Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Multifaceted User Modeling in Recommendation: A Federated Foundation Models Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A federated recommender improves click-through prediction by adding a group gating network to each Transformer layer, routing users to shared group-level experts while keeping a user-private feed-forward network local.

desk verdict A competent extension of MoE-style personalization to federated sequential recommendation, but the headline gain is confounded by added capacity and needs ablations. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16969 v1 pith:HNGYF2KJ submitted 2024-12-22 cs.IR

Chunxu Zhang , Guodong Long , Hongkuan Guo , Zhaojie Liu , Guorui Zhou , Zijian Zhang , Yang Liu , Bo Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords federatedlearningrecommendersystemsusermodelingpersonalizationTransformergroupgatingnetworkclick-throughratepredictionprivacy-preservingmachine
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 a federated recommender system can get more accurate click-through predictions by modeling users at two levels at once: a private, user-specific feed-forward network that never leaves the device, and a shared group-level feed-forward network chosen by a gating network trained under federation. The proposed framework, MRFF, inserts this split into every Transformer layer, so the layer output is the sum of the user-private and group contributions. On the KuaiRand-Pure, KuaiSAR-R, and KuaiSAR-S datasets, adding MRFF to federated SASRec, HSTU, and LLaMA backbones improves AUC and LogLoss in nearly every comparison, with the largest LogLoss reductions exceeding 30 percent. The paper further argues that training a roughly 60k-parameter model from scratch is more practical for edge devices than fine-tuning large pre-trained foundation models in a federated setting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the group gating network: a small MLP followed by softmax that consumes the attention output and the user embedding, producing a probability distribution over user groups at each Transformer layer. The highest-probability group selects a shared group-level FFN, and the layer's output adds that group contribution to a user-private FFN (Eq. 5). The balance loss, weighted by a hyper-parameter $\alpha$, regularizes the gate toward uniform user allocation, and the number of groups is a second hyper-parameter. Together these components let the model express both shared behavioral segments and individual idiosyncrasies in a single forward pass.

What would settle it

An experiment that would settle the privacy claim: train MRFF on KuaiSAR-S, record the server-received group FFN updates, and attempt to infer each user's group assignment from those updates; if the inference accuracy is far above chance, the claim that group assignment stays private is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the tension between personalization and privacy in federated recommendation can be resolved by splitting each Transformer feed-forward block into two branches: a private FFN kept on the user's device and a group-level FFN whose parameters are aggregated on the server. A gating network, fed by the attention output and the user embedding, assigns the user to one of several groups per layer, and the layer computes $x_{out} = FFN_u(Attention(x_{in})) + FFN_g(Attention(x_{in}))$. A balance loss pushes the gate toward uniform group occupancy so that no group dominates. The authors report that this design consistently beats federated SASRec, HSTU, and LLaMA baselines on three Kuai datasets, while keeping user embeddings and user-specific FFNs private and adding noise to uploaded parameters for extra privacy.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the server can aggregate group-level FFN parameters without learning which users belong to which group, yet the paper provides no formal mechanism or proof for that separation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Federated recommenders can obtain personalized parameters without uploading user embeddings or user-specific FFNs, so per-user data stays on-device under the protocol as described.
  • The mechanism is architecture-agnostic: the same gating-plus-two-FFN block can be dropped into any Transformer-based sequential recommender, not just the three backbones tested.
  • Training a compact model from scratch avoids the communication and computation overhead of fine-tuning large pre-trained foundation models, which the paper argues is the main obstacle to real-world deployment.
  • The balance loss gives operators a direct control for group granularity; experiments with two, four, six, and eight groups show that four groups balances performance and model size.
  • The group-level FFN lets users share statistical strength with similar users, which the paper identifies as the benefit of group-level personalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Structurally, MRFF is a federated mixture-of-experts layer: the gating network plus group FFNs mirror sparse MoE routing. Training techniques and failure modes from the MoE literature, such as expert collapse and routing instability, likely transfer and could be tested directly.
  • The privacy claim is weaker than the framing suggests. The paper adds noise to uploaded parameters and keeps some modules local, but it provides no formal differential-privacy accounting and does not analyze what the group-level aggregated updates reveal about individual group membership; a membership-inference test would clarify the actual protection.
  • The group gating network depends on the user embedding, which is kept private. In a cross-silo setting—where each client is an institution rather than an individual—the same gating could route institutions to shared expert networks, which would be a natural deployment test of the architecture.
  • A direct check of the 'multifaceted' interpretation would be to compare learned group assignments against known user segments, such as demographic or intent labels; if the gate does not align with any stable user distinction, the gains may come from the extra capacity rather than from genuine facet discovery.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MRFF (Multifaceted user modeling in Recommendations with Federated Foundation models), a federated sequential recommendation framework in which each client trains a lightweight transformer from scratch. Within each transformer block, MRFF adds a group gating network that routes the user to one of several group-level FFNs, while a private, user-specific FFN is kept locally. The server aggregates the public and group parameters, and a balance loss regularizes the group distribution toward uniformity. Experiments on three Kuaishou datasets (KuaiRand-Pure, KuaiSAR-R, KuaiSAR-S) report consistent AUC/LogLoss improvements over FedSASRec, FedHSTU, and FedLLaMA backbones, plus two non-sequential baselines. The paper also reports efficiency and a noise-based privacy analysis.

