Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 80 references

CoRCi: Cross-Reconstruction of Coherent Interests Modeling in Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CoRCi: mixed-domain sequences rebuilt by cross-attention from per-domain encoders and trained with a single focal-contrastive loss preserve shared interests and beat prior cross-domain recommenders on four real-world datasets.

desk verdict Cross-reconstruction is a genuine architectural step forward; FocalNCE is a small, overclaimed heuristic that needs either gradient-level evidence or softer claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09580 v1 pith:YB2K4ZZI submitted 2026-08-10 cs.AI

Qingtian Bian , Tieying Li , Marcus de Carvalho , Jiaxing Xu , Hui Fang , Yiping Ke This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords cross-domainsequentialrecommendationcrossreconstructionFocalNCEcontrastivelearningcross-attentiondomain-invariantinterests
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

CoRCi tackles the problem of keeping a user's shared interests coherent when training a recommender on two domains at once. The paper argues that prior methods harm this coherence by training a separate encoder on the chronologically merged cross-domain sequence and by aggregating losses separately per domain. Its proposal is to build the mixed-domain representation directly from the two per-domain encoders using cross-attention ($H_M = \mathrm{ATTN}(E_M, H_A+H_B, H_A+H_B)$) and to train that representation with a single, domain-agnostic contrastive loss. To stop same-domain items from dominating that loss, it adds FocalNCE, which multiplies the standard InfoNCE term by $(1-p)^\alpha$ so negatives from the query's own domain are penalized harder. If the paper is right, this combination is a straightforward recipe that improves next-item recommendation on both domains and scales beyond two domains.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Cross-Reconstruction module (CRM): a cross-attention layer that turns the two per-domain self-attention encodings $H_A$ and $H_B$ into the mixed-domain representation $H_M$ by using $H_A+H_B$ as keys and values and the mixed-domain embedding $E_M$ as queries. The companion mechanism is FocalNCE, a modification of InfoNCE in which the per-sample loss $-(1-p)^\alpha \log p$ reweights the positive softmax probability $p$ so that negatives sampled from the same domain as the query receive larger penalties and intra-domain bias is suppressed. A stop-gradient on $H_M$ in the transfer cross-attention modules keeps the mixed-domain space from being distorted by per-domain supervision. These mechanisms together are what the paper claims preserve coherent, domain-invariant interests.

What would settle it

Compute the mean cosine similarity between query representations and same-domain negatives versus cross-domain negatives in the mixed-domain space, and run CoRCi with FocalNCE's per-negative weights replaced by random domain labels; if same-domain negatives are not systematically closer, or if randomly reweighted negatives reproduce the gains, the intra-domain-bias mechanism is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that domain-invariant interest coherence is what makes dual-target cross-domain sequential recommendation work, and that coherence is best achieved by cross-reconstruction rather than by learning a mixed-domain encoder from scratch. CoRCi encodes each domain separately with a self-attention encoder, then produces the mixed-domain representation with one cross-attention layer whose queries are the mixed-domain positional embeddings and whose keys and values are the sum of the two specific-domain encodings. That reconstructed representation is trained with a single sequence-level FocalNCE loss, so no per-domain loss aggregation fragments it; a stop-gradient cross-attention transfer then carries the mixed knowledge back into each domain. The paper reports that this design outperforms prior cross-domain sequential recommenders, including ABXI, across all metrics with paired t-test significance at $p \le 0.01$ on Amazon Food-Kitchen, Beauty-Electronics, Movie-Book, and the three-domain Douban data, with larger gains on hard domains.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that negatives from the query's own domain are harder negatives, so penalizing them extra is what drives the improvement; if that premise is false, the FocalNCE gains could be an artifact of tuning the focal strength $\alpha$ per dataset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Prior per-domain loss aggregation in mixed-domain CDSR is the main thing CoRCi argues against; the correct recipe is a single sequence-level, domain-agnostic loss on the reconstructed representation.
  • The architecture generalizes to more than two domains: on the three-domain Douban data, CoRCi beats the strongest baseline in all nine domain-metric combinations.
  • The focusing parameter $\alpha$ must be tuned per dataset; the paper finds $\alpha=4$ works for Food-Kitchen, $\alpha=2$ for Beauty-Electronics and Movie-Book, and large values can hurt datasets whose interests are mostly domain-specific.
  • The stop-gradient on the mixed representation keeps the shared space stable; removing it degrades performance, as does removing the mixed-domain task entirely.
  • The reported gains over the best baseline are statistically significant at $p \le 0.01$ on every metric, so the observed improvements are unlikely to be random-seed noise.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the FocalNCE reweighting scheme could be applied to any contrastive learning setup where negatives come from identifiable subgroups, not just recommendation.
  • Beyond the paper: an adaptive version of the focusing parameter, estimated from validation similarity, could remove the per-dataset grid search.
  • Beyond the paper: if the mechanism is real, the advantage of FocalNCE over plain InfoNCE should shrink on datasets where same-domain negatives are not measurably closer than cross-domain ones.
  • Beyond the paper: the cross-reconstruction pattern could transfer to other multi-source sequence tasks, though CoRCi only demonstrates it for two- and three-domain recommendation.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CoRCi, a dual-target cross-domain sequential recommendation (CDSR) model. Specific-domain sequences are encoded by two separate self-attention encoders; a cross-reconstruction module (CRM) produces mixed-domain representations by applying cross-attention over the sum of the encoded specific-domain representations, using mixed-domain positional embeddings as queries. Cross-attention transferors (CAT) then fuse mixed-domain knowledge back into the specific-domain representations. The mixed-domain objective is a focal-weighted InfoNCE loss called FocalNCE, and the total loss combines domain-specific InfoNCE losses with a weighted mixed-domain loss. Experiments on three Amazon domain pairs and one Douban three-domain dataset compare CoRCi against single-target, dual-target, and mixed-target baselines, reporting consistent improvements in HR, NDCG, and MRR with claimed statistical significance at p < 0.01.

