Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Lossless and Privacy-Preserving Graph Convolution Network for Federated Item Recommendation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 The paper claims that its federated framework LP-GCN makes graph convolution—both forward and backward propagation—exactly equivalent to the centralized, non-federated version, so recommendation performance is identical while user data…

desk verdict The lossless forward/backward construction is a real contribution and the proof is largely sound, but the privacy half is contradicted by the protocol as written: gradients are sent only for real items, letting the server undo the virtual-item obfuscation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01141 v1 pith:BVKCQU7G submitted 2024-12-02 cs.IR

Guowei Wu , Weike Pan , Qiang Yang , Zhong Ming This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords federatedrecommendationgraphneuralnetworkconvolutionprivacy-preservinglosslesslearningitemvirtualobfuscationembeddingsynchronization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the usual privacy-versus-accuracy trade-off in federated item recommendation is not inevitable: a graph convolution network can be trained with each user's interaction data kept on-device and still be exactly as accurate as a centralized model that sees the whole user-item graph. The construction, LP-GCN, assigns every item to a designated 'convolution-client' that computes that item's embedding at each layer and synchronizes it through the server to all other clients containing the item; backward propagation runs the same path in reverse, so the federated gradients are the centralized gradients. Privacy is layered on separately by encrypting item IDs with a shared key and having every user upload fake 'virtual' items alongside real ones, so the server cannot tell which edges of the global graph are real. The authors prove the equivalence by comparing every phase of training with the centralized update equations, and verify it by showing that LP-GCN and its centralized backbone produce overlapping training and ranking curves. If the claim is right, federated GNN-based recommendation can match non-federated accuracy without injecting noise, a guarantee none of the existing methods provides.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is embedding synchronization through designated convolution-clients. Each item is assigned to exactly one client (its convolution-item owner); that owner computes the item's embedding at layer $l+1$ from its own layer-$l$ embedding and the layer-$l$ user embeddings of all neighboring users, which the server relays (encrypted with a shared key) from the clients that own them. The computed item embedding is then sent back through the server to every other client that has interacted with that item, so one item has one identical embedding everywhere—matching the centralized graph. Backward propagation is its reverse: clients send gradient pieces for ordinary items and for neighboring users' embeddings to the server, which aggregates them exactly as the centralized chain rule sums partial derivatives, and feeds the sums back to the responsible clients. Privacy is carried by two auxiliary mechanisms: hybrid encryption of item IDs (an asymmetric handshake distributes a symmetric shared key to clients but not the server) and virtual-item obfuscation, where each client adds fake item IDs so the server's global graph cannot be mapped to real interactions.

What would settle it

Run LP-GCN with a semi-honest server on a small dataset, log the encrypted item IDs for which the server receives layer-$L$ gradients in Algorithm 5 line 7, and compare that set against the encrypted IDs each client uploaded during initialization; if they coincide with the real interactions (i.e., the virtual IDs are absent from gradient traffic), the obfuscation is undone and the interaction graph can be reconstructed, falsifying the privacy claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a federated GNN recommender can be made lossless: every forward convolution and every gradient back-propagation step in LP-GCN is algebraically the same function as in the centralized model, so with the same random seed and the same sampled training pairs the federated training trajectory coincides with the centralized one. The mechanism is a designated-owner scheme: each item is marked as a convolution-item on one client, that client gathers the neighboring user embeddings through the server, computes the item's next-layer embedding, and broadcasts it to all clients that contain the item; gradient computation is the mirror image, with server-side aggregation of item gradients and neighboring-user gradient pieces exactly reproducing the centralized chain rule. The lossless claim is proven by comparing initialization, forward propagation, loss construction, local gradients, and backward propagation formulas with the centralized equations, and verified by the observation that LP-GCN(LightGCN) and LightGCN produce overlapping training-loss and ranking curves. On the three large datasets, LP-GCN instantiated with LightGCN+ attains exactly the same recall@20 and NDCG@20 as centralized LightGCN+, and outperforms the prior federated methods.

