Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 7 cited by

Enhancing Recommendation Systems with GNNs and Addressing Over-Smoothing

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 The paper claims that adding initial residual connections and identity mapping to a GNN collaborative-filtering propagation layer prevents over-smoothing and yields small consistent Recall@20 and NDCG@20 gains over five baselines on three…

desk verdict A plausible but unsupported LightGCN tweak; the baseline citations don't match the named methods, so the empirical claim is unattested. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03097 v1 pith:Y23OP2ZO submitted 2024-12-04 cs.IR cs.LG

Wenyi Liu , Ziqi Zhang , Xinshi Li , Jiacheng Hu , Yuanshuai Luo , Junliang Du This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.LG
keywords RecommendationSystemsGraphNeuralNetworksOver-SmoothingCollaborativeFilteringInterpretabilityInitialResidualConnectionsIdentityMapping
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

Over-smoothing is the failure mode where deep graph convolutions drive all node embeddings toward the same vector, so adding layers stops helping. This paper proposes a GNN-based collaborative filtering model whose propagation rule keeps the initial user and item embeddings alive at every depth through initial residual connections, and mixes in a trainable identity-mapped transformation whose eigenvalues are tuned to reduce information loss. The paper claims this design outperforms BPRMF, GCMC, NGCF, LR-GCCF, and LGC in Recall@20 and NDCG@20 on Gowalla, Yelp-2018, and Amazon-Book. The reported gains are small but consistent, for example Recall@20 of 0.1771 versus 0.1754 for LGC on Gowalla. A sympathetic reader should care because the recipe is simple: a one-line change to the propagation layer that may allow recommender networks to go deeper without collapsing.

What carries the argument

The engine is the aggregation-propagation update $\mathbf{H}^{(l)} = \sigma(((1-\alpha)\mathbf{S}\mathbf{H}^{(l-1)} + \alpha\mathbf{H}^{(0)})((1-\beta)\mathbf{I} + \beta\mathbf{W}^{(l-1)}))$, where $\mathbf{S}$ is the normalized adjacency (Laplacian) matrix of the user-item bipartite graph, $\mathbf{H}^{(0)}$ is the initial embedding matrix, $\sigma$ is a nonlinear activation, and $\mathbf{W}^{(l-1)}$ is trainable. Two scalar knobs carry the argument: $\alpha$ sets how much of the first-layer embedding survives into every later layer (initial residual connection), and $\beta$ controls the identity mapping so that the eigenvalues of $(1-\beta)\mathbf{I} + \beta\mathbf{W}^{(l-1)}$ stay close to 1, which the paper says limits information loss during propagation. Layer outputs are then combined as $\mathbf{H}^{(*)} = \sum_{l=0}^{L} a_l \mathbf{H}^{(l)}$ with free weights $a_l$, and the predicted rating for a user-item pair is the inner product of the aggregated user and item embeddings. This combination is what lets the model pool collaborative signals from different propagation depths instead of relying on the last layer alone.