Significance. If the results are robust, CoRCi would be a strong new state of the art for dual-target CDSR. The paper is commendable for shipping code, using five seeds, reporting paired t-tests, and running extensive ablations. The CRM architecture and the stop-gradient design are reasonably well supported by the ablation table. However, the two contributions are not equally validated: the claimed mechanism of FocalNCE is not directly evidenced, and its benefit is entangled with per-dataset tuning of the focusing parameter alpha. The three-domain experiment is also narrower than the two-domain comparison. These gaps do not invalidate the raw ranking improvements, but they do mean the paper's central mechanistic claims need additional support before the contribution is fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.6, Eq. (14)] FocalNCE is defined as -(1-p)^alpha log p, where p is the softmax probability of the positive item. This is a scalar function of p only; the loss never reads the domain labels of the negatives. The assertion that FocalNCE 'assigns higher penalties to negatives drawn from the same domain as the query' is therefore not a property of the loss. Its gradient with respect to a negative logit is proportional to that negative's softmax probability times a common positive factor, so any upweighting of high-probability negatives is domain-agnostic. To support the stated mechanism, the authors should report direct evidence, such as average softmax probabilities or gradient norms for same-domain versus cross-domain negatives, or ablate by manipulating the domain composition of the negative set. As written, FocalNCE is a tuned loss-shaping term whose claimed intra-domain-bias suppression is unverified.
  2. [Section 5.6, Figure 5, Table 4] The focusing parameter alpha is selected per dataset (alpha = 4 for AFK, alpha = 2 for ABE and AMB), and the RQ3 ablation shows that replacing FocalNCE with plain InfoNCE yields differences on the hard domains of ABE and AMB that the authors themselves describe as statistically insignificant fluctuations (e.g., Book MRR 0.1571 for Vii vs 0.1566 for CoRCi; Electronics 0.1331 for Vii vs 0.1331 for CoRCi). This undercuts the load-bearing claim that FocalNCE's mechanism drives the gains; the improvement could be an artifact of per-dataset loss-weight tuning. The authors should report significance tests for the RQ3 variants and demonstrate that alpha values in a neighborhood of the optimum preserve the advantage over InfoNCE.
  3. [Section 5.8, Table 5] The three-domain evaluation on DMBM compares CoRCi only against ABXI, with no additional DT-CDSR baseline, and the preprocessing differs from the two-domain setup (minimum item frequency 5 instead of 10, maximum sequence length 100 instead of 50, day-granularity timestamps with a fixed tie-breaking order). The generalizability claim for three domains is therefore weaker than the two-domain comparison. At least one additional DT-CDSR baseline, plus a description of how ABXI was configured under this protocol, is needed to support the RQ5 conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.6, Eq. (15)] The symbol h^F_{m,j} in Eq. (15) is not defined in the text; the preceding paragraph introduces h_m as the mixed-domain query representation. Please define h^F consistently.
  2. [Section 5.3, Table 3] The significance claims are reported only as 'p <= 0.01'. Please provide exact p-values or at least the test statistic and clarify whether the paired t-test is over the five seeds or over a per-user/per-item evaluation sample.
  3. [Section 5.5, Table 4] The variant name 'Vw/o-LM: cancels mixed-domain task on Vw/o-sg' is confusing; it should be clarified whether this is Vw/o-sg with the mixed-domain loss removed or a separate variant, and how it differs from Vw/o-Lm used elsewhere in the table.
  4. [Section 4.7] The FLOPs comparison states that CoRCi uses '5 SA plus 5 FFN' but the preceding sentence says 'each SA and FFN processes only one sequence'; the accounting for the cross-attention modules and projection layers should be spelled out so the 1.06x figure is reproducible.
  5. [Section 1, Figure 2] The preliminary motivating experiment with SASRec and BERT4Rec variants is reported only as a figure. A small table with the underlying MRR values and standard deviations would make the motivation more checkable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: CoRCi's cross-reconstruction and FocalNCE are evaluated against external baselines, and the FocalNCE mechanism concern is an evidence gap rather than a definitional reduction.

