts it as a residual whose contribution is scaled by item reliability and a client-local gate. To survive domain heterogeneity, the generator's shared parameters are aggregated per domain using weights derived from cosine similarity between client prototypes, while domain-specific parameters stay local. The paper reports that this design outperforms federated SID-generation baselines on all reported full-ranking cells, beats federated discriminative cross-domain baselines under sampled evaluation, and yields a cross-over in ablations: local collaborative evidence matters most when domains are closely related, while personalized aggregation is the binding constraint when they are diverse.

Load-bearing premise

The whole cross-domain gain rests on a tokenizer trained from public item metadata producing a shared item vocabulary whose semantic grouping actually tracks how users behave in each domain; if metadata categories do not align with behavioral similarity, the shared language carries no real transfer signal and the local collaborative signals cannot make up for it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fixed item language removes reliance on overlapping users or shared interaction signals for alignment, since the shared tokenizer defines the alignment before federated training begins.
  • Because only shared generator parameters and domain prototypes leave the client, raw interaction sequences and all domain-specific modules remain private, and secure aggregation or differential privacy can be added without altering the design.
  • Ablations show a cross-over: local collaborative evidence is what matters most when domains are closely related, while personalized aggregation becomes the binding constraint under high heterogeneity.
  • On the reported scenarios, the faster convergence of personalized aggregation cuts total upload communication by roughly a third to a half relative to data-volume averaging, despite an 18 percent larger per-round payload.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the shared-vocabulary argument implies a zero-shot entry test: a domain that never participated in federation but whose items can be encoded by the same tokenizer should inherit cross-domain knowledge immediately, a claim the experiments do not directly verify.
  • The cross-over ablation also suggests an adaptive control rule that the paper leaves implicit: a federation could inspect prototype divergences each round and adjust the strength of collaborative residuals and the sharpness of aggregation accordingly.
  • A natural stress test not reported here is a domain pair with disjoint metadata vocabularies; the framework predicts graceful degradation toward local baselines, whereas an alignment-based method would be expected to fail loudly, so this comparison would separate the two families of approaches.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes FedCGR, a federated cross-domain generative recommendation framework. The core idea is to represent items as discrete semantic-ID (SID) sequences produced by a frozen RQ-VAE tokenizer trained on public item metadata, so that cross-domain alignment is induced by a shared token vocabulary rather than by aligning private embeddings. To overcome the resulting semantic-only bottleneck, each client injects local collaborative-filtering evidence through a reliability-aware residual (item frequency confidence, client-local gate, and a local adapter), and a dense auxiliary head is trained only locally. To avoid negative transfer under domain heterogeneity, shared generator parameters are aggregated per target domain with weights computed from EMA-updated domain prototypes (Eqs. 17-20), while private experts, domain embeddings, CF adapters, and local statistics remain on clients. Experiments on six Amazon scenarios report that FedCGR consistently beats federated generative baselines (TIGER+FedAvg/FedProx) under full-ranking and achieves the best results among federated discriminative CDR baselines under 999-negative sampling; ablations show a cross-over pattern in which CF enrichment matters most in high-affinity scenarios and personalized aggregation matters most in heterogeneous ones. The paper includes a public code repository, an algorithmic description, and a parameter partition table.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper makes a useful conceptual contribution: it shows that federated CDR can be staged over a stable discrete item language, with adaptation handled explicitly through reliability-gated local CF residuals and prototype-personalized aggregation, rather than through private-space alignment. The framework is described precisely (Algorithm 1, Table 1), the tokenizer pipeline is reproducible from public metadata, and the code is released, so the main results are checkable. The ablation cross-over between CF enrichment and personalized aggregation is a falsifiable prediction that organizes the design space usefully. The main risk to significance is the unresolved training-split ambiguity for the local CF extractor discussed in the major comments; if the extractor saw the full sequences, the reported gains would be artifacts of target leakage. The shared-vocabulary assumption also deserves a caveat: the method's transfer value is bounded by how well metadata semantics track behavioral equivalence across domains, though the low-affinity GS results provide