Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Multi-Grained Preference Enhanced Transformer for Multi-Behavior Sequential Recommendation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read M-GPT predicts next purchases by modeling interaction-level dependencies and multi-grained preferences, beating prior methods on Taobao, IJCAI, and Retailrocket.

desk verdict Plausible incremental architecture with a genuinely new interaction-level graph, but the universal-SOTA claim is unverified because the model is tuned on test metrics and no error bars are reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12179 v2 pith:TNAU5YG2 submitted 2024-11-19 cs.IR cs.SI

Chuan He , Yongchao Liu , Qiang Li , Weiqiang Wang , Xin Fu , Xinyi Fu , Chuntao Hong , Xinwei Yao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.SI
keywords sequentialrecommendationmulti-behaviorinteraction-leveldependencygraphneuralnetworktransformermulti-grainedpreferencenext-purchasepredictiontemporal
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 proposes M-GPT, a model for multi-behavior sequential recommendation, and argues that next-purchase prediction improves when the model captures two things earlier methods miss: dependencies between individual interactions of different behavior types and items, and user preference at several time granularities. The authors build an interaction-level graph whose edges depend on both item and behavior embeddings, then pass it through multi-order graph convolution; a transformer with linear self-attention and multi-grained multi-head attention over sessions encodes the sequence. On Taobao, IJCAI, and Retailrocket, they report that M-GPT beats all compared baselines on every metric, with Hit Rate@5 gains up to 12.2% relative to the best baseline on Taobao. A reader should care because the recipe (learnable interaction graph plus multi-scale attention) is a transferable design for any recommendation setting where users act in multiple behavior types.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the interaction-level dependency graph, with incidence matrix entries built by combining item-level and behavior-level signals from each interaction, followed by symmetric-normalized graph convolution with a self-loop to model dependencies of increasing order. An entry $A_{i,j}$ is derived from element-wise products of item and behavior embeddings for interactions $i$ and $j$; repeated graph convolution produces dependency representations $H^{(l)}$ for orders $l=0,...,L$. The second mechanism is the multi-grained multi-head self-attention: within sessions at two time scales, queries are formed from the last one, two, up to $g$ interactions to capture different granularities of intent, pooled, and fused with the global linear-attention pattern. Together they let the model attend over both cross-type interaction structure and temporally localized preference, which the paper identifies as the two previously missing ingredients.

What would settle it

Re-run the comparison on the same three datasets with a shared tuning budget and a fixed validation protocol for every model, and check whether M-GPT's Taobao Hit Rate@5 advantage over the second-best method remains near 12.2%; if a controlled re-implementation shrinks the gap to a few points, the paper's central claim of consistent state-of-the-art performance would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