Load-bearing premise

The privacy guarantee depends on the server never learning which uploaded item IDs are real and which are fake virtual items, and the protocol sends gradients only for real items—so if the server can correlate gradient traffic with the encrypted IDs, the virtual-item obfuscation gives no protection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any GNN-based recommendation model whose update has the same aggregation form as LightGCN can be federated losslessly with LP-GCN, giving the same embeddings and predictions as its centralized version.
  • Federated recommendation can reach the accuracy of centralized training, so the performance gap documented for existing federated GNN methods is not an inherent cost of privacy.
  • The backward-propagation completion is what makes the difference: P-GCN already has lossless forward propagation, but its incomplete gradient propagation is why it still underperforms centralized LightGCN+.
  • Communication cost is kept linear in the size of each client's local item set plus the neighboring-user sets of its convolution-items, and choosing a smaller set of convolution-clients reduces the cost per client.
  • The framework inherits the backbone's training needs: with BPR loss, the server must sample negative items and send their embeddings, so losslessness requires the same negative sampling to be used in the centralized run.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The privacy argument would be testable end-to-end: an honest-but-curious server that records which encrypted item IDs appear in gradient messages could, in principle, unmask the virtual items, because clients only send gradients for real items; a privacy-preserving variant would send dummy gradients for virtual items too.
  • The losslessness equivalence is conditioned on identical randomness; in practice a deployment comparing a federated system with a centralized baseline needs to fix the same random seed and the same sampled training pairs, otherwise the two curves will diverge by sampling noise.
  • The framework's synchronization pattern suggests a recipe for other graph models: any convolution that is a sum over neighbors can be computed once at a designated node and synchronized; extending this to attention-weighted convolutions would require the same neighbor lists to be available to the designated owner, which the current encrypted-ID protocol already provides.
  • A natural next experiment would be to instantiate LP-GCN with a heavier backbone than LightGCN+ and check the same curve overlap: the proof is generic, so exact equivalence should hold there too.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LP-GCN, a federated GNN-based recommendation framework whose central claim is twofold: (1) losslessness, i.e., its graph convolution process, including both forward and backward propagation, is equivalent to a centralized non-federated counterpart and therefore achieves identical recommendation performance; and (2) privacy preservation, achieved by combining hybrid-encrypted item IDs with virtual-item obfuscation so that the server cannot reconstruct users' interactions. The paper presents algorithms for initialization, forward propagation, loss construction, and backward propagation; a theoretical equivalence proof in Appendix A; and experiments on Gowalla, Yelp2018, and Amazon-Book showing that LP-GCN (LightGCN+) matches the centralized LightGCN+ and outperforms existing federated baselines.