some positive evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2 / §4.1.3 / Eq. (8)] The experimental protocol for the local CF extractor is unverifiable as written. Section 3.2 trains SASRec "using only its private interaction sequences R_i" and Eq. (8) injects the resulting CF embeddings of every history item, including the last one, into the generator input; Section 4.1.3 defines the evaluation split (last item test, second-to-last validation, remaining training) but never states that the SASRec extractor is restricted to the training prefix. If SASRec is trained on the full 5-core-filtered sequences, the CF embedding of the last history item (the validation item) was fitted to predict the test item, so the residual channel in Eq. (8) leaks the target at inference, and the dense loss in Eq. (12) reinforces that leak during training; this would inflate every FedCGR result, especially the large margins over TIGER+FedAvg and TIGER+FedProx. The authors must clarify in the text, and verify with the public code, which data split the local CF extractor was trained on; if it was the full sequence, the experiments must be re-run with the extractor trained on the training prefix only and the tables re-reported.
  2. [Table 3 / §4.1.1] There is an internal inconsistency between the stated data processing and the single-domain baseline results. Section 4.1.1 and the Table 2 footnote describe 5-core filtering as independent per domain, in which case SASRec and GRU4Rec results for the same domain must be identical across scenarios; however, Table 3 reports SASRec Grocery H@10 0.164 in GS and GBS but 0.111 in GKBS, and SASRec Sports H@10 0.105 in GS but 0.177 in GBS. The table footnote attributes this to "scenario-specific data filtering," which is not consistent with independent per-domain filtering. In particular, the anomalous drop of SASRec on GS Sports (H@10 0.105 vs. GRU4Rec 0.198) means that the claim of FedCGR being best in GS rests on a possibly collapsed baseline. Please reconcile the two statements, report the exact filtering and splitting pipeline per scenario, and confirm that the GKBS single-domain numbers are not a filtering or logging artifact.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 5 vs. Table 3] The ablation table reports the full FedCGR model at FK with N@10 = 0.048 as a scenario-level macro-average, but the corresponding macro-average from Table 3 is (0.077 + 0.029) / 2 = 0.053; please reconcile the two values or state explicitly that the ablations were computed on the validation split rather than the test split.
  2. [§4.1.4] The paper states that standard deviations are below 0.003 and omits them; because several reported margins are large but some comparisons are close, reporting the per-seed values or error bars in an appendix would make the significance of the results verifiable.
  3. [Table 4] The 999-negative sampled evaluation table contains only discriminative baselines; adding TIGER+FedAvg and TIGER+FedProx under the same sampled protocol would directly support the abstract's claim of consistent gains over federated generative baselines under both evaluation protocols.
  4. [Figure 3] Only the FedProx bars in Figure 3 are annotated with their NDCG values; annotating the SID-only and Full bars would allow the reader to verify the claimed widening gap between FedCGR and its SID-only ablation as user activity increases.
  5. [§4.1.4] Please state whether hyperparameters other than the aggregation temperature (notably λ_d, μ, and τ) were tuned on validation data or fixed by convention; the sensitivity analysis in Figure 4 shows a clear optimum for λ_d, so a tuning statement is important for reproducibility.
  6. [§3.2] A one-sentence clarification that the local CF extractor is trained on the same training prefix used for the federated generator would resolve the protocol ambiguity raised in the major comments and should be added regardless of the code check outcome.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: FedCGR's claims are empirical comparisons against external baselines; no prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation.

full rationale

FedCGR is a system paper whose central assertions are experimental. The SID vocabulary is fixed from public item metadata (Eq. 4), local CF embeddings are pre-trained and frozen per client (Eq. 5, Eq. 8), and aggregation weights are computed from domain prototypes produced during training (Eqs. 17-20). None of these quantities is defined in terms of the metric being predicted, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The reported gains are measured against external baselines such as TIGER, SASRec, and FedDCSR under full-ranking and 999-neg protocols. The only self-citations are [16] and [17] in the related-work discussion; [17] (GenCDR) is a centralized prior method and is not used to justify FedCGR's design choices, to import a uniqueness theorem, or to forbid alternative approaches. The skeptical concern that the local SASRec CF extractor may have been trained on the full user sequence including validation/test items is a possible experimental-protocol ambiguity or leakage issue, not a circularity of the derivation chain; if real, it would affect validity, but it does not make the paper's reasoning self-referential. No load-bearing step reduces, by the paper's own equations or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