full rationale

CoRCi's central derivation is architectural: Eq. 10 constructs the mixed-domain representation HM by cross-attention over pre-encoded specific-domain representations, and Eq. 15 trains it with FocalNCE against held-out next-item targets. The reported gains over prior CDSR methods (Table 3) come from paired t-tests on fixed test sets, so the improvements are not defined into existence by the model equations. The FocalNCE claim in Section 4.6 that same-domain negatives receive extra penalty is not a consequence of Eq. 14, because the loss is a scalar function of the positive softmax probability and never reads domain labels; moreover, alpha is tuned per dataset and the ablation differences are small on some hard domains. This is a legitimate evidence or correctness concern, but it is not circularity: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and the core ranking improvements over external baselines are independent of that mechanism. The self-citations to ABXI [5] are used as a baseline and experimental-setup reference, not as the justificatory source of CoRCi's main result. No load-bearing step in the paper reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper invokes no dramatic invented entities, but it relies on two new components whose parameters are tuned on the evaluation data. The central claim depends on the assumption that cross-domain user interests are domain-invariant, and the FocalNCE mechanism depends on a tuned focusing parameter.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (FocalNCE focusing parameter) = 4 for AFK, 2 for ABE, 2 for AMB
    Tuned per dataset on the validation/test split in Section 5.6 and Figure 5. The paper explicitly reports different optimal alpha values per dataset, so the loss mechanism is not parameter-free.
  • beta (mixed-domain loss weight) = 1.0 for AFK and ABE, 0.7 for AMB
    Tuned per dataset in Section 5.7 and Figure 6. The paper reports that optimal beta varies by domain pair, so the final loss combination depends on fitted weights.
  • Number of negatives Nneg = 128
    Chosen as a hyperparameter for training in Section 4.6; the paper does not justify this value, though it is likely standard.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Domain-invariant user interests exist and are useful for cross-domain recommendation.
    The entire problem setup and the motivation in Section 1 assume that a user's interests transfer coherently across domains, and the mixed-domain sequence is claimed to help because of this. The paper argues this from a single user example and motivating MRR experiment, but it is a background assumption about the data.
  • domain assumption Amazon review interactions and Douban ratings, after preprocessing, are valid proxies for user interest sequences.
    Each review is treated as an interaction and items with fewer than ten interactions are filtered, following prior work. This is a standard assumption in the field, but it shapes all results.
  • domain assumption Leave-one-out evaluation with 999 sampled negatives is a fair approximation of full ranking.
    Section 5.3 states that 999 negatives are sampled from the ground truth's domain, a common protocol. It is an approximation that can overestimate absolute metrics, but it applies equally to all baselines.
invented entities (2)
  • Cross-Reconstruction module (CRM) independent evidence
    purpose: Generates mixed-domain representations from pre-encoded specific-domain representations via cross-attention.
    The module is a new architecture component whose behavior is tested in ablations and through end-to-end recommendation performance.
  • FocalNCE loss independent evidence
    purpose: Embeds Focal Loss into the mixed-domain InfoNCE objective to penalize same-domain negatives more heavily.
    The loss is a new objective whose performance is compared against InfoNCE variants in ablation studies, providing a falsifiable handle within the paper's own experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CoRCi: Cross-Reconstruction of Coherent Interests Modeling in Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YB2K4ZZI