M-GPT's central claim is that representing a user's history as a graph of interactions, rather than only behaviors or only items, and extracting multi-grained preferences from sessions at different time scales yields better next-purchase predictions than existing multi-behavior sequential recommenders. The incidence matrix of the graph is computed from paired item and behavior embeddings, and repeated graph convolution produces dependency representations at several orders; these are fed, together with global linear self-attention and session-level multi-grained attention outputs, into prediction. The authors report consistent wins over all baselines on Taobao, IJCAI, and Retailrocket, and their ablations attribute the gain to the interaction-level graph and the multi-grained preference module. In the paper's own framing, modeling interaction-level correlation and temporal multi-grained preference jointly is what closes the gap.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed edge rests on a fair comparison: if the baselines were not tuned as intensively as M-GPT, or if M-GPT's hyperparameters were chosen using test-set feedback, the reported improvements could shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the three datasets tested, M-GPT reports higher HR, NDCG, and MRR than every baseline, including the strongest prior multi-behavior methods; the largest reported gain is a 12.2% relative improvement in Hit Rate@5 on Taobao.
  • Modeling interaction-level dependencies contributes beyond behavior-level and item-level dependencies: ablations that remove the interaction-level graph or replace the incidence matrix with behavior-only or item-only versions degrade scores on Taobao and IJCAI.
  • Capturing multi-grained preference at two time scales contributes beyond global sequential encoding: ablations that drop the multi-grained multi-head self-attention or keep only one granularity lower performance.
  • MaxPooling across dependency orders is the paper's chosen fusion; replacing it with attention-weighted summation hurts accuracy.
  • The linear self-attention formulation keeps time complexity at $O(N d^2)$ rather than $O(N^2 d)$, which matters for long interaction sequences.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The interaction-level incidence-matrix construction is a general plug-in: it could be applied to other multi-behavior problems such as cart-abandonment prediction or session-level sales forecasting without changing the attention backbone.
  • Because the multi-grained preference module is largely behavior-agnostic, it may also improve single-behavior sequential recommenders; a testable check is to add multi-grained multi-head self-attention to a plain transformer on a single-behavior dataset and compare with strong single-behavior baselines.
  • The reported time complexity suggests the approach can scale to sequences longer than the $N=200$ used here; an extension would measure whether the Taobao gains persist when histories are truncated at 1,000 interactions.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes M-GPT, a multi-behavior sequential recommendation model with two main components: an interaction-level dependency extractor (IDE) that builds a fully connected graph over historical interactions and applies multi-order graph convolution, and a multifaceted sequential pattern generator (MSPG) that combines linear self-attention with multi-grained, multi-scale session-based preference encoding. The model is evaluated on Taobao, IJCAI, and Retailrocket against a large set of baselines, with reported improvements of up to 12.2% in HR@5 over the strongest prior method. The central claim is that M-GPT outperforms all baselines on all metrics on these datasets.