Significance. The losslessness property, if established, would be a meaningful advance: existing GNN-based federated recommendation methods (P-GCN, FedPerGNN, etc.) are known to incur a performance gap relative to centralized training, and a provably lossless federated protocol would close that gap. The paper also ships a proof sketch and a small equivalence experiment, and it identifies a concrete weakness of P-GCN's incomplete backward propagation. However, the privacy half of the central claim is not merely unproven but is contradicted by the protocol as written: the server can identify which item IDs correspond to real interactions from the pattern of gradient transmissions. Since both losslessness and privacy preservation are load-bearing claims, the contribution as stated is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4–4.5, Algorithm 5 lines 7–8, Algorithm 6 lines 7, 12, and 14, Eq. (16) and Eq. (24)] The privacy guarantee fails as written because clients transmit gradients only for their real items. In Algorithm 5 line 7, each client sends gradients {g_i^L(u) : i in I_u \ tilde I_u}, and in Algorithm 6 ordinary clients send gradients for i in I_u and convolution-clients send gradients for i in I_\tilde u \setminus \tilde I_\tilde u. Section 4.4 explicitly states that gradients related to virtual items are excluded from aggregation (Eq. (16) and Eq. (24)). Since item IDs are encrypted deterministically under the shared key S, the server sees, for each client, exactly which encrypted item IDs carry gradients. An item is real iff the server receives a gradient for it from at least one client (other than its convolution-client, or including it via Eq. (17)). Thus the server can label every virtual item as virtual and every non-convolution real item as real, and because the server itself assigned the convolution-item roles, it can recover the full user-item interaction graph. This directly contradicts the Section 5.1 claim that the server cannot reconstruct interaction data, and it voids the virtual-item obfuscation. The exclusion of virtual gradients is also required for losslessness, so the protocol cannot be trivially patched by sending dummy virtual gradients without breaking the equivalence proof. This is a load-bearing error in the privacy half of the central claim.
  2. [Appendix A, Sections A.1–A.3; Section 4.9, Algorithm 9] The losslessness proof is incomplete with respect to initialization and training-pair sampling. Appendix A.1 states that equivalence holds 'when the same random seed is used for embedding initialization,' but the paper does not specify how the same seed is shared across all clients and the centralized baseline without revealing it to the server, nor how the federated protocol guarantees that all clients and the server initialize with the same seed. More importantly, Appendix A.3 asserts that the local training pairs P_u are the same as the centralized pairs, but for the BPR instantiation in Algorithm 9 the server samples negative items (line 1) and the proof never establishes that this sampling produces exactly the same negative items as the centralized BPR sampler. Because BPR negative sampling is randomized and affects every gradient, this gap is load-bearing for the claimed equivalence of the instantiated model.
  3. [Section 6.3.1, Fig. 10, and Section 6.2] The experimental evidence for losslessness is weak and non-reproducible as presented. RQ1 is evaluated only on ML100K, a small dataset, with training loss and metrics shown in Fig. 10; the text claims that 'the final user embeddings and item embeddings are identical,' but that claim is not supported by a reported comparison, and the code is not released (the GitHub link is marked 'available after paper acceptance'). The proof gaps in Appendix A make this one-dataset, unreleased experiment an insufficient substitute for a rigorous verification of the strong equivalence claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.7, Eq. (28)] The 'comprehensive performance' formula is informal: the scores Acc, Pri(lambda_1), and Eff(lambda_2) are not defined operationally, and the parameter dependencies on alpha and k are stated only qualitatively.
  2. [Notation throughout Algorithms 3–6 and Appendix A] The notation for convolution-client/item roles is inconsistent: the paper uses \tilde u \tilde i, \tilde u_i, and \tilde u_{\tilde i} interchangeably, which makes the already intricate proof harder to follow.
  3. [Section 6.2] There is a typo, 'lossles' instead of 'lossless', in the paragraph explaining why FedGRec and PerFedRec are not included as baselines.
  4. [Section 4.2, Algorithm 2, lines 10–13] The paper does not discuss that the server can observe the number of items (real plus virtual) per client, so if alpha is public the server learns |I_u|, which is itself a privacy leak that is not addressed in Section 5.1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: losslessness is proven by direct step-by-step equivalence to the centralized equations; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations are present.