FedCGR is an empirical architecture paper rather than a derivation. Its claimed mechanism depends on metadata availability, fixed-tokenizer alignment, prototype-based relatedness, and hyperparameters tuned on validation. No parameter-free derivation is offered.

free parameters (6)
  • Aggregation temperature tau_a = tuned on validation (optimum near 0.10)
    Controls sharpness of prototype-based aggregation weights in Eq. 20; tuned rather than derived.
  • Dense loss weight lambda_d = 0.1
    Chosen to balance SID generation and local CF alignment; sensitivity is shown in Fig. 4a.
  • Proximal coefficient mu = 0.01
    Regularizes local shared parameters toward the personalized aggregate in Eq. 24.
  • InfoNCE temperature tau = 0.07
    Standard contrastive temperature used in the dense auxiliary loss Eq. 12.
  • Prototype momentum beta = 0.9
    EMA smoothing for domain prototypes in Eq. 18.
  • Reliability denominator epsilon = small constant
    Numerical stabilizer in Eq. 7; no principled value is given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Public item-side metadata is available for all items and informative enough to define a shared semantic item language.
    Section 3.2 uses BGE and RQ-VAE over metadata; SID alignment depends on this.
  • domain assumption A single fixed RQ-VAE tokenizer maintains consistent token semantics across clients throughout training.
    The frozen tokenizer is the communication interface; if it drifts or semantics are ambiguous, alignment breaks.
  • domain assumption Locally trained CF embeddings are not coordinate-aligned and therefore should not be shared.
    Justifies keeping CF adapters and gates local; stated in Section 3.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Domain prototypes computed from encoder memories capture domain relatedness for aggregation weighting.
    Eqs. 17-20 use prototype cosine similarity as the transfer weight; no external validation that prototypes measure relatedness better than other summaries.
  • ad hoc to paper Average interaction frequency is a valid proxy for local CF embedding reliability.
    Eq. 7 sets reliability from log-frequency; the paper does not compare alternative reliability estimators.
  • standard math RQ-VAE residual quantization and autoregressive SID factorization are valid generative recommendation machinery.
    Borrowed from prior work [22,37]; not proven anew in this paper.
invented entities (1)
  • Domain prototype (EMA of mean encoder memory)
    purpose: Summarizes each domain's learned behavior for similarity-based personalized aggregation.
    Introduced in Eqs. 17-18; no external benchmark or formal privacy or relatedness guarantee, and its validity is evidenced only by internal ablations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FedCGR: Federated Cross-Domain Generative Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YRGUB2TS

@misc{pith2026260810929,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FedCGR: Federated Cross-Domain Generative Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YRGUB2TS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10929}
}
read the original abstract