Significance. If the empirical claim holds, M-GPT is a useful contribution to multi-behavior sequential recommendation: it addresses a genuinely underexplored modeling level (interaction-level dependencies), incorporates multi-grained temporal preference in a principled way, and is evaluated on three real-world datasets against 22 baselines with ablations and a public code link. The time-complexity analysis is also a strength. However, the current experimental evidence is not sufficient to support the headline claim of universal superiority, because the model's hyperparameters are selected on the same test metrics used for the final comparison and no measure of variance or significance is reported. The contribution is therefore plausible but not yet verified at the standard required for the claimed benchmark result.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1.2 / Table 2 / Appendix D] The hyperparameters of M-GPT are selected by the best HR@5 and NDCG@5 on the same datasets that are then used for the headline comparison in Table 2. Appendix D reports choosing the mask ratio, dependency order, session-scale pair, and preference-granularity pair by best performance on Taobao, IJCAI, and Retailrocket, with no separate validation split described. As a result, the M-GPT column in Table 2 is a post-selection maximum rather than an unbiased estimate. This matters particularly on Retailrocket, where the reported gains over MBHT are only 0.7–3.2% depending on the metric. The authors should either evaluate on a held-out test set after selecting hyperparameters on a validation set, or report the selection procedure in a way that allows the reported numbers to be interpreted as unbiased estimates.
  2. [Section 4.1.2 / Table 2] The paper reports that "we select the average performance of five times" but gives no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests for any of the results in Table 2. The claim that M-GPT "outperforms all the baselines in terms of all metrics" cannot be verified from averages alone, especially for the small Retailrocket margins. The authors should report variance across runs and perform statistical significance tests for the comparisons against the strongest baselines, or at minimum report per-run results so the stability of the differences can be assessed.
  3. [Section 4.1.4] The statement "we refine the parameter setting of each model to get the best performance" is not accompanied by search ranges, protocols, or the actual settings used for the baselines. Without a common validation criterion and per-baseline search budgets, asymmetric tuning cannot be excluded, and the fairness of the comparison in Table 2 is not established. The authors should specify the hyperparameter search space for each baseline and confirm that the same validation/test separation was used for baseline tuning as for M-GPT.
  4. [Section 3.3.3, Eqs. (6)–(7)] The graph convolution definition is not reproducible as written. Equation (7) defines \tilde D^{-1/2} as I + D^{-1/2} A D^{-1/2}, which is an additive normalization rather than an inverse square root of a degree matrix, while Eq. (6) uses \tilde D^{-1/2} \tilde A \tilde D^{-1/2} without defining \tilde A. This needs to be corrected or clarified, since the interaction-level dependency extractor is a core component of the proposed model.
  5. [Section 4.3 / Table 3] The ablation study concludes that "there exist a significant performance degradation" when a component is removed, but no standard deviations or significance tests are reported for the ablation results, and Retailrocket is omitted from Table 3. Some ablation gaps are small (e.g., 0.358 to 0.369 in HR@5 on Taobao for the behavior-level variant), so the claim of significance is not supported. Reporting variance and significance, or at least softening the language, is necessary.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title of Table 2 and Section 4.1.1] Table 2 is titled "Experimental results on two datasets" but contains three datasets, and Section 4.1.1 says "we select two datasets" before listing three. Please unify the wording.
  2. [Section 5] The conclusion says "we conduct comprehensive experiments on two public datasets," but the experiments use three public datasets. This should be corrected.
  3. [Section 3.5.2, Eq. (24)] In the loss definition, the summation index l is used both as the dependency-order index and as the upper limit of the sum, which is confusing. Using an explicit L for the maximum order and a distinct summation index would improve clarity.
  4. [Section 4.4 and Figures 4–5] The text in Section 4.4 refers to "figure 5" when describing the behavior-pair matrices, but Figure 4 is the behavioral sequential pattern figure and Figure 5 is the multi-order dependency score figure. The figure references appear to be swapped and should be fixed.
  5. [Throughout the paper] There are recurrent typos and formatting issues, including "mulit-behavior dependence" in Section 4.5, "we just we just" in the ablation variant description, "evovling" in Appendix C, and the repeated "NDGC@5" instead of "NDCG@5" in Table 2 and Appendix D. These should be corrected in a final pass.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: M-GPT's headline gains are post-selection maxima from test-set hyperparameter search in Appendix D, so the 'outperforms all baselines' claim is not an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix D ('Hyper-parameter Analysis') and Section 4.2 ('Model Comparison', Table 2)]
    "After conducting comprehensive experiments on Taobao, IJCAI and RetailRocket, we find the best setting of hyper-parameter to make M-GPT reach its' best performance. ... M-GPT outperforms all the baselines in terms of all metrics."

    Appendix D selects M-GPT's mask ratio, dependency order, session-scale pair, and preference-granularity pair by best HR@5/NDCG@5 on the same three datasets used in Table 2, with no separate validation split described; Section 4.1.2 only states five-run averages. Thus the M-GPT column in Table 2 is the maximum over the searched grid on the evaluation metric, and the headline superiority claim is a post-selection comparison rather than an unbiased out-of-sample prediction. The reported 12.2% Taobao improvement and smaller Retail gains are therefore partly determined by the same metric used to choose the model.

full rationale

The architectural derivation is not circular: the interaction-level graph incidence matrix in Eqs. (3)-(5), linear attention in Eqs. (10)-(12), multi-grained queries in Eq. (15), and the masked cross-entropy training loss in Eqs. (24)-(25) are all defined from item/behavior embeddings and learned parameters, with no equation-level equivalence to the paper's claimed contributions or to the input data. The self-citation [37] appears only in related work and is not load-bearing. The one significant circularity is in the empirical validation: Appendix D tunes four M-GPT hyperparameters by maximizing HR@5/NDCG@5 on the exact test sets that later appear in Table 2, and no validation split is described. Consequently the reported M-GPT performance is the best of many configurations on the evaluation metric, so the claim that M-GPT 'outperforms all the baselines in terms of all metrics' is not an independent prediction but partly a consequence of using the evaluation metric as the model-selection criterion. The absence of error bars and the lack of baseline search ranges are additional correctness risks, but they are not circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