full rationale

The paper's core claim, that LP-GCN is lossless relative to its centralized backbone, is supported by a direct equivalence proof in Appendix A. The federated protocol is constructed so that each client's local aggregation equations (Eq. 7 and Eq. 8 in the main text) exactly match the centralized aggregation equations (Eq. 35 and Eq. 36 in the appendix), with item embeddings synchronized once per layer. Backward propagation is likewise derived from the same chain-rule structure as the centralized version (Eq. 51-54), giving equality of gradients by construction. This is a legitimate construction-to-theorem argument: the losslessness is derived from the protocol definition and the centralized equations, not assumed as an input. The experimental section additionally verifies the equivalence against an external backbone (LightGCN/LightGCN+) on public datasets, providing independent evidence. The self-citations that do appear, most notably P-GCN for the item-based user embedding idea, are used for architectural inspiration, baselines, and context; they are not load-bearing in the losslessness proof and do not smuggle in the target result. The privacy analysis does have an internal contradiction: Algorithms 5 and 6 send gradients only for real items while explicitly excluding gradients related to virtual items from aggregation, so a curious server can distinguish real from virtual item IDs by observing which ciphertext IDs receive gradients. That is a security-correctness gap, not a circularity, and it does not affect the lossless equivalence claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical or conceptual entities beyond algorithm design choices such as virtual items and convolution-clients. The main free parameters are the privacy parameter alpha and the convolution-client count k. The axioms show that the proof and privacy analysis depend on several unstated or questionable assumptions, especially the claim that virtual items hide real interactions throughout training.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (number of virtual items per client) = not reported in experiments
    Controls privacy strength and is central to the virtual-item obfuscation claim. The paper never states what value of alpha is used in the experiments, so the privacy level is unspecified.
  • k (number of convolution-clients) = data-dependent, ranges reported in RQ5 (e.g., 7.57-59.30 on Gowalla)
    Chosen by the server via a set-cover procedure. It affects communication cost and utilization but not the losslessness claim. The selection algorithm is not fully specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The semi-honest threat model: server and clients follow the protocol but may try to infer information from received data.
    Stated in Section 3.2. The entire privacy analysis is built on this assumption; malicious behavior is not considered.
  • domain assumption The server never obtains the shared symmetric key S.
    Required for the claim that encrypted item-IDs and encrypted user embeddings hide information from the server. If the key leaks, the privacy claim collapses entirely.
  • ad hoc to paper Virtual items hide real interactions from the server throughout the whole training process.
    Section 5.1 relies on this, but the protocol sends gradients for real items in plaintext (Algorithm 5 line 7), allowing the server to distinguish real from virtual IDs. This assumption is not satisfied by the design.
  • ad hoc to paper All clients and the centralized baseline use the same random seed for initialization.
    Appendix A.1 (Eq. 33-34) assumes identical initial embeddings, but no mechanism is described for distributing a common seed across clients in a federated setting.
  • ad hoc to paper The training pairs, including BPR negative samples, are identical between the federated and centralized settings.
    The proof in Appendix A.3 uses a generic loss function. For BPR loss, Algorithm 9 has the server sample negative items for each client; whether this matches the centralized sampling distribution is not proven, and it is essential for exact equivalence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lossless and Privacy-Preserving Graph Convolution Network for Federated Item Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BVKCQU7G

@misc{pith2026241201141,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lossless and Privacy-Preserving Graph Convolution Network for Federated Item Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BVKCQU7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01141}
}
read the original abstract