Cross-domain recommendation (CDR) transfers preference knowledge across related domains, but federated deployment makes cross-domain alignment difficult because the behavioral anchors that align item spaces, such as overlapping users and shared interaction signals, are often sparse, unavailable, or privacy-sensitive across clients. To address this tension, we revisit federated CDR as generation over a stable semantic item language. By representing items as discrete semantic ID (SID) sequences derived from public item-side metadata, cross-domain item alignment is induced by a shared vocabulary rather than by exchanging private interactions or aligning domain-specific embeddings. Directly federating SID-based generators, however, introduces two design constraints: the SID tokenizer must remain fixed to preserve cross-client token consistency, which creates a semantic-only bottleneck because local collaborative filtering (CF) signals cannot be globally shared or aligned; meanwhile, standard federated averaging can cause negative transfer under domain heterogeneity. To overcome these constraints, we propose FedCGR, a federated generative CDR framework that keeps the item language stable and makes adaptation explicit. FedCGR injects local CF evidence through a reliability-aware semantic interface and trains a prototype-personalized generator that selectively aggregates shared parameters according to domain relatedness while keeping domain-specific quantities local. Experiments on six Amazon cross-domain scenarios show that FedCGR consistently outperforms federated generative baselines and achieves competitive performance against strong sequential and federated CDR methods under both full-ranking and sampled evaluation protocols.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10929 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between (a) traditional federated CDR, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall framework of FedCGR. A fixed RQ-VAE tokenizer maps item-side metadata into shared SIDs, forming a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cold-start analysis: NDCG@10 across user activity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity analysis: (a) NDCG@10 vs. dense loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: NDCG@10 vs. cumulative upload communication [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Durmus Alp Emre Acar, Yue Zhao, Ruizhao Zhu, Ramon Matas, Matthew Mattina, Paul Whatmough, and Venkatesh Saligrama. 2021. Debiasing Model Updates for Improving Personalized Federated Training. InProceedings of the 38th Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 139). PMLR, 21–31

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Gaode Chen, Xinghua Zhang, Yijun Su, Yantong Lai, Ji Xiang, Junbo Zhang, and Yu Zheng. 2023. Win-Win: A Privacy-Preserving Federated Framework for Dual-Target Cross-Domain Recommendation. InProceedings of the 37th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 4149–4156

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Jianlv Chen, Shitao Xiao, Peitian Zhang, Kun Luo, Defu Lian, and Zheng Liu. 2024. M3-Embedding: Multi-Linguality, Multi-Functionality, Multi-Granularity Text Embeddings Through Self-Knowledge Distillation. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Liam Collins, Hamed Hassani, Aryan Mokhtari, and Sanjay Shakkottai. 2021. Exploiting Shared Representations for Personalized Federated Learning. InPro- ceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Dinh, Nguyen H

    Canh T. Dinh, Nguyen H. Tran, and Tuan Dung Nguyen. 2020. Personalized Federated Learning with Moreau Envelopes. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Jing Du, Zesheng Ye, Bin Guo, Zhiwen Yu, and Lina Yao. 2024. Identifiability of Cross-Domain Recommendation via Causal Subspace Disentanglement. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Avishek Ghosh, Jichan Chung, Dong Yin, and Kannan Ramchandran. 2020. An Efficient Framework for Clustered Federated Learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Lei Guo, Ziang Lu, Junliang Yu, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, and Hongzhi Yin

    work page

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Xinrui He, Ting-Wei Li, Tianxin Wei, Xuying Ning, Xinyu He, Wenxuan Bao, Hanghang Tong, and Jingrui He. 2026. FeDecider: An LLM-Based Framework for Federated Cross-Domain Recommendation. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference (WWW). doi:10.1145/3774904.3792294

    2026

  2. [10]

    Balázs Hidasi, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Linas Baltrunas, and Domonkos Tikk

  3. [11]

    Min Hou, Le Wu, Yuxin Liao, Yonghui Yang, Zhen Zhang, Yu Wang, Changlong Zheng, Han Wu, and Richang Hong. 2026. A Survey on Generative Recommen- dation: Data, Model, and Tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.27157(2026)

    2026 arXiv

  4. [12]

    McAuley, and Wayne Xin Zhao

    Yupeng Hou, Zhankui He, Julian J. McAuley, and Wayne Xin Zhao. 2023. Learn- ing Vector-Quantized Item Representation for Transferable Sequential Recom- menders. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference (WWW). doi:10.1145/3543507. 3583434

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Yupeng Hou, Jiacheng Li, Ashley Shin, Jinsung Jeon, Abhishek Santhanam, Wei Shao, Kaveh Hassani, Ning Yao, and Julian McAuley. 2025. Generating Long Semantic IDs in Parallel for Recommendation. InProceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Min...