What would settle it

Run the same comparison on Gowalla, Yelp-2018, and Amazon-Book with embedding size, number of layers, learning rate, $\alpha$, $\beta$, and regularization reported, include LR-GCCF in the table, and evaluate across multiple seeds; if LGC or any full baseline matches or exceeds the proposed model under matched tuning, the paper's central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the over-smoothing problem in graph-based recommendation can be solved at the propagation layer without redesigning the graph or the loss. The layer update $\mathbf{H}^{(l)} = \sigma(((1-\alpha)\mathbf{S}\mathbf{H}^{(l-1)} + \alpha\mathbf{H}^{(0)})((1-\beta)\mathbf{I} + \beta\mathbf{W}^{(l-1)}))$ preserves the initial embedding $\mathbf{H}^{(0)}$ at every depth and mixes it with a normalized adjacency propagation $\mathbf{S}\mathbf{H}^{(l-1)}$, while the term $(1-\beta)\mathbf{I} + \beta\mathbf{W}^{(l-1)}$ gives the network a nonlinear, trainable transformation whose largest eigenvalue can be held near 1. The authors report that this rule beats the matrix-factorization baseline BPRMF and four GNN baselines on the Gowalla, Yelp-2018, and Amazon-Book datasets in both Recall@20 and NDCG@20, and attribute the improvement to retaining initial information and avoiding convergence to a subspace. The paper also frames the design as a step toward interpretable recommendations, since the layered aggregation makes the contribution of each propagation depth visible.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim collapses if the named baselines were not implemented as their published algorithms and tuned under matched conditions, since the paper gives no training details, the table omits the LR-GCCF column it claims to compare, and several baseline citations do not point to the cited algorithms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, recommender backbones can be made deeper without the usual accuracy cliff, because the initial embeddings are never washed out by repeated convolutions.
  • Long-range collaborative signals from higher-order neighbors can be combined with first-hop evidence at prediction time, since every layer's output enters the final weighted sum.
  • The reported numbers give a concrete target for later anti-over-smoothing recommenders: on Gowalla, Recall@20 of 0.1771 and NDCG@20 of 0.1491.
  • The design suggests that tuning $\beta$ near the boundary where the identity-mapping eigenvalues approach 1 is a practical lever for trading information retention against nonlinear feature extraction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Our inference: the same propagation layer should transfer to other bipartite-graph prediction tasks, such as link prediction or friend recommendation, because nothing in the mechanism depends on ratings being the prediction target.
  • Our inference: the reported gains are small enough that seed variance and statistical significance matter; a production system should not be switched on the strength of a 0.002-0.003 Recall difference without replication.
  • Our inference: because the paper does not report $\alpha$, $\beta$, layer count, embedding size, or regularization, the natural next experiment is an ablation sweep over those knobs to see whether the initial residual or the identity mapping carries the gain.
  • Our inference: the eigenvalue argument suggests that even deeper stacks than the ones tested here could remain useful, but that extrapolation is untested in the paper.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a GNN-based collaborative filtering recommendation method that combines initial residual connections and identity mapping in the aggregation propagation layer, formalized in Eq. (11). The authors claim this design mitigates over-smoothing and improves recommendation accuracy, and they report recall and NDCG comparisons against BPRMF, GCMC, NGCF, LR-GCCF, and LGC on the Gowalla, Yelp-2018, and Amazon-Book datasets. The manuscript also mentions interpretability as a goal, although no explanation mechanism is described. The entire empirical case rests on a single results table with no error bars, no hyperparameters, no code, and no over-smoothing measurements.