Graph neural network (GNN) has emerged as a state-of-the-art solution for item recommendation. However, existing GNN-based recommendation methods rely on a centralized storage of fragmented user-item interaction sub-graphs and training on an aggregated global graph, which will lead to privacy concerns. As a response, some recent works develop GNN-based federated recommendation methods by exploiting decentralized and fragmented user-item sub-graphs in order to preserve user privacy. However, due to privacy constraints, the graph convolution process in existing federated recommendation methods is incomplete compared with the centralized counterpart, causing a degradation of the recommendation performance. In this paper, we propose a novel lossless and privacy-preserving graph convolution network (LP-GCN), which fully completes the graph convolution process with decentralized user-item interaction sub-graphs while ensuring privacy. It is worth mentioning that its performance is equivalent to that of the non-federated (i.e., centralized) counterpart. Moreover, we validate its effectiveness through both theoretical analysis and empirical studies. Extensive experiments on three real-world datasets show that our LP-GCN outperforms the existing federated recommendation methods. The code will be publicly available once the paper is accepted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01141 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the centralized and federated versions of GNN-based recommendation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the centralized and federated versions of forward propagation and backward propagation w.r.t. item [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The overview of our LP-GCN. Next, we will give the overall framework of our LP-GCN, and then provide a detailed introduction to each module in the order of their construction, named (i) Initialization (Section 4.2), (ii) Forward Propagation (Section 4.3), (iii) Loss Construction and Gradients Computation (Section 4.4), (iv) Backward Propagation (Section 4.5), and (v) Parameter Update and Prediction (Section 4.6). 4.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The overall framework of our LP-GCN, which consists of four states. In state 1, each client has the 0-th user embeddings, and the convolution-items in convolution-clients have the 0-th item embeddings, while ordinary items do not have any embeddings. After forward prop…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An example of splitting clients and items. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of forward propagation. Each client encrypts the user embedding with the shared key 𝑆, and then sends it to the server. Subsequently, the server sends the embeddings of neighboring users to each convolution-client. Then all clients compute the user embeddi…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: An example of forward propagation. There are three users (𝑢1, 𝑢2, 𝑢3) and three items (𝑖1, 𝑖2, 𝑖3). Clients 𝑢1 and 𝑢3 are the convolution-clients, while 𝑢2 is an ordinary client. In 𝑢1, 𝑖1 is convolution-item, and in 𝑢3, 𝑖2 and 𝑖3 are considered as the convolution-item…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of backward propagation, which is essentially the reverse of forward propagation. Each client sends the gradients of the ordinary item embedding at the (𝑙 + 1)-th to the server for aggregation. Then the server sends the gradient of each ordinary item to it…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: An example of backward propagation. There are three users (𝑢1, 𝑢2, 𝑢3) and three items (𝑖1, 𝑖2, 𝑖3). Clients 𝑢1 and 𝑢3 are convolution-clients, while 𝑢2 is an ordinary client. In 𝑢1, 𝑖1 is a convolution-item, and in 𝑢3, 𝑖2 and 𝑖3 are the convolution-items. First, Each …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Equivalence between the centralized version LightGCN and our federated version LP-GCN (LightGCN). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Recommendation performance of P-GCN, LightGCN and our LP-GCN (LightGCN+) at different layers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The convergence curves of P-GCN, LightGCN and our LP-GCN (LightGCN+). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The utilization rate of the convolution-item based neighboring users’ embeddings and communication cost per client w.r.t. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Khan, Were Oyomno, Qiang Fu, Kuan Eeik Tan, and Adrian Flanagan

    Muhammad Ammad-ud-din, Elena Ivannikova, Suleiman A. Khan, Were Oyomno, Qiang Fu, Kuan Eeik Tan, and Adrian Flanagan. 2019. Federated Collaborative Filtering for Privacy-Preserving Personalized Recommendation System. CoRR abs/1901.09888 (2019). arXiv:1901.09888 http: //arxiv.org/abs/1901.09888

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Vito Walter Anelli, Yashar Deldjoo, Tommaso Di Noia, Antonio Ferrara, and Fedelucio Narducci. 2021. FedeRank: User Controlled Feedback with Federated Recommender Systems. In Advances in Information Retrieval: 43rd European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2021, Virtual Event, March 28–April 1, 2021, Proceedings, Part I 43 . Springer, 32–47

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Keith Bonawitz, Vladimir Ivanov, Ben Kreuter, Antonio Marcedone, H Brendan McMahan, Sarvar Patel, Daniel Ramage, Aaron Segal, and Karn Seth

  4. [4]

    Longbing Cao, Qiang Yang, and Philip S Yu. 2021. Data science and AI in FinTech: an overview. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics 12, 2 (2021), 81–99

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Yukuo Cen, Jing Zhang, Gaofei Wang, Yujie Qian, Chuizheng Meng, Zonghong Dai, Hongxia Yang, and Jie Tang. 2019. Trust Relationship Prediction in Alibaba E-Commerce Platform. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 32, 5 (2019), 1024–1035

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Di Chai, Leye Wang, Kai Chen, and Qiang Yang. 2020. Secure Federated Matrix Factorization. IEEE Intelligent Systems 36, 5 (2020), 11–20. Manuscript submitted to ACM Lossless and Privacy-Preserving Graph Convolution Network for Federated Item Recommendation 37

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Chuan Chen, Ziyue Xu, Weibo Hu, Zibin Zheng, and Jie Zhang. 2024. FedGL: Federated graph learning framework with global self-supervision. Information Sciences 657 (2024), 119976