M-GPT introduces no physical or conceptual entities beyond architecture components. The modeling assumptions are standard for multi-behavior sequential recommendation plus one ad hoc graph construction; the main burden of the paper is carried by hyperparameter choices and evaluation protocol rather than by mathematical axioms.

free parameters (8)
  • mask ratio rho = 0.2 for all three datasets
    Grid searched over {0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5}; best value chosen on test metrics in Appendix D.
  • dependency order L = 3 for all three datasets
    Grid searched over {1, 2, 3, 4}; chosen by best HR@5 and NDCG@5 on test sets.
  • session time scales [t1, t2] = [4,20] for Taobao; [4,10] for IJCAI and Retailrocket
    Chosen from {[2,10], [2,20], [4,10], [4,20]} per dataset using test metrics.
  • preference granularity [qm1, qm2] = [10,2] for Taobao; [10,4] for IJCAI and Retailrocket
    Chosen from {[20,2], [20,4], [10,2], [10,4]} per dataset using test metrics.
  • regularization coefficients theta1 and theta2 = 1e-5 each
    Set by hand in Section 4.1.4.
  • learning rate = 0.001
    Set by hand in Section 4.1.4; no tuning curve is reported.
  • max sequence length N = 200 for all models
    Fixed in Section 4.1.4 for all models.
  • batch size = 64 for Taobao and Retailrocket; 24 for IJCAI
    Set in Section 4.1.4.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Purchase is the target behavior, and auxiliary behaviors such as page view, favorite, and add-to-cart carry predictive signal for purchase.
    Used throughout the problem formulation in Section 3.1 and in the Cloze training loss that masks only purchase interactions in Section 3.5.2.
  • ad hoc to paper A fully connected undirected graph whose edge weight is A_ij = (e_i element-wise e_j) dot (b_i element-wise b_j) captures interaction-level multi-behavior dependencies.
    Equations (3)-(5) in Section 3.3.2. This product form is a modeling choice without theoretical justification.
  • domain assumption Multi-grained user intent can be obtained by concatenating the last g interactions of a session and applying linear transformations, as in Atten-Mixer.
    Equation (15) in Section 3.4.3; borrowed from cited prior work [42].
  • domain assumption Leave-one-out evaluation with five seeds and the Cloze masking task gives an unbiased measurement of next-purchase accuracy.
    Sections 4.1.2 and 3.5.2. This is a standard protocol, but candidate sampling details and variance are not fully reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Grained Preference Enhanced Transformer for Multi-Behavior Sequential Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNAU5YG2

@misc{pith2026241112179,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Grained Preference Enhanced Transformer for Multi-Behavior Sequential Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNAU5YG2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12179}
}
read the original abstract

