A Contextual-Aware Position Encoding for Sequential Recommendation

Guohao Cai; Jun Yuan; Zhenhua Dong

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

A Contextual-Aware Position Encoding for Sequential Recommendation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sequential recommendation models improve when position encodings are context-aware, and the paper's CAPE method lifts gAUC and AUC across five backbones and eCPM by 3.62% online.

desk verdict CAPE is a plausible drop-in position encoding for sequential recommendation, but the self-attention extension is underspecified and the empirical evidence lacks error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09027 v2 pith:GQQ5LQPW submitted 2025-02-13 cs.IR

Jun Yuan , Guohao Cai , Zhenhua Dong This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.IR

keywords sequentialrecommendationpositionencodingattentionmechanismcontext-awaredissimilaritygatefusioninterpolationonlineA/Btest

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 argues that sequential recommendation needs its own position encoding rather than carrying over fixed-slot encodings from NLP, where they have yielded only marginal gains. It introduces CAPE, which assigns each context item a position by accumulating a differentiable dissimilarity of that item to the target item, so items sharing an intent cluster at nearly the same position while unrelated items are spaced apart. Because the resulting positions are fractional, CAPE interpolates between learned integer position vectors and fuses the position signal through a small gate that works with both DIN-style target attention and dot-product self-attention. The authors report consistent gAUC and AUC improvements across five backbones on AmazonElectronics and KuaiVideo, better scaling in deep SASRec models on AmazonBooks, and a 3.62% average eCPM lift in an eight-day commercial A/B test.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a dissimilarity-based context-dependent position count paired with gate fusion and interpolation. For each context item $j$, a gate $g_j = 1 - \sigma(\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{t}, \mathbf{h}_j))$ measures how unlike the target that item is; summing gates $p_j = \sum_{k=j}^n g_k$ yields a position that generalizes ordinary relative position (if all gates equal 1, $p_j = j+1$). Since $p_j$ is fractional, the paper uses linear interpolation of learned integer position embeddings to produce $\mathbf{e}[p_j]$. To fuse the heterogeneous item and position features, CAPE projects the target via $\mathbf{t}' = \mathrm{SiLU}(W\mathbf{t} + \mathbf{b})$, computes scalar position logits $z[p] = \mathrm{sim}_{\mathrm{pos}}(\mathbf{t}', \mathbf{e}[p])$, interpolates these scalars, and adds them to item-based attention logits. This keeps additional computation proportional to context length and lets the position signal work with arbitrary attention mechanisms.

What would settle it

A direct ablation would set $p_j$ in Eq. (2) to the raw index $j$ (or to CoPE-style cumulative similarity) while keeping the gate fusion and interpolation fixed; if gAUC and AUC on AmazonElectronics and KuaiVideo do not drop for DIN, DIEN, BST, SASRec, and DMIN, then the dissimilarity-based position values are not the driver of the claimed improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At its center is the claim that the position of a historical item should be a learned function of its dissimilarity to the item being scored, not of its chronological slot. CAPE computes $g_j = 1 - \sigma(\mathrm{sim}(\mathbf{t}, \mathbf{h}_j))$ and then sets $p_j = \sum_{k=j}^n g_k$, so a contiguous block of items that all resemble the target collapses to about the same position while a dissimilar item jumps the position by roughly one. These fractional positions $p_j$ are embedded by linear interpolation between integer position vectors, and a SiLU-gated linear projection maps the target representation into position space so that position logits $z[p_j]$ can be added directly into attention. The paper claims this design makes CAPE the first position encoding tailored to sequential recommendation and backs the claim with consistent gains over Naïve PE, CoPE, and RoPE across DIN, DIEN, BST, SASRec, and DMIN, plus a positive online A/B test.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a linear interpolation between integer position embeddings faithfully represents fractional positions produced by accumulating sigmoid dissimilarities, so that ordering information is preserved; if interpolated embeddings do not generalize over the fractional range, CAPE's benefit would vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