Significance. If the reported gains are attributable to the proposed mechanism, MRFF would be a practically useful way to combine user-specific and group-level personalization in federated recommendation without relying on large pretrained models. The work has clear strengths: it is architecture-agnostic (shown across three backbones), the code is released, experiments are repeated five times with significance tests, and the balance-loss idea is simple and easy to replicate. However, the current evidence does not isolate the mechanism that drives the headline numbers, the federated privacy protocol is underspecified, and the balance-loss analysis is partially circular. These issues must be addressed before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methodology, Eq. (5); Table 1] The headline improvement of MRFF over its backbones is not isolated from added model capacity. Eq. (5) replaces the single FFN in each transformer block with two parallel FFNs (FFN_u and FFN_g) plus an MLP gating network, so the MRFF variants have strictly more parameters than the untouched backbones. Table 3 reports parameter counts only for MRFF (51.75k–67.89k) and does not give the corresponding backbone counts, so the capacity gap is unmeasured. The large LogLoss reductions with small AUC changes (e.g., FedSASRec on KuaiSAR-S: LogLoss 0.7034 to 0.5259 with only 0.84% AUC gain) are consistent with a calibration shift from extra capacity rather than with better user-group modeling. To support the central claim, please add (i) an equal-capacity control (e.g., a wider single-FFN backbone matched to the MRFF parameter count) and (ii) ablations that remove the group gating network or the private user-specific FFN, reporting standard deviations for all configurations.
  2. [Overall Framework / Figure 1; Discussions about Practical Viability; Table 2] The federated protocol is underspecified at the point where group-level aggregation happens. The server averages group FFNs by group (Figure 1), but the paper never states how the server learns a client's group assignment without that assignment acting as a user-behavior signal. If clients upload their group ID, the server can infer coarse behavioral clusters; if they do not, the group averaging in Figure 1 cannot be executed as described. Additionally, the privacy experiments in Table 2 add noise to uploaded parameters but give no mechanism, no privacy budget ϵ, and no formal guarantee, so the 'privacy-preserving' claim is not yet supported. Please specify the exact messages exchanged per round and provide a differential-privacy analysis (or explicitly weaken the privacy claim to 'parameter separation').
  3. [Efficacy Analysis of Balance Loss; Eq. (7); Figures 2–3] Figure 2 does not validate the balance-loss design because Eq. (7) explicitly penalizes non-uniform group proportions; the figure merely shows the regularizer achieving its target. The claim that a uniform (balanced) group distribution is beneficial for group-level personalization is an unverified assumption. Figure 3 sweeps α over {0.0001, 0.001, 0.01, 0.1} but does not include α = 0, so it cannot show that the balance loss improves—or is even needed for—accuracy. Please report performance for α = 0 and, ideally, for a version with a fixed random balanced assignment to separate the effect of balance from the effect of learned routing.
  4. [Experiment, Experimental Setup; Table 1] The empirical evidence is confined to three Kuaishou short-video datasets (KuaiRand-Pure, KuaiSAR-R, KuaiSAR-S), which share platform and domain characteristics. This limits the generality of the 'multifaceted user modeling' claim; adding a non-Kuaishou dataset (e.g., Amazon, MovieLens, or a news dataset) would strengthen the cross-domain relevance. Also, Table 1 reports only AUC and LogLoss; for sequential recommendation, a ranking metric such as NDCG@k or Recall@k would show whether the improvements affect ranking quality and not only calibration.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Methodology, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) has unbalanced parentheses: the expression `softmax(MLP(Concat(Attentionout, uemb))` is missing one closing parenthesis.
  2. [Figure 3 caption; Efficacy Analysis text] The caption of Figure 3 contains a typo: 'performace' should be 'performance'; in the same subsection, 'maintains a and uniform user distribution' should read 'maintains a uniform user distribution.'
  3. [Experiment, Implementation Details; Table 1] The paper states that experiments were repeated five times and average results are reported, but Table 1 does not show standard deviations or confidence intervals; please add them to support the significance tests.
  4. [Introduction / Methodology] The term 'foundation model' is used for a transformer trained from scratch with ~60k parameters and two blocks, which conflicts with common usage (large-scale pretrained models). Please rename to 'lightweight transformer' in the title and abstract, or justify the terminology explicitly.
  5. [Related Work / Baselines] The related work cites FedPA (Zhang et al., IJCAI 2024b) as a leading foundation-model-based federated recommendation method, but no personalized federated learning baseline (e.g., Per-FedAvg, pFedMe, FedPer) is compared; adding one such baseline would better position MRFF in the federated personalization literature.
  6. [Experiment, Implementation Details] The batch sizes for the three transformer-based backbones are not reported (only the non-sequential baselines are given as 1,024), which hampers reproducibility; please report these values.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central performance claim is empirical and not circular; only the balance-loss efficacy analysis reduces to the loss's own objective by construction.