    2025

  6. [14]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Guangneng Hu, Yu Zhang, and Qiang Yang. 2018. CoNet: Collaborative Cross Networks for Cross-Domain Recommendation. InProceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 667–676. doi:10.1145/3269206.3271684

    2018

  8. [16]

    Peiyu Hu, Weihai Lu, Siying Gu, Elliott Wen, Changyu Zeng, Senzhang Wang, and Jia Wang. 2026. A Modular Survey for Semantic ID-Based Generative Rec- ommendation.Preprints(2026)

    2026

  9. [17]

    Peiyu Hu, Wayne Lu, and Jia Wang. 2026. From IDs to Semantics: A Generative Framework for Cross-Domain Recommendation with Adaptive Semantic Tok- enization. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 40. 14874–14882

    2026

  10. [18]

    Deling Huang and Qilong Feng. 2025. Federated Cross-Domain Recommendation Framework With Graph Neural Network.Expert Systems42, 8 (2025), e70087

    2025

  11. [19]

    Jianchao Ji, Zelong Li, Shuyuan Xu, Wenyue Hua, Yingqiang Ge, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. GenRec: Large Language Model for Generative Recom- mendation. InProceedings of the European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR). 494–502

    2024

  12. [20]

    Bowen Jin, Hansi Zeng, Guoyin Wang, Xiusi Chen, Tianxin Wei, Ruirui Li, Zhengyang Wang, Zheng Li, Yang Li, Hanqing Lu, Suhang Wang, Jiawei Han, and Xianfeng Tang. 2024. Language Models as Semantic Indexers. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian J. McAuley. 2018. Self-Attentive Sequential Rec- ommendation. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). 197–206

    2018

  14. [22]

    Doyup Lee, Chiheon Kim, Saehoon Kim, Minsu Cho, and Wook-Shin Han. 2022. Autoregressive Image Generation using Residual Quantization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 11523–11532

    2022

  15. [23]

    Sunkyung Lee, Seongmin Park, Jonghyo Kim, Mincheol Yoon, and Jongwuk Lee

  16. [24]

    Chenglin Li, Mingjun Zhao, Huanming Zhang, Chenyun Yu, Lei Cheng, Guo- qiang Shu, BeiBei Kong, and Di Niu. 2022. RecGURU: Adversarial Learning of Generalized User Representations for Cross-Domain Recommendation. InPro- ceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on ...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Hanyu Li, Weizhi Ma, Peijie Sun, Jiayu Li, Cunxiang Yin, Yancheng He, Guoqiang Xu, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2024. Aiming at the Target: Filter Collabora- tive Information for Cross-Domain Recommendation. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Resear...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Pan Li and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2020. DDTCDR: Deep Dual Transfer Cross Domain Recommendation. InProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM). 331–339

    2020

  19. [27]

    Xiaopeng Li, Bo Chen, Junda She, Shiteng Cao, You Wang, Qinlin Jia, Haiying He, Zheli Zhou, Zhao Liu, Ji Liu, Zhiyang Zhang, Yu Zhou, Guoping Tang, Yiqing Yang, Chengcheng Guo, Si Dong, Kuo Cai, Pengyue Jia, Maolin Wang, Wanyu Wang, Shiyao Wang, Xinchen Luo, Qigen Hu, Qiang Lu...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Xinyu Lin, Haokai Shi, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, Qiang Wang, See-Kiong Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2025. Order-agnostic Identifier for Large Language Model-based Generative Recommendation. InProceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Inf...