@misc{pith2026260809580,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CoRCi: Cross-Reconstruction of Coherent Interests Modeling in Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YB2K4ZZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09580}
}
read the original abstract

Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation (CDSR) aims to alleviate data sparsity by transferring dynamic user interests across related domains. A key challenge lies in effectively bridging these domains. In single-domain modeling, models cannot distinguish between domain-specific and domain-invariant interests. Recent methods merge domain-specific sequences chronologically into a mixed-domain sequence to capture domain-invariant knowledge. However, they typically deploy separate encoders for the mixed-domain sequence and train them with per-domain loss aggregation. This workflow magnifies inter-domain discrepancies and disrupts domain-invariant interest coherence, especially when query target pairs in Seq2Seq originate from different domains. In this paper, we present CoRCi (Cross-Reconstruction for Coherent Interest), a dual-target CDSR framework that tackles these drawbacks. Specifically, CoRCi proposes a Cross-Reconstruction approach that generates mixed-domain representations directly from pre-encoded specific-domain representations via cross-attention. The generated representations are then trained using a single, sequence-level, domain-agnostic loss to preserve the coherence of domain-invariant interests. To further suppress domain discrepancies in mixed-domain modeling, CoRCi introduces FocalNCE, which embeds Focal Loss into the preceding mixed-domain InfoNCE objective. The new loss assigns higher penalties to negatives drawn from the same domain as the query, thereby strengthening domain-invariant alignment. Extensive experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate that CoRCi consistently outperforms state-of-the-art CDSR counterparts, achieving statistically significant gains across all metrics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09580 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dual-target CDSR example on Food-Kitchen do [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MRR of SASRec and BERT4Rec variants in single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Proposed CoRCi model. domains [14, 22, 24, 73]; integration methods, which combine in￾teraction data from multiple domains to capture user preferences [10, 23, 42, 44, 72]; and universal recommender systems that aim to transfer domain-invariant information across domains [9, 17, 66]. Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation (CDSR) extends CDR by incorporating temporal dynamics to transfer dynamic knowledge between dom… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An illustration of data splits of specific-domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MRR performance of different 𝛽 (RQ4). Our proposed CoRCi model consistently achieves optimal perfor￾mance across all evaluated metrics and tasks, with all improvements statistically significant (paired t-tests, 𝑝 ≤ 0.01). The average per￾domain gains across four metric…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Floren- cia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Nawaf Alharbi and Doina Caragea. 2021. Cross-domain attentive sequential recommendations based on general and current user preferences (cd-asr). In IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology. 48–55

    2021

  3. [3]

    Nawaf Alharbi and Doina Caragea. 2022. Cross-domain self-attentive sequential recommendations. In Proceedings of International Conference on Data Science and Applications: ICDSA 2021, Volume 2. Springer, 601–614

    2022

  4. [4]

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, et al. 2023. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Qingtian Bian, Marcus de Carvalho, Tieying Li, Jiaxing Xu, Hui Fang, and Yiping Ke. 2025. ABXI: Invariant Interest Adaptation for Task-Guided Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 . 3183–3192

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Qingtian Bian, Jiaxing Xu, Hui Fang, and Yiping Ke. 2023. CPMR: Context-Aware Incremental Sequential Recommendation with Pseudo-Multi-Task Learning. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowl- edge Management. 120–130

    2023

  7. [7]

    Chenwei Cai, Ruining He, and Julian McAuley. 2017. SPMC: Socially-aware personalized Markov chains for sparse sequential recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.04497 (2017)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Jiangxia Cao, Xin Cong, Jiawei Sheng, Tingwen Liu, and Bin Wang. 2022. Con- trastive Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 138–147

    2022

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Jiangxia Cao, Shaoshuai Li, Bowen Yu, Xiaobo Guo, Tingwen Liu, and Bin Wang

  2. [10]

    Jiangxia Cao, Xixun Lin, Xin Cong, Jing Ya, Tingwen Liu, and Bin Wang. 2022. Disencdr: Learning disentangled representations for cross-domain recommenda- tion. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval . 267–277

    2022

  3. [11]

    Jianxin Chang, Chen Gao, Yu Zheng, Yiqun Hui, Yanan Niu, Yang Song, Depeng Jin, and Yong Li. 2021. Sequential recommendation with graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 378–387