  1. self definitional [Methodology, Optimization Objective (Eq. 7); Experiment, Efficacy Analysis of Balance Loss (Figure 2)]
    "We constrain the group gating network to allocate users according to a uniform distribution, Lbalance = N · Σ_{l=1}^L Σ_{i=1}^N f_i^l · p_i^l ... To verify the balance loss's effectiveness, we visualize user grouping dynamics during model training. ... user allocation across groups gradually converges to a uniform distribution in both transformer blocks, with approximately 800 users assigned to each group."

    Eq. 7 is explicitly defined to penalize deviation from a uniform user-group allocation, and the text states that the loss constrains the gating network to allocate users uniformly. The efficacy analysis then shows that allocation converges to roughly 800 users per group and concludes the balance loss is effective. That observation is the optimizer minimizing the loss's own objective; it cannot fail for a properly trained network and provides no independent evidence that balanced grouping improves recommendation quality or captures user correlations. The figure is a tautological check of the loss definition rather than a validation of the method's central performance claim.

full rationale

The central claim of the paper, that MRFF's group gating network plus private user-specific FFN improves AUC and LogLoss over FedSASRec, FedHSTU, and FedLLaMA, is supported by direct empirical comparison in Table 1. Adding FFN_u and FFN_g increases parameters and capacity, which may confound the comparison, but that is an experimental-design and fairness concern, not a definitional circularity. FedPA is a self-citation used only as a baseline, and it is not load-bearing for the main result. The privacy discussion asserts reduced leakage without formal guarantees, which is a missing-analysis concern, not circularity. The one genuinely circular element is the balance-loss efficacy analysis: the loss is defined to enforce uniform allocation, so Figure 2 merely shows the loss doing what it was constructed to do. This is a minor, non-central self-definitional validation, so the overall circularity score is 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper has two tuned hyperparameters (alpha, beta) and assumes that group routing and a uniform balance loss improve personalization. The privacy claim is an unproven domain assumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Balance loss coefficient alpha = 0.1
    Tuned on the three datasets (Figure 3). Controls the strength of the uniform-group regularization.
  • Number of group FFNs beta = 4
    Tuned on the three datasets (Figure 4). Balances group granularity against model complexity.
  • Number of transformer blocks L = 2
    Chosen for fair comparison across baselines; not varied.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The group gating network's MLP and softmax can learn meaningful user groupings from attention output and user embedding.
    Invoked in Eq. 4 and throughout the methodology; no independent validation that the learned groups correspond to real user segments.
  • domain assumption Keeping user embedding and user-specific FFN private while sharing other parameters reduces privacy risk.
    Stated in 'Discussions about Practical Viability'; no formal privacy analysis or attack model is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper A balanced group distribution (uniform) is beneficial for group-level personalization.
    The balance loss (Eq. 7) imposes this assumption; the paper shows it spreads users evenly but does not show that uniform groups are optimal for accuracy.
  • ad hoc to paper Training a small transformer from scratch on each client qualifies as a foundation model.
    The paper labels MRFF a 'foundation model' despite no pre-training and only ~60k parameters, which is a terminological stretch.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multifaceted User Modeling in Recommendation: A Federated Foundation Models Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNGYF2KJ