Sequential recommendation (SR) aims to predict the next purchasing item according to users' dynamic preference learned from their historical user-item interactions. To improve the performance of recommendation, learning dynamic heterogeneous cross-type behavior dependencies is indispensable for recommender system. However, there still exists some challenges in Multi-Behavior Sequential Recommendation (MBSR). On the one hand, existing methods only model heterogeneous multi-behavior dependencies at behavior-level or item-level, and modelling interaction-level dependencies is still a challenge. On the other hand, the dynamic multi-grained behavior-aware preference is hard to capture in interaction sequences, which reflects interaction-aware sequential pattern. To tackle these challenges, we propose a Multi-Grained Preference enhanced Transformer framework (M-GPT). First, M-GPT constructs a interaction-level graph of historical cross-typed interactions in a sequence. Then graph convolution is performed to derive interaction-level multi-behavior dependency representation repeatedly, in which the complex correlation between historical cross-typed interactions at specific orders can be well learned. Secondly, a novel multi-scale transformer architecture equipped with multi-grained user preference extraction is proposed to encode the interaction-aware sequential pattern enhanced by capturing temporal behavior-aware multi-grained preference . Experiments on the real-world datasets indicate that our method M-GPT consistently outperforms various state-of-the-art recommendation methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12179 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. motivation of our work ignore the heterogeneous cross-type behavior inter-dependency. Interactions on an E-commerce platform encompass a variety of behaviors, such as clicking, adding to favorites, adding to cart, and making a purchase. This multi-behavioral nature provides two key advantages. Firstly, different behaviors, like clicking and making a purchase, indicate distinct user intentions. Therefore, analyzing t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview structure of M-GPT of item-specific and behavior-specific semantics. To extract the interaction-level dependency efficiently, we design the interaction￾aware context embedding layer to jointly encode the item-level and behavior-level contextual information. To this end, we define the interaction-aware latent representation 𝑥𝑖 ∈ R 𝑑 of a given user-item interaction as following: ℎ𝑖 = 𝑒𝑖 ⊕ 𝑏𝑖 , (1) 𝑀𝑠𝑢 = … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. case study on attention map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: behavioral sequential pattern in Taobao • M-GPT w/o IDE: The interaction-aware dependency extractor is replaced by plain item and behavior embedding layer. • M-GPT w/o MSPG: This model variant removes multifaceted sequential pattern generator and simply use plain trans…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hyper-parameter analysis on Taobao, IJCAI and RetailRocket [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: study on behavioral relationship (a) incidence matrix of user1 (b) incidence matrix of user23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: case study on interaction-level multi-behavior dependency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    Peiyan Zhang, Jiayan Guo, Chaozhuo Li, Yueqi Xie, Jae Boum Kim, Yan Zhang, Xing Xie, Haohan Wang, and Sunghun Kim. 2023. Efficiently leveraging multi- level user intent for session-based recommendation via atten-mixer network. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 168–176

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    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

  3. [2]

    Qian Chen, Zhiqiang Guo, Jianjun Li, and Guohui Li. 2023. Knowledge-enhanced Multi-View Graph Neural Networks for Session-based Recommendation. In Pro- ceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Develop- ment in Information Retrieval . 352–361

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Yuhang Cheng, Yongquan Fan, Yitong Wang, and Xianyong Li. 2023. Accu- rate multi-interest modeling for sequential recommendation with attention and distillation capsule network. Expert Systems with Applications (2023), 122887

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Junsu Cho, Dongmin Hyun, Dong won Lim, Hyeon jae Cheon, Hyoung-iel Park, and Hwanjo Yu. 2023. Dynamic multi-behavior sequence modeling for next item recommendation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 37. 4199–4207

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Chen Gao, Xiangnan He, Dahua Gan, Xiangning Chen, Fuli Feng, Yong Li, Tat- Seng Chua, and Depeng Jin. 2019. Neural multi-task recommendation from multi-behavior data. In 2019 IEEE 35th international conference on data engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 1554–1557

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Ehsan Gholami, Mohammad Motamedi, and Ashwin Aravindakshan. 2022. PARSRec: Explainable personalized attention-fused recurrent sequential recom- mendation using session partial actions. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 454–464

    2022

  8. [7]

    Yulong Gu, Zhuoye Ding, Shuaiqiang Wang, Lixin Zou, Yiding Liu, and Dawei Yin

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Yongqiang Han, Hao Wang, Kefan Wang, Likang Wu, Zhi Li, Wei Guo, Yong Liu, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Efficient Noise-Decoupling for Multi-Behavior Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 . 3297–3306

    2024

  2. [9]

    Xiangnan He, Kuan Deng, Xiang Wang, Yan Li, Yongdong Zhang, and Meng Wang. 2020. Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval ...

    2020

  3. [10]

    Chao Huang, Jiahui Chen, Lianghao Xia, Yong Xu, Peng Dai, Yanqing Chen, Liefeng Bo, Jiashu Zhao, and Jimmy Xiangji Huang. 2021. Graph-enhanced multi-task learning of multi-level transition dynamics for session-based recom- mendation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on ar...