    2021

  4. [12]

    Yujia Ding, Huan Li, Ke Chen, and Lidan Shou. 2023. TPUF: Enhancing Cross- domain Sequential Recommendation via Transferring Pre-trained User Features. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 410–419

    2023

  5. [13]

    Tim Donkers, Benedikt Loepp, and Jürgen Ziegler. 2017. Sequential user-based recurrent neural network recommendations. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 152–160

    2017

  6. [14]

    Chelsea Finn, Pieter Abbeel, and Sergey Levine. 2017. Model-agnostic meta- learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 1126–1135

    2017

  7. [15]

    Lei Guo, Li Tang, Tong Chen, Lei Zhu, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, and Hongzhi Yin. 2021. DA-GCN: A domain-aware attentive graph convolution network for shared-account cross-domain sequential recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03300 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Lei Guo, Jinyu Zhang, Li Tang, Tong Chen, Lei Zhu, and Hongzhi Yin. 2022. Time interval-enhanced graph neural network for shared-account cross-domain sequential recommendation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 35, 3 (2022), 4002–4016

    2022

  9. [17]

    Bowen Hao, Chaoqun Yang, Lei Guo, Junliang Yu, and Hongzhi Yin. 2024. Motif- based prompt learning for universal cross-domain recommendation. In Proceed- ings of the 17th ACM international conference on web search and data mining . 257–265

    2024

  10. [18]

    Jesse Harte, Wouter Zorgdrager, Panos Louridas, Asterios Katsifodimos, Diet- mar Jannach, and Marios Fragkoulis. 2023. Leveraging large language models for sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 1096–1102

    2023

  11. [19]

    Ruining He and Julian McAuley. 2016. Fusing similarity models with markov chains for sparse sequential recommendation. In 2016 IEEE 16th international conference on data mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 191–200

    2016

  12. [20]

    Ruining He and Julian McAuley. 2016. Ups and downs: Modeling the visual evolution of fashion trends with one-class collaborative filtering. In proceedings of the 25th international conference on world wide web . 507–517

    2016

  13. [21]

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

  14. [22]

    Guangneng Hu, Yu Zhang, and Qiang Yang. 2018. Conet: Collaborative cross networks for cross-domain recommendation. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management . 667–676

    2018

  15. [23]

    Yuchen Jiang, Qi Li, Han Zhu, Jinbei Yu, Jin Li, Ziru Xu, Huihui Dong, and Bo Zheng. 2022. Adaptive domain interest network for multi-domain recommenda- tion. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 3212–3221

    2022

  16. [24]

    SeongKu Kang, Junyoung Hwang, Dongha Lee, and Hwanjo Yu. 2019. Semi- supervised learning for cross-domain recommendation to cold-start users. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management. 1563–1572

    2019

  17. [25]

    Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2018. Self-attentive sequential recom- mendation. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 197–206

    2018

  18. [26]

    Chenglin Li, Yuanzhen Xie, Chenyun Yu, Bo Hu, Zang Li, Guoqiang Shu, Xiaohu Qie, and Di Niu. 2023. One for all, all for one: Learning and transferring user embeddings for cross-domain recommendation. In Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM international conference on web search an...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Chenglin Li, Mingjun Zhao, Huanming Zhang, Chenyun Yu, Lei Cheng, Guoqiang Shu, Beibei Kong, and Di Niu. 2022. RecGURU: Adversarial learning of generalized user representations for cross-domain recommendation. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM international conference on web...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Jiacheng Li, Yujie Wang, and Julian McAuley. 2020. Time interval aware self- attention for sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 322–330

    2020

  21. [29]

    Lei Li, Yongfeng Zhang, and Li Chen. 2023. Prompt distillation for efficient llm- based recommendation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 1348–1357

    2023

  22. [30]

    Pan Li, Zhichao Jiang, Maofei Que, Yao Hu, and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2021. Dual attentive sequential learning for cross-domain click-through rate prediction. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 3172–3180

    2021

  23. [31]

    Guanyu Lin, Chen Gao, Yu Zheng, Jianxin Chang, Yanan Niu, Yang Song, Kun Gai, Zhiheng Li, Depeng Jin, Yong Li, et al . 2024. Mixed attention network for cross-domain sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Minin...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollár. 2017. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision . 2980–2988

    2017

  25. [33]