@misc{pith2026241216969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multifaceted User Modeling in Recommendation: A Federated Foundation Models Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNGYF2KJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16969}
}
read the original abstract

Multifaceted user modeling aims to uncover fine-grained patterns and learn representations from user data, revealing their diverse interests and characteristics, such as profile, preference, and personality. Recent studies on foundation model-based recommendation have emphasized the Transformer architecture's remarkable ability to capture complex, non-linear user-item interaction relationships. This paper aims to advance foundation model-based recommendersystems by introducing enhancements to multifaceted user modeling capabilities. We propose a novel Transformer layer designed specifically for recommendation, using the self-attention mechanism to capture sequential user-item interaction patterns. Specifically, we design a group gating network to identify user groups, enabling hierarchical discovery across different layers, thereby capturing the multifaceted nature of user interests through multiple Transformer layers. Furthermore, to broaden the data scope and further enhance multifaceted user modeling, we extend the framework to a federated setting, enabling the use of private datasets while ensuring privacy. Experimental validations on benchmark datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our proposed method. Code is available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The framework of MRFF. The right side illustrates the workflow of our method. Each client trains a lightweight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Efficacy analysis of balance loss. The horizontal axis denotes the federated optimization rounds, and the vertical axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Impact of coefficient of the balance loss on model performace. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Impact of the number of user groups on model performance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L.; Kiros, J

    Ba, J. L.; Kiros, J. R.; and Hinton, G. E. 2016. Layer normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06450

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Bao, K.; Zhang, J.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Z.; Luo, Y.; Feng, F.; He, X.; and Tian, Q. 2023. A bi-step grounding paradigm for large language models in recommendation systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08434

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Charles, Z.; Mitchell, N.; Pillutla, K.; Reneer, M.; and Garrett, Z. 2024. Towards federated foundation models: Scalable dataset pipelines for group-structured learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Chen, S.; Long, G.; Shen, T.; and Jiang, J. 2023. Prompt Federated Learning for Weather Forecasting: Toward Foundation Models on Meteorological Data. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23 , 3532--3540

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Choi, W.-S.; Tomei, M.; Vicarte, J. R. S.; Hanumolu, P. K.; and Kumar, R. 2018. Guaranteeing local differential privacy on ultra-low-power systems. In 2018 ACM/IEEE 45th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), 561--574. IEEE

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Du, Y.; Liu, H.; and Wu, Z. 2021. Modeling multi-factor and multi-faceted preferences over sequential networks for next item recommendation. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Research Track: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2021, Bilbao, Spain, September 13--17, 2021, Proceedings, Part II 21, 516--531. Springer

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Gao, C.; Li, S.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, J.; Li, B.; Lei, W.; Jiang, P.; and He, X. 2022. KuaiRand: An Unbiased Sequential Recommendation Dataset with Randomly Exposed Videos. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM '22, 3953–3957

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Geng, S.; Tan, J.; Liu, S.; Fu, Z.; and Zhang, Y. 2023. VIP5: Towards Multimodal Foundation Models for Recommendation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, 9606--9620

    work page 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    P.; and Smyth, B

    Hannon, J.; McCarthy, K.; O’Mahony, M. P.; and Smyth, B. 2012. A multi-faceted user model for twitter. In User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization: 20th International Conference, UMAP 2012, Montreal, Canada, July 16-20, 2012. Proceedings 20, 303--309. Springer

    2012

  2. [10]

    Harte, J.; Zorgdrager, W.; Louridas, P.; Katsifodimos, A.; Jannach, D.; and Fragkoulis, M. 2023. Leveraging large language models for sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 1096--1102