CAPE drops into existing SR backbones as a plug-in position module, improving gAUC and AUC across target-attention (DIN, DIEN) and self-attention (BST, SASRec, DMIN) models without changing the rest of the architecture.
Because CAPE reduces to relative position encoding when all gates are 1, it inherits the ability to handle unbounded context lengths, an important property for long user histories.
The gate-fusion path means CAPE does not assume item and position embeddings share a hidden space, which is why it helps DIN attention where simple addition of position vectors hurts.
In deep transformer backbones, CAPE's average performance keeps improving as the number of blocks grows to 16, whereas Naïve PE and RoPE plateau or decline, pointing to better scalability with model size.
In an eight-day commercial A/B test, CAPE raised eCPM by an average of 3.62% with minimal serving changes, indicating the benefit transfers offline gains to revenue.

Reading between the lines

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

CAPE's dissimilarity counter can be viewed as a soft 'importance-weighted distance'; a natural test would be to reuse the same gate values outside attention, e.g., as a regularization or as a hard count of intent segments, and see whether the model's gains come from the position values themselves or from the gate's influence on other parts of the network.
The method should extend to multimodal item representations, since any differentiable similarity between item embeddings defines a gate; the paper states this as possible but does not test it, so a text- or image-aware variant would be a direct next experiment.
The use of linear interpolation between integer positions suggests a continuous relaxation of a discrete counting process; one could train with a straight-through estimator or temperature annealing on the sigmoid gates to see if a hard 'count of dissimilar items' works as well, which would sharpen the interpretation of what a position means in a user sequence.
The paper's ablations vary context length and position dimension together; a cleaner falsifiable probe would hold one fixed and sweep the other, along with varying the similarity function $\mathrm{sim}$, to identify exactly which component of Eqs. (1)-(3) is responsible for the gains.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper proposes CAPE, a contextual position encoding for sequential recommendation that adapts CoPE to the SR setting. The genuinely new pieces are the use of dissimilarity instead of similarity, the reversed accumulation order (summing from the target back to the context item), and a learned gate that fuses heterogeneous item and position embeddings. That combination is not in the cited prior work, and the experiments back it up: CAPE consistently beats Naive PE, CoPE, and RoPE across five backbones on two public benchmarks, and the online A/B shows a 3.62% eCPM lift. For a practitioner who wants a drop-in positional module, this is a useful, modest contribution.

The main soft spot is in the self-attention extension. Equation 2 defines the position of item j as p_j = sum_{k=j}^n g_k, where n is the full context length and the gate depends on a single target t. That is well-defined for target attention (DIN, DIEN), where t is the candidate item. But for SASRec, BST, and DMIN, each position acts as a query. If the implementation literally follows Eq. 2, then for a query at position i, future items i+1..n leak into the position values of past items, which breaks causality in the masked self-attention used by SASRec. The paper only says CAPE 'can be easily extended to self-attention' and never gives the per-query formula. This is not a fatal flaw—it might be a one-line fix, e.g., p_j^(i) = sum_{k=j}^i g_k with t = h_i—but as written, the headline claim of consistent gains on self-attention backbones is not fully supported. The stress-test note is correct that this underspecification is load-bearing.

Other soft spots are minor. The 'first PE method specifically designed for sequential recommendation' claim is overstated given Lopez-Avila et al. (2024) and TIN's target-aware temporal encoding. The large-scale study only uses SASRec, admittedly because other backbones did not scale, so the scalability claim is narrow. And although the table caption says p<0.05, no statistical test is described; averages over 5 seeds without confidence intervals are hard to interpret when the gains are on the third decimal place.

Who should read this: researchers working on position encoding in recommender systems, and teams building sequential recommenders that use attention. It deserves a serious referee: the method is coherent, the empirical story is largely believable, and the self-attention issue is addressable with a clarification and possibly a small ablation. I would send it to review, with the expectation that the authors specify the exact self-attention formulation and add error bars.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CAPE (Contextual-Aware Position Encoding), a position encoding method for sequential recommendation. CAPE computes a dissimilarity gate between a target item and each context item, accumulates gate values to obtain fractional positions, maps those positions to embeddings by interpolating learned integer-position embeddings, and fuses item and position information through a linear projection with SiLU before adding scalar position logits to attention scores. The method is evaluated on AmazonElectronics and KuaiVideo with five backbone models (DIN, DIEN, BST, SASRec, DMIN), on AmazonBooks with SASRec at varying model depths, and in an online A/B test on Huawei AppGallery, reporting consistent offline gains and a 3.62% average eCPM improvement.