    Qidong Liu, Xiangyu Zhao, Yejing Wang, Zijian Zhang, Howard Zhong, Chong Chen, Xiang Li, Wei Huang, and Feng Tian. 2025. Bridge the Domains: Large Language Models Enhanced Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18383 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Haokai Ma, Ruobing Xie, Lei Meng, Xin Chen, Xu Zhang, Leyu Lin, and Jie Zhou. 2024. Triple sequence learning for cross-domain recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 42, 4 (2024), 1–29

    2024

  27. [35]

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

    2022

  28. [36]

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

    Muyang Ma, Pengjie Ren, Yujie Lin, Zhumin Chen, Jun Ma, and Maarten de Rijke. 2019.𝜋-net: A parallel information-sharing network for shared-account cross- domain sequential recommendations. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Developme...

    2019

  29. [37]

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

  30. [38]

    Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. 2018. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

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

    2023

  32. [40]

    In Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    Image-based recommendations on styles and substitutes. In Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 43–52. Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Qingtian Bian, Tieying Li, Marcus de Carval...

    2018

  33. [41]

    Steffen Rendle. 2010. Factorization machines. In 2010 IEEE International Confer- ence on Data Mining . IEEE, 995–1000

    2010

  34. [42]

    Qijie Shen, Wanjie Tao, Jing Zhang, Hong Wen, Zulong Chen, and Quan Lu. 2021. SAR-Net: A scenario-aware ranking network for personalized fair recommenda- tion in hundreds of travel scenarios. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Ma...

    2021

  35. [43]

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

    2024

  36. [44]

    Xiang-Rong Sheng, Liqin Zhao, Guorui Zhou, Xinyao Ding, Binding Dai, Qiang Luo, Siran Yang, Jingshan Lv, Chi Zhang, Hongbo Deng, et al. 2021. One model to serve all: Star topology adaptive recommender for multi-domain ctr prediction. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Internationa...

    2021

  37. [45]

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

  38. [46]

    Tingjia Shen, Hao Wang, Jiaqing Zhang, Sirui Zhao, Liangyue Li, Zulong Chen, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Exploring user retrieval integration towards large language models for cross-domain sequential recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03085 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Jiaxi Tang and Ke Wang. 2018. Personalized top-n sequential recommendation via convolutional sequence embedding. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 565–573

    2018

  40. [48]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yas- mine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhos- ale, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Wenchao Sun, Muyang Ma, Pengjie Ren, Yujie Lin, Zhumin Chen, Zhaochun Ren, Jun Ma, and Maarten De Rijke. 2021. Parallel split-join networks for shared account cross-domain sequential recommendations. IEEE Transactions on Knowl- edge and Data Engineering (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Chao-Yuan Wu, Amr Ahmed, Alex Beutel, Alexander J Smola, and How Jing. 2017. Recurrent recommender networks. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 495–503

    2017

  44. [52]

    Shu Wu, Yuyuan Tang, Yanqiao Zhu, Liang Wang, Xing Xie, and Tieniu Tan. 2019. Session-based recommendation with graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 33. 346–353

    2019

  45. [53]

    Haoran Xin, Ying Sun, Chao Wang, and Hui Xiong. 2025. LLMCDSR: Enhancing Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation with Large Language Models. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    Ziyang Wang, Wei Wei, Gao Cong, Xiao-Li Li, Xian-Ling Mao, and Minghui Qiu. 2020. Global context enhanced graph neural networks for session-based recommendation. In Proceedings of the 43rd international ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval ...

    2020

  47. [55]

    Zitao Xu, Xiaoqing Chen, Weike Pan, and Zhong Ming. [n. d.]. Heterogeneous Graph Transfer Learning for Category-aware Cross-Domain Sequential Recom- mendation. In THE WEB CONFERENCE 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    Zitao Xu, Weike Pan, and Zhong Ming. 2023. A Multi-view Graph Contrastive Learning Framework for Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation. In Proceed- ings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 491–501

    2023

  49. [57]

    Zitao Xu, Weike Pan, and Zhong Ming. 2024. Transfer learning in cross-domain sequential recommendation. Information Sciences 669 (2024), 120550

    2024

  50. [58]

    Wujiang Xu, Qitian Wu, Runzhong Wang, Mingming Ha, Qiongxu Ma, Linxun Chen, Bing Han, and Junchi Yan. 2024. Rethinking cross-domain sequential recommendation under open-world assumptions. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024. 3173–3184

    2024

  51. [59]

    Xiaoxin Ye, Yun Li, and Lina Yao. 2023. DREAM: Decoupled Representation via Extraction Attention Module and Supervised Contrastive Learning for Cross- Domain Sequential Recommender. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 479–490

    2023

  52. [60]

    Jiaqi Zhai, Lucy Liao, Xing Liu, Yueming Wang, Rui Li, Xuan Cao, Leon Gao, Zhaojie Gong, Fangda Gu, Jiayuan He, et al . 2024. Actions speak louder than words: trillion-parameter sequential transducers for generative recommendations. In Proceedings of the 41st International Con...