Significance. If the claims were substantiated, the contribution would be an incremental variant of known residual/identity-mapping techniques applied to collaborative filtering recommenders, with marginal reported gains over a strong LightGCN baseline. The paper uses standard public datasets and addresses a real problem in GNN-based recommendation, but as submitted it provides no reproducible evidence: baseline identities are unsupported, the model is incompletely specified, and the over-smoothing mechanism is never directly tested. The significance of the work therefore cannot be assessed from the manuscript.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section V.B and Table 1] The baseline comparison is not verifiable because the citations and table do not match. Reference [20] is a tree-based feature-selection paper, not GCMC; reference [21] is a temporal convolutional network paper, not NGCF; reference [22] is the Neural Graph Collaborative Filtering paper but is cited for LR-GCCF; and the LR-GCCF column is absent from Table 1 even though the text and Conclusion item 3 name it. Consequently, the table does not establish that the proposed method outperforms the four named GNN baselines. The margins over LGC are small (e.g., 0.0003 to 0.0033 in NDCG@20), so even modest differences in data splits, hyperparameters, or baseline implementations could reverse the reported ordering.
  2. [Section IV.B and Section V.C] The paper's central mechanistic claim, that the propagation rule of Eq. (11) mitigates over-smoothing, is never tested. There is no depth sweep, no analysis of embedding similarity or rank collapse, and no ablation varying alpha, beta, or the number of layers. The assertion that an appropriate beta makes the maximum eigenvalue of (1-beta)I + beta W close to 1 and thereby reduces information loss is stated without derivation or measurement. Since over-smoothing is the paper's primary motivation, the experimental section provides no evidence for the proposed mechanism.
  3. [Section V] The experimental setup is under-specified. The manuscript gives no data-splitting protocol, embedding size, number of propagation layers, learning rate, regularization coefficient, batch size, or values of alpha and beta. Table 1 reports a single set of numbers without error bars or standard deviations. These omissions make the claimed improvements non-reproducible and prevent assessment of whether the differences are statistically or practically significant.
  4. [Section IV.C, Eqs. (12)-(14)] The model is not fully specified. The layer-aggregation coefficients a_l are described as 'arbitrary real numbers,' but no training or selection procedure is given. The paragraph and equations are duplicated verbatim: Eq. (13) repeats Eq. (12), and Eq. (14) repeats Eq. (13). In addition, the abstract and introduction promise 'three' proposed models, but only a single model is described in Section IV, making the scope of the contribution unclear.
  5. [Abstract and Section II] The paper repeatedly claims interpretability as a contribution, but the proposed method contains no explanation mechanism and no interpretability evaluation. The background discussion of explainable matrix factorization in Section III.A is never connected to the proposed GNN model. This claimed benefit is therefore unsupported and should either be demonstrated or removed from the claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, Eqs. (1)-(5)] The formulas contain corrupted or placeholder symbols, such as undefined subscripts in Eqs. (1) and (2), and are not introduced coherently. The figure caption 'Second Order Phase Diagram and Rating Matrix' also appears to be a template artifact unrelated to the content.
  2. [References [3]-[18]] Several references do not support the sentences they are attached to. For example, [14] is about exposure modeling rather than residual weights, and [17] is about survival prediction rather than eigenvalue analysis. The authors should cite the actual sources for residual connections, identity mapping, and over-smoothing or remove the mismatched citations.
  3. [Section IV.C] The duplicated paragraph and equations (Eqs. (12)-(14)) should be consolidated and the equation numbering unified, as the current text repeats the same derivation twice.
  4. [Section V.B and References] Reference [22] is labeled LR-GCCF in the text but is actually the NGCF paper. The authors should either add the correct LR-GCCF reference (He et al., SIGIR 2020) or remove the baseline name from the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed performance advantage is an empirical comparison against external baselines, and the architecture is assembled from cited prior mechanisms rather than derived from its own output.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: a GNN-based collaborative filtering model with initial residual connections and identity mapping is compared against five baselines on three public datasets. The propagation rule in Equation (11) is explicitly assembled from cited prior mechanisms (initial residuals in [13][14], identity mapping in [15][16]) rather than derived from the performance numbers it is meant to predict. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: alpha and beta are hyperparameters, and the reported Recall@20 and NDCG@20 values come from held-out experimental comparisons. The incorrect bibliographic entries for GCMC ([20] is a tree-based feature selection paper) and NGCF ([21] is a temporal convolutional network paper), and the omission of LR-GCCF from Table 1 despite being named in the text, are serious reproducibility and correctness concerns, but they are not circularity: they do not make the claimed outcome equivalent to the model's inputs by construction. Self-citations in related-work references [3], [6], [9], and [15] provide background support only and are not load-bearing for the experimental conclusion. Because no specific circular step can be quoted and exhibited, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The method depends on standard GCN assumptions (normalized Laplacian propagation, binary implicit feedback) plus ad hoc design choices (alpha, beta, identity mapping) that are not theoretically justified or measured. No new entities are introduced. The main epistemic burden is the unverified comparison against mislabeled baselines.