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Paul Covington, Jay Adams, and Emre Sargin. 2016. Deep Neural Networks for YouTube Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 191–198

    work page 2016

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Jinting Deng and Pinxin Liu. 2017. Consultative Authoritarianism: the Drafting of China’s Internet Security Law and E-commerce Law. Journal of Contemporary China 26, 107 (2017), 679–695

    2017

  2. [10]

    Wenqi Fan, Yao Ma, Qing Li, Yuan He, Eric Zhao, Jiliang Tang, and Dawei Yin. 2019. Graph Neural Networks for Social Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2019 World Wide Web Conference . 417–426

    2019

  3. [11]

    Zhaoxing Han, Chengyu Hu, Tongyaqi Li, Qingqiang Qi, Peng Tang, and Shanqing Guo. 2024. Subgraph-level federated graph neural network for privacy-preserving recommendation with meta-learning. Neural Networks 179 (2024), 106574

    2024

  4. [12]

    Elizabeth Liz Harding, Jarno J Vanto, Reece Clark, L Hannah Ji, and Sara C Ainsworth. 2019. Understanding the Scope and Impact of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. Journal of Data Protection & Privacy 2, 3 (2019), 234–253

    2019

  5. [13]

    Xiangnan He, Kuan Deng, Xiang Wang, Yan Li, Yongdong Zhang, and Meng Wang. 2020. LightGCN: Simplifying and Powering Graph Convolution Network for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval ...

    2020

  6. [14]

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

    2017

  7. [15]

    Pengqing Hu, Zhaohao Lin, Weike Pan, Qiang Yang, Xiaogang Peng, and Zhong Ming. 2023. Privacy-preserving graph convolution network for federated item recommendation. Artificial Intelligence 324 (2023), 103996

    2023

  8. [16]

    Pengqing Hu, Enyue Yang, Weike Pan, Xiaogang Peng, and Zhong Ming. 2022. Federated one-class collaborative filtering via privacy-aware non-sampling matrix factorization. Knowledge-Based Systems (2022), 109441

    2022

  9. [17]

    Wenqing Huang, Fei Hao, Jiaxing Shang, Wangyang Yu, Shengke Zeng, Carmen Bisogni, and Vincenzo Loia. 2023. Dual-LightGCN: Dual light graph convolutional network for discriminative recommendation. Computer Communications 204 (2023), 89–100

    2023

  10. [18]

    Xueyong Jiang, Baisong Liu, Jiangchen Qin, Yunchong Zhang, and Jiangbo Qian. 2022. FedNCF: Federated Neural Collaborative Filtering for Privacy-preserving Recommender System. In 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 1–8

    2022

  11. [19]

    Santosh Kabbur, Xia Ning, and George Karypis. 2013. FISM: Factored Item Similarity Models for Top-N Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 659–667

    2013

  12. [20]

    Yilin Kang, Yong Liu, Ben Niu, Xinyi Tong, Likun Zhang, and Weiping Wang. 2020. Input perturbation: A New Paradigm between Central and Local Differential Privacy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08570 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Brendan McMahan, Felix X

    Jakub Konečný, H. Brendan McMahan, Felix X. Yu, Peter Richtárik, Ananda Theertha Suresh, and Dave Bacon. 2016. Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency. CoRR abs/1610.05492 (2016). arXiv:1610.05492 http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.05492

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Yehuda Koren. 2008. Factorization Meets the Neighborhood: a Multifaceted Collaborative Filtering Model. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 426–434

    2008

  16. [24]

    Yehuda Koren, Robert Bell, and Chris Volinsky. 2009. Matrix Factorization Techniques for Recommender Systems. Computer 42, 8 (2009), 30–37

    2009

  17. [25]

    Lagendijk, Zekeriya Erkin, and Mauro Barni

    Reginald L. Lagendijk, Zekeriya Erkin, and Mauro Barni. 2013. Encrypted signal processing for privacy protection: Conveying the utility of homomorphic encryption and multiparty computation. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 30, 1 (2013), 82–105