    2024

  53. [61]

    Buyun Zhang, Liang Luo, Yuxin Chen, Jade Nie, Xi Liu, Shen Li, Yanli Zhao, Yuchen Hao, Yantao Yao, Ellie Dingqiao Wen, et al. 2024. Wukong: towards a scaling law for large-scale recommendation. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning . 59421–59434

    2024

  54. [62]

    An Yan, Shuo Cheng, Wang-Cheng Kang, Mengting Wan, and Julian McAuley

  55. [63]

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

    CosRec: 2D convolutional neural networks for sequential recommenda- tion. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management. 2173–2176

  56. [64]

    Hongyu Zhang, Dongyi Zheng, Xu Yang, Jiyuan Feng, and Qing Liao. 2024. FedDCSR: Federated cross-domain sequential recommendation via disentangled representation learning. In Proceedings of the 2024 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM) . SIAM, 535–543

    2024

  57. [65]

    Jinyu Zhang, Huichuan Duan, Lei Guo, Liancheng Xu, and Xinhua Wang. 2023. Towards lightweight cross-domain sequential recommendation via external attention-enhanced graph convolution network. In International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications . Springer, 205–220

    2023

  58. [66]

    Yuxi Zhang, Ji Zhang, Feiyang Xu, Lvying Chen, Bohan Li, Lei Guo, and Hongzhi Yin. 2024. Preference Prototype-Aware Learning for Universal Cross-Domain Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 3290–3299

    2024

  59. [67]

    Chengzhe Zhang, Xu Min, Changsheng Li, Xiaolu Zhang, Weichang Wu, Jun Zhou, Ye Yuan, and Guoren Wang. 2024. MIBR: Bridging Domains through Diverse Interests for Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation. In2024 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Big Data (BigData) . 423–432. doi:...

    2024

  60. [68]

    Hao Zhang, Mingyue Cheng, Qi Liu, Junzhe Jiang, Xianquan Wang, Rujiao Zhang, Chenyi Lei, and Enhong Chen. 2025. A Comprehensive Survey on Cross- Domain Recommendation: Taxonomy, Progress, and Prospects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14110 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Xiaolin Zheng, Jiajie Su, Weiming Liu, and Chaochao Chen. 2022. DDGHM: dual dynamic graph with hybrid metric training for cross-domain sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 471–481

    2022

  62. [70]

    Zhi Zheng, Wenshuo Chao, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hengshu Zhu, and Hui Xiong. 2024. Harnessing large language models for text-rich sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 . 3207–3216

    2024

  63. [71]

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

    2019

  64. [72]

    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. In Proceeding...

    2025

  65. [73]

    Lei Zheng, Vahid Noroozi, and Philip S Yu. 2017. Joint deep modeling of users and items using reviews for recommendation. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining . 425–434

    2017

  66. [74]

    Fuzhen Zhuang, Yingmin Zhou, Fuzheng Zhang, Xiang Ao, Xing Xie, and Qing He

  67. [77]

    Jiajie Zhu, Yan Wang, Feng Zhu, and Zhu Sun. 2023. Domain disentanglement with interpolative data augmentation for dual-target cross-domain recommen- dation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 515–527

    2023

  68. [78]

    Yongchun Zhu, Kaikai Ge, Fuzhen Zhuang, Ruobing Xie, Dongbo Xi, Xu Zhang, Leyu Lin, and Qing He. 2021. Transfer-meta framework for cross-domain recom- mendation to cold-start users. In Proceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in in...

    2021

  69. [2015]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06939 (2015)

    Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.06939 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  70. [2018]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01542 (2018)

    Cross-domain novelty seeking trait mining for sequential recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01542 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  71. [2019]

    In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International conference on Information and Knowledge Management

    BERT4Rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder rep- resentations from transformer. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 1441–1450

  72. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining

    Towards universal cross-domain recommendation. In Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining . 78–86

Pith tools

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