free parameters (4)
  • mixing coefficient alpha = not reported
    Controls the blend between the previous layer's propagated features and the initial embeddings in Eq. (9) and Eq. (11); no value or tuning procedure is given.
  • mixing coefficient beta = not reported
    Controls the blend between the identity matrix and the trainable weight matrix in Eq. (11); the paper asserts an appropriate beta keeps the largest eigenvalue near 1, but no value is reported.
  • trainable weight matrices W(l-1) = learned, unspecified
    Layer-specific weight matrices in Eqs. (10)-(11); their dimensions and initialization are not specified.
  • layer aggregation coefficients a_l = learned or hand-set, unspecified
    Arbitrary real numbers in Eq. (12) that combine embeddings from different layers; no constraints or learning rule are given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The normalized Laplacian matrix S = D^{-1/2} A D^{-1/2} is an appropriate propagation operator for user-item collaborative filtering.
    Section IV.A constructs the adjacency matrix A and Laplacian S and uses it throughout the propagation layer; this is standard in GCN-based recommenders but is an assumption about the graph structure.
  • domain assumption Binarized implicit feedback (rating matrix R with entries 0 or 1) is sufficient to learn user preferences.
    Section IV.A defines the rating matrix as binary interactions; the method ignores rating magnitudes and review text despite the paper's interpretability claims.
  • ad hoc to paper Setting the eigenvalue of (1-beta)I + beta W(l-1) close to 1 reduces information loss during propagation.
    Section IV.B.2 asserts this without proof; it is specific to this paper's design and not validated by experiments.
  • domain assumption The baselines in Table 1 correspond to the published algorithms named in the text.
    The references for GCMC, NGCF, LR-GCCF, and LGC point to unrelated papers, and LR-GCCF is missing from Table 1, so the comparison may not be valid.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Recommendation Systems with GNNs and Addressing Over-Smoothing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y23OP2ZO

@misc{pith2026241203097,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Recommendation Systems with GNNs and Addressing Over-Smoothing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y23OP2ZO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03097}
}
read the original abstract

This paper addresses key challenges in enhancing recommendation systems by leveraging Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) and addressing inherent limitations such as over-smoothing, which reduces model effectiveness as network hierarchy deepens. The proposed approach introduces three GNN-based recommendation models, specifically designed to mitigate over-smoothing through innovative mechanisms like residual connections and identity mapping within the aggregation propagation process. These modifications enable more effective information flow across layers, preserving essential user-item interaction details to improve recommendation accuracy. Additionally, the study emphasizes the critical need for interpretability in recommendation systems, aiming to provide transparent and justifiable suggestions tailored to dynamic user preferences. By integrating collaborative filtering with GNN architectures, the proposed models not only enhance predictive accuracy but also align recommendations more closely with individual behaviors, adapting to nuanced shifts in user interests. This work advances the field by tackling both technical and user-centric challenges, contributing to the development of robust and explainable recommendation systems capable of managing the complexity and scale of modern online environments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Computer Vision-Driven Gesture Recognition: Toward Natural and Intuitive Human-Computer

    cs.CV 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A CNN-LSTM gesture recognizer with a decorative 3D skeleton visualization that reports unverifiable accuracy and speed numbers.

  2. Dynamic Scheduling Strategies for Resource Optimization in Computing Environments

    cs.DC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A weighted-sum container placement objective solved with a genetic algorithm is claimed to outperform static rules and heuristics on Google Cluster Data, but the comparison lacks methodology, baselines, and code.

  3. Adaptive User Interface Generation Through Reinforcement Learning: A Data-Driven Approach to Personalization and Optimization

    cs.HC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A DQN-based reinforcement learning system is reported to reach CTR 0.78 and RR 0.83 on an unverified CLIP Interactions dataset, beating five baselines, but no reproducible evidence is provided.

  4. Machine Learning Techniques for Pattern Recognition in High-Dimensional Data Mining

    cs.LG 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    An SVM-based frequent pattern mining method is claimed to outperform FP-Growth, FP-Tree, decision trees, and random forests, but the paper provides no reproducible experimental support.

  5. Dynamic User Interface Generation for Enhanced Human-Computer Interaction Using Variational Autoencoders

    cs.HC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    A vanilla VAE trained on the RICO dataset is reported to beat AE, GAN, cGAN, DBN, and VAE-GAN on SSIM/MAE for UI generation, but the comparison is under-specified and the dynamic feedback claim is untested.

  6. AI-Driven Health Monitoring of Distributed Computing Architecture: Insights from XGBoost and SHAP

    cs.DC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    An XGBoost model with SHAP explanations is applied to edge node health classification, but the weak reported accuracy and missing experimental details do not support the paper's claims.