    2013

  18. [26]

    Junyi Li and Heng Huang. 2022. FedGRec: Federated Graph Recommender System with Lazy Update of Latent Embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13686 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Yunqi Li, Hanxiong Chen, Shuyuan Xu, Yingqiang Ge, Juntao Tan, Shuchang Liu, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2023. Fairness in recommendation: Foundations, methods, and applications. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 14, 5 (2023), 1–48

    2023

  20. [28]

    Zhiwei Li, Guodong Long, and Tianyi Zhou. 2023. Federated Recommendation with Additive Personalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.09109 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Feng Liang, Weike Pan, and Zhong Ming. 2021. FedRec++: Lossless Federated Recommendation with Explicit Feedback. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35. 4224–4231

    2021

  22. [30]

    Guanyu Lin, Feng Liang, Weike Pan, and Zhong Ming. 2020. FedRec: Federated Recommendation With Explicit Feedback. IEEE Intelligent Systems 36, 5 (2020), 21–30

    2020

  23. [31]

    Zhaohao Lin, Weike Pan, Qiang Yang, and Zhong Ming. 2022. A Generic Federated Recommendation Framework via Fake Marks and Secret Sharing. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 2 (2022), 1–37

    2022

  24. [32]

    Weiming Liu, Chaochao Chen, Xinting Liao, Mengling Hu, Jianwei Yin, Yanchao Tan, and Longfei Zheng. 2023. Federated Probabilistic Preference Distribution Modelling with Compactness Co-Clustering for Privacy-Preserving Multi-Domain Recommendation.. In IJCAI. 2206–2214

    2023

  25. [33]

    Zhiwei Liu, Liangwei Yang, Ziwei Fan, Hao Peng, and Philip S Yu. 2022. Federated Social Recommendation with Graph Neural Network. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 13, 4 (2022), 1–24

    2022

  26. [34]

    Sichun Luo, Yuanzhang Xiao, and Linqi Song. 2022. Personalized Federated Recommendation via Joint Representation Learning, User clustering, and Model Adaptation. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 4289–4293

    2022

  27. [35]

    Chuang Ma, Xin Ren, Guangxia Xu, and Bo He. 2023. FedGR: Federated Graph Neural Network for Recommendation Systems. Axioms 12, 2 (2023), 170. Manuscript submitted to ACM 38 Wu et al

    2023

  28. [36]

    Peihua Mai and Yan Pang. 2023. Vertical Federated Graph Neural Network for Recommender System. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 23516–23535

    2023

  29. [37]

    Mirko Polato. 2021. Federated Variational Autoencoder for Collaborative Filtering. In 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 1–8

    2021

  30. [38]

    Liang Qu, Ningzhi Tang, Ruiqi Zheng, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, Zi Huang, Yuhui Shi, and Hongzhi Yin. 2023. Semi-decentralized Federated Ego Graph Learning for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2023 World Wide Web Conference . 339–348

    2023

  31. [39]

    Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, Zeno Gantner, and Lars Schmidt-Thieme. 2012. BPR: Bayesian Personalized Ranking from Implicit Feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.2618 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Adi Shamir. 1979. How to Share a Secret. Commun. ACM 22, 11 (1979), 612–613

    1979

  33. [41]

    Ilya Shenbin, Anton Alekseev, Elena Tutubalina, Valentin Malykh, and Sergey I Nikolenko. 2020. RecVAE: A New Variational Autoencoder for Top-N Recommendations with Implicit Feedback. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 528–536

    2020

  34. [42]

    Yue Tan, Yixin Liu, Guodong Long, Jing Jiang, Qinghua Lu, and Chengqi Zhang. 2023. Federated Learning on Non-IID Graphs via Structural Knowledge Sharing. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 37. 9953–9961

    2023

  35. [43]

    Yi Tay, Luu Anh Tuan, and Siu Cheung Hui. 2018. Latent Relational Metric Learning via Memory-based Attention for Collaborative Ranking. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference . 729–739