    2021

  4. [11]

    Dietmar Jannach and Malte Ludewig. 2017. When recurrent neural networks meet the neighborhood for session-based recommendation. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM conference on recommender systems . 306–310

    2017

  5. [12]

    Bowen Jin, Chen Gao, Xiangnan He, Depeng Jin, and Yong Li. 2020. Multi- behavior recommendation with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 659–668

    2020

  6. [13]

    Taegwan Kang, Hwanhee Lee, Byeongjin Choe, and Kyomin Jung. 2021. Entan- gled bidirectional encoder to autoregressive decoder for sequential recommenda- tion. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 1657–1661

    2021

  7. [14]

    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

  8. [15]

    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

  9. [16]

    Zhi Li, Hongke Zhao, Qi Liu, Zhenya Huang, Tao Mei, and Enhong Chen. 2018. Learning from history and present: Next-item recommendation via discrim- inatively exploiting user behaviors. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data...

    2018

  10. [17]

    Guanyu Lin, Chen Gao, Yinfeng Li, Yu Zheng, Zhiheng Li, Depeng Jin, and Yong Li. 2022. Dual contrastive network for sequential recommendation. InProceedings of the 45th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 2686–2691

    2022

  11. [18]

    Langming Liu, Liu Cai, Chi Zhang, Xiangyu Zhao, Jingtong Gao, Wanyu Wang, Yifu Lv, Wenqi Fan, Yiqi Wang, Ming He, et al. 2023. Linrec: Linear attention mechanism for long-term sequential recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Rese...

    2023

  12. [19]

    Jinwei Luo, Mingkai He, Xiaolin Lin, Weike Pan, and Zhong Ming. 2022. Dual- task learning for multi-behavior sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM international conference on information & knowledge management . 1379–1388

    2022

  13. [20]

    Erxue Min, Yu Rong, Tingyang Xu, Yatao Bian, Da Luo, Kangyi Lin, Junzhou Huang, Sophia Ananiadou, and Peilin Zhao. 2022. Neighbour interaction based click-through rate prediction via graph-masked transformer. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Res...

    2022

  14. [21]

    Ruihong Qiu, Zi Huang, and Hongzhi Yin. 2021. Memory augmented multi- instance contrastive predictive coding for sequential recommendation. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 519–528

    2021

  15. [22]

    Kan Ren, Jiarui Qin, Yuchen Fang, Weinan Zhang, Lei Zheng, Weijie Bian, Guorui Zhou, Jian Xu, Yong Yu, Xiaoqiang Zhu, et al. 2019. Lifelong sequential modeling with personalized memorization for user response prediction. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Confe...

    2019

  16. [23]

    Jiajie Su, Chaochao Chen, Zibin Lin, Xi Li, Weiming Liu, and Xiaolin Zheng

  17. [24]

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

  18. [25]

    Jiaxi Tang and Ke Wang. 2018. Personalized top-n sequential recommenda- tion via convolutional sequence embedding. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on web search and data mining . 565–573

    2018

  19. [26]

    Yu Tian, Jianxin Chang, Yanan Niu, Yang Song, and Chenliang Li. 2022. When multi-level meets multi-interest: A multi-grained neural model for sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Ret...

    2022

  20. [27]

    Jianling Wang, Kaize Ding, Liangjie Hong, Huan Liu, and James Caverlee. 2020. Next-item recommendation with sequential hypergraphs. In Proceedings of the 43rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in informa- tion retrieval. 1101–1110

    2020

  21. [28]

    Shoujin Wang, Liang Hu, Yan Wang, Longbing Cao, Quan Z Sheng, and Mehmet Orgun. 2019. Sequential recommender systems: challenges, progress and prospects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04830 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Xiting Wang, Kunpeng Liu, Dongjie Wang, Le Wu, Yanjie Fu, and Xing Xie. 2022. Multi-level recommendation reasoning over knowledge graphs with reinforce- ment learning. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 . 2098–2108. Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstoc...