  7. A Matrix Logic Approach to Efficient Frequent Itemset Discovery in Large Data Sets

    cs.DB 2024-12 reject novelty 1.0 of 10

    The paper restates the standard Boolean matrix (vertical bit-vector) approach to frequent itemset mining and reports self-measured runtime and memory on the Groceries dataset without any baseline comparison.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 7 Pith papers

  1. [20]

    Comparison of Tree-Based Feature Selection Algorithms on Biological Omics Dataset,

    Z. Liu and J. Song, "Comparison of Tree-Based Feature Selection Algorithms on Biological Omics Dataset," Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Advances in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 165-169,November2021

    work page

  2. [21]

    Adaptive ReceptiveField U-ShapedTemporalConvolutionalNetworkfor Vulgar ActionSegmentation,

    J. Cao, R. Xu, X. Lin, F. Qin, Y. Peng and Y. Shao, "Adaptive ReceptiveField U-ShapedTemporalConvolutionalNetworkfor Vulgar ActionSegmentation,"NeuralComputingandApplications,vol.35,no. 13,pp.9593-9606,2023

    work page 2023

  3. [22]

    Neural graph collaborative filtering

    X. Wang, X. He, M. Wang, F. Feng, and T.-S. Chua, "Neural graph collaborative filtering", Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval,pp.165-174,2019

    work page 2019

  4. [1]

    A comprehensive survey on graph neuralnetworks

    Z. Wu, S. Pan, F. Chen, et al., "A comprehensive survey on graph neuralnetworks", IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems,vol.32,no.1,pp.4-24,2020

    work page 2020

  5. [2]

    Advances in collaborative filtering

    Y. Koren, S. Rendle, and R.Bell, "Advances in collaborative filtering", Recommender Systems Handbook,pp.91-142,2021

    work page 2021

  6. [3]

    Advanced RAG Models with Graph Structures: Optimizing Complex Knowledge Reasoning and Text Generation,

    Y. Dong, S. Wang, H. Zheng, J. Chen, Z. Zhang, and C. Wang, "Advanced RAG Models with Graph Structures: Optimizing Complex Knowledge Reasoning and Text Generation," arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03572,2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [4]

    Adaptive Cache Management for Complex Storage Systems Using CNN-LSTM-Based SpatiotemporalPrediction,

    X. Wang, X. Li, L. Wang, T. Ruan, and P. Li, "Adaptive Cache Management for Complex Storage Systems Using CNN-LSTM-Based SpatiotemporalPrediction,"arXivpreprintarXiv:2411.12161,2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [5]

    Enhancing Recommendation Systems with Multi-Modal Transformers in Cross-Domain Scenarios,

    A. Liang, "Enhancing Recommendation Systems with Multi-Modal Transformers in Cross-Domain Scenarios," Journal of Computer TechnologyandSoftware,vol.3,no.7,2024

    work page 2024

Show all 24 references
  1. [6]

    A Combined Encoder and Transformer Approach for Coherent and High- QualityTextGeneration,

    J. Chen, S. Wang, Z. Qi, Z. Zhang, C. Wang, and H. Zheng, "A Combined Encoder and Transformer Approach for Coherent and High- QualityTextGeneration,"arXivpreprintarXiv:2411.12157,2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Self-Supervised Learning in Deep Networks: A Pathway to Robust Few-Shot Classification,

    Y. Xiao, "Self-Supervised Learning in Deep Networks: A Pathway to Robust Few-Shot Classification," arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12151, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [8]

    Financial Risk Analysis Using Integrated Data and Transformer-Based Deep Learning,

    Y. Wei, K. Xu, J. Yao, M. Sun, and Y. Sun, "Financial Risk Analysis Using Integrated Data and Transformer-Based Deep Learning," Journal of Computer Science and Software Applications, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1-8, 2024

    2024

  4. [9]

    Transforming Multidimensional Time Series into Interpretable Event Sequences for AdvancedDataMining,