    2018

  36. [44]

    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 Systems 42, 5 (2024), 1–29

    2024

  37. [45]

    Thijs Veugen, Frank Blom, Sebastiaan J. A. de Hoogh, and Zekeriya Erkin. 2015. Secure Comparison Protocols in the Semi-Honest Model. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 9, 7 (2015), 1217–1228

    2015

  38. [46]

    Xiang Wang, Xiangnan He, Yixin Cao, Meng Liu, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2019. KGAT: Knowledge Graph Attention Network for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 950–958

    2019

  39. [47]

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

    2019

  40. [48]

    Zhen Wang, Weirui Kuang, Yuexiang Xie, Liuyi Yao, Yaliang Li, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou. 2022. FederatedScope-GNN: Towards a Unified, Comprehensive and Efficient Package for Federated Graph Learning. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery an...

    2022

  41. [49]

    Chuhan Wu, Fangzhao Wu, Lingjuan Lyu, Tao Qi, Yongfeng Huang, and Xing Xie. 2022. A federated graph neural network framework for privacy-preserving personalization. Nature Communications 13, 1 (2022), 3091

    2022

  42. [50]

    Bo Yan, Yang Cao, Haoyu Wang, Wenchuan Yang, Junping Du, and Chuan Shi. 2024. Federated Heterogeneous Graph Neural Network for Privacy-preserving Recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 . 3919–3929

    2024

  43. [51]

    Enyue Yang, Weike Pan, Qiang Yang, and Zhong Ming. 2024. Discrete Federated Multi-behavior Recommendation for Privacy-Preserving Heterogeneous One-Class Collaborative Filtering. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 42, 5 (2024), 1–50

    2024

  44. [52]

    Qiang Yang, Yang Liu, Tianjian Chen, and Yongxin Tong. 2019. Federated Machine Learning: Concept and Applications. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 10, 2 (2019), 1–19

    2019

  45. [53]

    Muneer Bani Yassein, Shadi Aljawarneh, Ethar Qawasmeh, Wail Mardini, and Yaser Khamayseh. 2017. Comprehensive Study of Symmetric Key and Asymmetric Key Encryption Algorithms. In 2017 International Conference on Engineering and Technology (ICET) . IEEE, 1–7

    2017

  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. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 974–983

    2018

  47. [55]

    Chunxu Zhang, Guodong Long, Tianyi Zhou, Peng Yan, Zijian Zhang, Chengqi Zhang, and Bo Yang. 2023. Dual Personalization on Federated Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08143 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Chunxu Zhang, Guodong Long, Tianyi Zhou, Zijian Zhang, Peng Yan, and Bo Yang. 2024. GPFedRec: Graph-Guided Personalization for Federated Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 4131–4142

    2024

  49. [57]

    Honglei Zhang, Fangyuan Luo, Jun Wu, Xiangnan He, and Yidong Li. 2023. LightFR: Lightweight Federated Recommendation with Privacy-preserving Matrix Factorization. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 4 (2023), 1–28

    2023

  50. [58]

    Ke Zhang, Carl Yang, Xiaoxiao Li, Lichao Sun, and Siu Ming Yiu. 2021. Subgraph Federated Learning with Missing Neighbor Generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 6671–6682

    2021

  51. [59]

    Qixin Zhang. 2021. An Overview and Analysis of Hybrid Encryption: The Combination of Symmetric Encryption and Asymmetric Encryption. In 2021 2nd International Conference on Computing and Data Science (CDS) . IEEE, 616–622

    2021

  52. [60]

    Lili Zhao, Sinno Jialin Pan, and Qiang Yang. 2017. A unified framework of active transfer learning for cross-system recommendation. Artificial Intelligence 245 (2017), 38–55. Manuscript submitted to ACM Lossless and Privacy-Preserving Graph Convolution Network for Federated It...

    2017

  53. [2017]

    In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security

    Practical Secure Aggregation for Privacy-Preserving Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 1175–1191

    2017

Pith tools

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