    2023

  3. [11]

    He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; and Sun, J. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770--778

    2016

  4. [12]

    Huang, C.; Yu, T.; Xie, K.; Zhang, S.; Yao, L.; and McAuley, J. 2024. Foundation models for recommender systems: A survey and new perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11143

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kang, W.-C.; and McAuley, J. 2018. Self-attentive sequential recommendation. In 2018 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), 197--206. IEEE

    2018

  6. [14]

    Lepikhin, D.; Lee, H.; Xu, Y.; Chen, D.; Firat, O.; Huang, Y.; Krikun, M.; Shazeer, N.; and Chen, Z. 2020. GShard: Scaling Giant Models with Conditional Computation and Automatic Sharding. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2020

  7. [15]

    Li, P. 2021. Leveraging Multi-Faceted User Preferences for Improving Click-Through Rate Predictions. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 864--868

    2021

  8. [16]

    Lin, J.; Dai, X.; Xi, Y.; Liu, W.; Chen, B.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Y.; Wu, C.; Li, X.; Zhu, C.; et al. 2023. How can recommender systems benefit from large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05817

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Liu, P.; Zhang, L.; and Gulla, J. A. 2023. Pre-train, Prompt, and Recommendation: A Comprehensive Survey of Language Modeling Paradigm Adaptations in Recommender Systems. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11: 1553--1571

    2023

  10. [18]

    Liu, Q.; Zhao, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Sun, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, M.; Jia, P.; Chen, C.; Huang, W.; and Tian, F. 2024. Large Language Model Enhanced Recommender Systems: Taxonomy, Trend, Application and Future. arXiv:2412.13432

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Liu, W.; Guo, W.; Liu, Y.; Tang, R.; and Wang, H. 2023. User Behavior Modeling with Deep Learning for Recommendation: Recent Advances. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 1286--1287

    2023

  12. [20]

    Long, G. 2024. The Rise of Federated Intelligence: From Federated Foundation Models Toward Collective Intelligence. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-24 , 8547--8552

    2024

  13. [21]

    McAuley, J.; and Leskovec, J. 2013. Hidden factors and hidden topics: understanding rating dimensions with review text. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems, 165--172

    2013

  14. [22]

    McMahan, B.; Moore, E.; Ramage, D.; Hampson, S.; and y Arcas, B. A. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, 1273--1282. PMLR

    2017

  15. [23]

    Miao, H.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Zheng, K.; Zhang, Y.; and Jensen, C. S. 2025. LightTR: A Lightweight Framework for Federated Trajectory Recovery. In ICDE

    2025

  16. [24]

    Perifanis, V.; and Efraimidis, P. S. 2022. Federated neural collaborative filtering. Knowledge-Based Systems, 242: 108441

    2022

  17. [25]

    Z.; Zhao, B.; Li, X.; Li, Z.; et al

    Ren, C.; Yu, H.; Peng, H.; Tang, X.; Li, A.; Gao, Y.; Tan, A. Z.; Zhao, B.; Li, X.; Li, Z.; et al. 2024. Advances and open challenges in federated learning with foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15381

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Shazeer, N.; Mirhoseini, A.; Maziarz, K.; Davis, A.; Le, Q.; Hinton, G.; and Dean, J. 2016. Outrageously Large Neural Networks: The Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2016

  19. [27]

    Srivastava, N.; Hinton, G.; Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; and Salakhutdinov, R. 2014. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The journal of machine learning research, 15(1): 1929--1958

    2014

  20. [28]

    Sun, Z.; Si, Z.; Zang, X.; Leng, D.; Niu, Y.; Song, Y.; Zhang, X.; and Xu, J. 2023. KuaiSAR: A Unified Search And Recommendation Dataset. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management

    2023

  21. [29]

    Touvron, H.; Martin, L.; Stone, K.; Albert, P.; Almahairi, A.; Babaei, Y.; Bashlykov, N.; Batra, S.; Bhargava, P.; Bhosale, S.; et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Wu, L.; Zheng, Z.; Qiu, Z.; Wang, H.; Gu, H.; Shen, T.; Qin, C.; Zhu, C.; Zhu, H.; Liu, Q.; et al. 2023. A survey on large language models for recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19860