    X. Yan, Y. Jiang, W. Liu, D. Yi, and J. Wei, "Transforming Multidimensional Time Series into Interpretable Event Sequences for AdvancedDataMining,"arXivpreprintarXiv:2409.14327,2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [10]

    Time-Series Load Prediction for Cloud Resource Allocation Using Recurrent Neural Networks,

    Y. Zi, "Time-Series Load Prediction for Cloud Resource Allocation Using Recurrent Neural Networks," Journal of Computer Technology andSoftware,vol.3,no.7,2024

    2024

  6. [11]

    Emotion-Aware Interaction Design in Intelligent User Interface Using Multi-Modal DeepLearning,

    S. Duan, Z. Wang, S. Wang, M. Chen, and R. Zhang, "Emotion-Aware Interaction Design in Intelligent User Interface Using Multi-Modal DeepLearning,"arXivpreprintarXiv:2411.06326,2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [12]

    Analyze the Impact of the Epidemic on New York Taxis by Machine Learning Algorithms and Recommendations for Optimal Prediction Algorithms,

    Z. Liu, X. Xia, H. Zhang, and Z. Xie, "Analyze the Impact of the Epidemic on New York Taxis by Machine Learning Algorithms and Recommendations for Optimal Prediction Algorithms," Proceedings of the 2021 3rd International Conference on Robotics Systems and AutomationEngineering...

    2021

  8. [13]

    Graph neural networks exponentially lose expressive power for node classification

    K. Oono and T. Suzuki, "Graph neural networks exponentially lose expressive power for node classification", arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.10947,2019

    1905 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Modeling user exposure in recommendation

    D. Liang, L. Charlin, J. McInerney, and D. M. Blei, "Modeling user exposure in recommendation", Proceedings of the 25th International ConferenceonWorldWideWeb,pp.951-961,2016

    2016

  10. [15]

    Calibration Learning for Few-shot Novel Product Description,

    Z. Liu, M. Wu, B. Peng, Y. Liu, Q. Peng and C. Zou, "Calibration Learning for Few-shot Novel Product Description," Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and DevelopmentinInformationRetrieval,pp.1864-1868,July2023

  11. [16]

    Improving the RAG- based Personalized Discharge Care System by Introducing the Memory Mechanism

    Y. Yang, C. Xu, J. Guo, T. Feng, and C. Ruan, "Improving the RAG- based Personalized Discharge Care System by Introducing the Memory Mechanism",Preprints,doi:10.20944/preprints202410.1696.v1,2024

    2024

  12. [17]

    Survival prediction across diverse cancer types using neural networks,

    X. Yan, W. Wang, M. Xiao, Y. Li, and M. Gao, "Survival prediction across diverse cancer types using neural networks,” Proceedings of the 20247thInternationalConferenceonMachineVisionandApplications, pp.134-138,2024

    2024

  13. [18]

    Research on Large Scene Adaptive Feature Extraction Based on Deep Learning

    Y. Yang, I. Li, N. Sang, L. Liu, X. Tang, and Q. Tian, "Research on Large Scene Adaptive Feature Extraction Based on Deep Learning", Preprints,doi:10.20944/preprints202409.0841.v1,2024

    2024

  14. [19]

    BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback

    S.Rendle,C.Freudenthaler,Z.Gantner,andL.Schmidt-Thieme,"BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback", arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.2618,2012

    2012 arXiv

  15. [23]

    LightGCN: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation

    X. He,K.Deng,X. Wang,Y. Li, Y.Zhang,andM. Wang, "LightGCN: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation", Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conferenceon ResearchandDevelopmentin InformationRetrieval, pp. 639-648,2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Fine-Grained Imbalanced Leukocyte Classification With Global-Local Attention Transformer,

    B. Chen, F. Qin, Y. Shao, J. Cao, Y. Peng and R. Ge, "Fine-Grained Imbalanced Leukocyte Classification With Global-Local Attention Transformer," Journal of King Saud University - Computer and InformationSciences,vol.35,no.8,ArticleID101661,2023

    2023

Pith tools

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