    2025

  21. [29]

    Xinyu Lin, Chaoqun Yang, Wenjie Wang, Yongqi Li, Cunxiao Du, Fuli Feng, See-Kiong Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2025. Efficient Inference for Large Language Model-based Generative Recommendation. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). 91672–91697

    2025

  22. [30]

    Meng Liu, Jianjun Li, Guohui Li, and Peng Pan. 2020. Cross Domain Recommen- dation via Bi-directional Transfer Graph Collaborative Filtering Networks. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 885–894. doi:10.1145/3340531.3412012

    2020

  23. [31]

    Shuchang Liu, Shuyuan Xu, Wenhui Yu, Zuohui Fu, Yongfeng Zhang, and Amélie Marian. 2021. FedCT: Federated Collaborative Transfer for Recommendation. InProceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 716–725

    2021

  24. [32]

    X. Liu, B. Li, Y. Chen, X. Li, S. Xu, and H. Yin. 2022. Disentangled Representa- tions for Cross-Domain Recommendation via Heterogeneous Graph Contrastive Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.03907(2022)

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ziang Lu, Lei Guo, Xu Yu, Zhiyong Cheng, Xiaohui Han, and Lei Zhu. 2025. Feder- ated Semantic Learning for Privacy-preserving Cross-domain Recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems(2025). doi:10.1145/3728359

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    Tong Man, Huawei Shen, Xiaolong Jin, and Xueqi Cheng. 2017. Cross-Domain Recommendation: An Embedding and Mapping Approach. InProceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). 2464–2470

    2017

  27. [35]

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. 2017. Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Data. InProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS). 1273–1282

    2017

  28. [36]

    Jianmo Ni, Jiacheng Li, and Julian J. McAuley. 2019. Justifying Recommendations using Distantly-Labeled Reviews and Fine-Grained Aspects. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natu...

    2019

  29. [37]

    Keshavan, Trung Vu, Lukasz Heldt, Lichan Hong, Yi Tay, Vinh Q

    Shashank Rajput, Nikhil Mehta, Anima Singh, Raghunandan H. Keshavan, Trung Vu, Lukasz Heldt, Lichan Hong, Yi Tay, Vinh Q. Tran, Jonah Samost, Maciej Kula, Ed H. Chi, and Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy. 2023. Recommender Systems with Generative Retrieval. InAdvances in Neural Informa...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Singh and Geoffrey J

    Ajit P. Singh and Geoffrey J. Gordon. 2008. Relational Learning via Collective Matrix Factorization. InProceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Con- ference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 650–658. FedCGR: Federated Cross-Domain Generative Recommendation CIKM ’...

    2008

  31. [39]

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

  32. [40]

    Juntao Tan, Shuyuan Xu, Wenyue Hua, Yingqiang Ge, Zelong Li, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. IDGenRec: LLM-RecSys Alignment with Textual ID Learning. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 355–364

    2024

  33. [41]

    Changxin Tian, Yuexiang Xie, Xu Chen, Yaliang Li, and Xin Zhao. 2024. Privacy- preserving Cross-domain Recommendation with Federated Graph Learning.ACM Transactions on Information Systems42, 5 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Li Wang, Qiang Wu, and Min Xu. 2025. FedPCL-CDR: A Federated Prototype- Based Contrastive Learning Framework for Privacy-Preserving Cross-Domain Recommendation.Neural Networks(2025), 108380

    2025

  35. [43]

    Wenjie Wang, Honghui Bao, Xinyu Lin, Jizhi Zhang, Yongqi Li, Fuli Feng, See- Kiong Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. Learnable Item Tokenization for Generative Recommendation. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM). doi...

    2024

  36. [44]

    Yibo Wang, Yingchun Jian, Wenhao Yang, Shiyin Lu, Lei Shen, Bing Wang, Xiaoyi Zeng, and Lijun Zhang. 2025. Towards Unbiased Information Extraction and Adaptation in Cross-Domain Recommendation. InProceedings of the 39th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    2025

  37. [45]

    Yuhao Wang, Junwei Pan, Xinhang Li, Maolin Wang, Yuan Wang, Yue Liu, Dapeng Liu, Jie Jiang, and Xiangyu Zhao. 2025. Empowering Large Language Model for Sequential Recommendation via Multimodal Embeddings and Semantic IDs. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference ...