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Wu, L.; Zheng, Z.; Qiu, Z.; Wang, H.; Gu, H.; Shen, T.; Qin, C.; Zhu, C.; Zhu, H.; Liu, Q.; et al. 2024. A survey on large language models for recommendation. World Wide Web, 27(5): 60

    2024

  24. [32]

    S.; and Wang, J

    Xu, R.; Miao, H.; Wang, S.; Yu, P. S.; and Wang, J. 2024. PeFAD: a parameter-efficient federated framework for time series anomaly detection. In SIGKDD, 3621--3632

    2024

  25. [33]

    Yan, P.; and Long, G. 2023. Personalization disentanglement for federated learning. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME), 318--323. IEEE

    2023

  26. [34]

    P.; and Jannesari, A

    Yu, S.; Mu \ n oz, J. P.; and Jannesari, A. 2023. Federated foundation models: Privacy-preserving and collaborative learning for large models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11414

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    P.; and Jannesari, A

    Yu, S.; Munoz, J. P.; and Jannesari, A. 2024. Federated Foundation Models: Privacy-Preserving and Collaborative Learning for Large Models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 202...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Zhai, J.; Liao, L.; Liu, X.; Wang, Y.; Li, R.; Cao, X.; Gao, L.; Gong, Z.; Gu, F.; He, J.; et al. 2024 a . Actions Speak Louder than Words: Trillion-Parameter Sequential Transducers for Generative Recommendations. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  29. [37]

    Zhai, J.; Liao, L.; Liu, X.; Wang, Y.; Li, R.; Cao, X.; Gao, L.; Gong, Z.; Gu, F.; He, M.; et al. 2024 b . Actions speak louder than words: Trillion-parameter sequential transducers for generative recommendations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17152

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhang, A.; Chen, Y.; Sheng, L.; Wang, X.; and Chua, T.-S. 2024 a . On generative agents in recommendation. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 1807--1817

    2024

  31. [39]

    Zhang, C.; Long, G.; Guo, H.; Fang, X.; Song, Y.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, Y.; and Yang, B. 2024 b . Federated Adaptation for Foundation Model-based Recommendations. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-2...

    2024

  32. [40]

    X.; Lin, L.; and Wen, J.-R

    Zhang, J.; Hou, Y.; Xie, R.; Sun, W.; McAuley, J.; Zhao, W. X.; Lin, L.; and Wen, J.-R. 2024 c . Agentcf: Collaborative learning with autonomous language agents for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, 3679--3689

    2024

  33. [41]

    X.; Lin, L.; and Wen, J.-R

    Zhang, J.; Xie, R.; Hou, Y.; Zhao, W. X.; Lin, L.; and Wen, J.-R. 2023. Recommendation as instruction following: A large language model empowered recommendation approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07001

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Zhao, Z.; Fan, W.; Li, J.; Liu, Y.; Mei, X.; Wang, Y.; Wen, Z.; Wang, F.; Zhao, X.; Tang, J.; et al. 2024. Recommender systems in the era of large language models (llms). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

    2024

  35. [43]

    Zheng, Z.; Chao, W.; Qiu, Z.; Zhu, H.; and Xiong, H. 2024 a . Harnessing large language models for text-rich sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, 3207--3216

    2024

  36. [44]

    Zheng, Z.; Hu, X.; Gao, S.; Zhu, H.; and Xiong, H. 2024 b . Mirror: A multi-view reciprocal recommender system for online recruitment. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 543--552

    2024

  37. [45]

    Zheng, Z.; Hu, X.; Qiu, Z.; Cheng, Y.; Gao, S.; Song, Y.; Zhu, H.; and Xiong, H. 2024 c . Bilateral Multi-Behavior Modeling for Reciprocal Recommendation in Online Recruitment. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

    2024

  38. [46]

    Zhou, P.; Cao, M.; Huang, Y.-L.; Ye, Q.; Zhang, P.; Liu, J.; Xie, Y.; Hua, Y.; and Kim, J. 2023. Exploring recommendation capabilities of gpt-4v (ision): A preliminary case study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04199

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Zhuang, W.; Chen, C.; and Lyu, L. 2023. When foundation model meets federated learning: Motivations, challenges, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15546

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  41. [49]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.