    2022

  23. [30]

    Wei Wei, Chao Huang, Lianghao Xia, Yong Xu, Jiashu Zhao, and Dawei Yin. 2022. Contrastive meta learning with behavior multiplicity for recommendation. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining. 1120–1128

    2022

  24. [31]

    Binquan Wu, Yu Cheng, Haitao Yuan, and Qianli Ma. 2024. When Multi-Behavior Meets Multi-Interest: Multi-Behavior Sequential Recommendation with Multi- Interest Self-Supervised Learning. In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 845–858

    2024

  25. [32]

    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

  26. [33]

    Lianghao Xia, Chao Huang, Yong Xu, and Jian Pei. 2022. Multi-behavior sequen- tial recommendation with temporal graph transformer. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    Lianghao Xia, Yong Xu, Chao Huang, Peng Dai, and Liefeng Bo. 2021. Graph meta network for multi-behavior recommendation. In Proceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 757–766

    2021

  28. [35]

    Chengfeng Xu, Pengpeng Zhao, Yanchi Liu, Victor S Sheng, Jiajie Xu, Fuzhen Zhuang, Junhua Fang, and Xiaofang Zhou. 2019. Graph contextualized self- attention network for session-based recommendation.. In IJCAI, Vol. 19. 3940– 3946

    2019

  29. [36]

    Yuhao Yang, Chao Huang, Lianghao Xia, Yuxuan Liang, Yanwei Yu, and Chen- liang Li. 2022. Multi-behavior hypergraph-enhanced transformer for sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining . 2263–2274

    2022

  30. [37]

    Xin-Wei Yao, Chuan He, Wei-Wei Xing, Qi-Chao Lu, Xin-Ge Zhang, and Yu-Chen Zhang. 2023. DDIN: Deep Disentangled Interest Network for Click-Through Rate Prediction. In 2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 1–8

    2023

  31. [38]

    Yaowen Ye, Lianghao Xia, and Chao Huang. 2023. Graph Masked Autoencoder for Sequential Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04619 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Bo Yu, Ruoqian Zhang, Wei Chen, and Junhua Fang. 2022. Graph neural network based model for multi-behavior session-based recommendation. GeoInformatica 26, 2 (2022), 429–447

    2022

  33. [40]

    Enming Yuan, Wei Guo, Zhicheng He, Huifeng Guo, Chengkai Liu, and Ruiming Tang. 2022. Multi-behavior sequential transformer recommender. In Proceedings of the 45th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 1642–1652

    2022

  34. [41]

    Hengyu Zhang, Enming Yuan, Wei Guo, Zhicheng He, Jiarui Qin, Huifeng Guo, Bo Chen, Xiu Li, and Ruiming Tang. 2022. Disentangling Past-Future Modeling in Sequential Recommendation via Dual Networks. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowle...

    2022

  35. [43]

    Weifeng Zhang, Jingwen Mao, Yi Cao, and Congfu Xu. 2020. Multiplex graph neural networks for multi-behavior recommendation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management . 2313– 2316

    2020

  36. [44]

    Guorui Zhou, Na Mou, Ying Fan, Qi Pi, Weijie Bian, Chang Zhou, Xiaoqiang Zhu, and Kun Gai. 2019. Deep interest evolution network for click-through rate prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 33. 5941–5948

    2019

  37. [45]

    Guorui Zhou, Xiaoqiang Zhu, Chenru Song, Ying Fan, Han Zhu, Xiao Ma, Yanghui Yan, Junqi Jin, Han Li, and Kun Gai. 2018. Deep interest network for click-through rate prediction. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining ...

    2018

  38. [46]

    Xiangmin Zhou, Dong Qin, Xiaolu Lu, Lei Chen, and Yanchun Zhang. 2019. Online social media recommendation over streams. In2019 IEEE 35th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 938–949. Multi-Grained Preference Enhanced Transformer for Multi-Behavior Sequen...

    2019

  39. [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

  40. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management

    Deep multifaceted transformers for multi-objective ranking in large-scale e-commerce recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management . 2493–2500

  41. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    Personalized behavior-aware transformer for multi-behavior sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 6321–6331

Pith tools

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