    2025

  38. [46]

    Meihan Wu, Le Li, Chang Tao, Eric Rigall, Xiaodong Wang, and Cheng-Zhong Xu

  39. [47]

    Ruobing Xie, Qi Liu, Liangwei Wang, Shukai Liu, Bo Zhang, and Leyu Lin. 2022. Contrastive Cross-Domain Recommendation in Matching. InProceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 4226– 4236

    2022

  40. [48]

    Jian Xu, Xinyi Tong, and Shao-Lun Huang. 2023. Personalized Federated Learning with Feature Alignment and Classifier Collaboration.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11867(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Nowak, Xiaoli Gao, and Hamid Eghbalzadeh

    Liu Yang, Fabian Paischer, Kaveh Hassani, Jiacheng Li, Shuai Shao, Zhang Gabriel Li, Yun He, Xue Feng, Nima Noorshams, Sem Park, Bo Long, Robert D. Nowak, Xiaoli Gao, and Hamid Eghbalzadeh. 2025. Unifying Generative and Dense Retrieval for Sequential Recommendation. InProceedi...

    2025

  42. [50]

    Ziqi Yang, Zhaopeng Peng, Zihui Wang, Jianzhong Qi, Chaochao Chen, Weike Pan, Chenglu Wen, Cheng Wang, and Xiaoliang Fan. 2024. Federated Graph Learning for Cross-Domain Recommendation. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Wencai Ye, Mingjie Sun, Shaoyun Shi, Peng Wang, Wenjin Wu, and Peng Jiang

  44. [52]

    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

  45. [53]

    Hongyu Zhang, Dongyi Zheng, Xu Yang, Jiyuan Feng, and Qing Liao. 2024. FedDCSR: Federated Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation via Disentangled Representation Learning. InProceedings of the SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM). 541–549

    2024

  46. [54]

    Hongyu Zhang, Dongyi Zheng, Luyao Zhong, Xu Yang, Jiyuan Feng, Yunqing Feng, and Qing Liao. 2024. FedHCDR: Federated Cross-Domain Recommendation with Hypergraph Signal Decoupling. InProceedings of the European Conference on Machine Learning and Principles and Practice of Knowl...

    2024

  47. [55]

    Cheng Zhao, Chenliang Li, and Cong Fu. 2019. Cross-Domain Recommendation via Preference Propagation GraphNet. InProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM). 2165–2168

    2019

  48. [56]

    Cheng Zhao, Chenliang Li, Rong Xiao, Hongbo Deng, and Aixin Sun. 2020. CATN: Cross-Domain Recommendation for Cold-Start Users via Aspect Transfer Net- work. InProceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 229–2...

    2020

  49. [57]

    InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM)

    DAS: Dual-Aligned Semantic IDs Empowered Industrial Recommender System. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM). 6217–6224. doi:10.1145/3746252.3761529

  50. [58]

    Dongyi Zheng, Hongyu Zhang, Jianyang Zhai, Lin Zhong, Lingzhi Wang, Jiyuan Feng, Xiangke Liao, Yonghong Tian, Nong Xiao, and Qing Liao. 2025. FedCSR: A Federated Framework for Multi-Platform Cross-Domain Sequential Recommen- dation with Dual Contrastive Learning. InProceedings...

    2025

  51. [63]

    Bowen Zheng, Yupeng Hou, Hongyu Lu, Yu Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Ming Chen, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. Adapting Large Language Models by Integrating Collaborative Semantics for Recommendation. In2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). 1435–1448. doi:10.1109...

    2024

  52. [2016]

    In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    Session-based Recommendations with Recurrent Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

  53. [2019]

    InProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM)

    BERT4Rec: Sequential Recommendation with Bidirectional Encoder Rep- resentations from Transformers. InProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM). 1441–1450

  54. [2022]

    InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM)

    FedCDR: Federated Cross-Domain Recommendation for Privacy-Preserving Rating Prediction. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM). 2179–2188

  55. [2024]

    InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference (WWW)

    Prompt-enhanced Federated Content Representation Learning for Cross- domain Recommendation. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference (WWW). doi:10.1145/3589334.3645337

  56. [2025]

    InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025

    Enhancing Time Awareness in Generative Recommendation. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025. 23917–23933

    2025

Pith tools

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