Significance. If the reported results hold, CAPE would be a simple and useful plug-in module for sequential recommendation: it claims to improve both target-attention and self-attention backbones across small and large models, with a smaller position-embedding dimension than the baselines, plus supporting online evidence. The paper ships source code and describes the core idea clearly. The main qualifications are that the self-attention extension is not specified precisely enough to rule out information leakage, the significance claims in the offline tables are not backed by a described statistical test, and the 'first PE method specifically designed for SR' claim appears inconsistent with the paper's own discussion of TIN.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Eq. (2), Table 2] The self-attention extension of CAPE is underspecified and potentially non-causal. The paper says CAPE 'can be easily extended to self-attention' but never states how the target embedding t and the summation bound n in Eq. (2) are chosen when each position in the sequence acts as a query. If Eq. (2) is applied unchanged to a query at position i, then the position of a past item j <= i includes gates g_{i+1} through g_n, which correspond to items occurring after the query; using those future items during training would leak information and could inflate the self-attention results in Table 2. If instead the intended causal form is p_j^(i) = sum_{k=j}^i g_k with t = h_i, that choice must be stated explicitly, because the displayed equations do not currently say so. Since the headline claim that CAPE 'consistently improves all backbones' depends on the self-attention columns for SASRec, BST, and DMIN, this specification is load-bearing and needs to be resolved, preferably with the exact tensor operations used in the released code.
[Section 5.1.4 and Table 2] The claim that 'AUC and gAUC improvements on the third decimal place can be considered significant' and the footnote 'bold with p < 0.05' are not supported by any described statistical test. The table reports averages over 5 random seeds without confidence intervals or a test procedure, and no significance test is described in Section 5.1.4. Because the central claim is that CAPE 'significantly and consistently' improves all backbones, the authors should specify the test (e.g., paired test across seeds or across users), report variance or confidence intervals, and state the number of comparisons. Without this, a reader cannot distinguish real improvements from seed noise, especially for small differences such as DIN AUC 0.888156 vs. 0.887220 on AmazonElectronics.
[Sections 1 and 2.1] The contribution statement that CAPE is 'the first PE method specifically designed for sequential recommendation' appears to be contradicted by the paper's own related-work discussion of TIN [29], which the text describes as incorporating 'target-aware temporal encoding' into a sequential recommendation model. At minimum, TIN is a position-related mechanism designed for SR, so the 'first' claim needs either to be removed or to be accompanied by a precise differentiation explaining why TIN's target-aware temporal encoding does not count as a position encoding method for this purpose.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4.1, Eq. (2)] The sentence immediately after Eq. (2) states that 'if gates are always 1, then p_j = j+1,' but with p_j = sum_{k=j}^n g_k, setting all g_k = 1 gives p_j = n - j + 1, not j + 1. Please correct the formula or the accompanying interpretation, since this affects the reader's understanding of whether positions are measured from the beginning or the end of the context.
[Section 4.2, Eq. (6)] In Eq. (6), the expression inside the loop over p uses e[p_j] but should use e[p], since the intended computation is z[p] = sim_pos(t', e[p]) for each integer p in [1, n].
[Section 4.2, Eq. (5)] The term 'gate architecture' is used for t' = SiLU(Wt + b), but this is a linear projection followed by an activation, not a gate in the usual multiplicative sense. Please either clarify the gating operation or rename it to avoid ambiguity.
[Section 5.1.3] The description of AmazonBooks lists '1,689,188 samples' and '10,053,086 interactions,' which appear copied from the AmazonElectronics statistics; these numbers should be checked against the actual preprocessed dataset, as sample count and interaction count should be clearly consistent.
[Section 5.3, Table 3] The large-scale experiment only uses SASRec and excludes CoPE from the comparison, so the conclusion that CAPE is the best PE for large-scale SR should be scoped accordingly; the current wording 'CAPE outperforms the baseline' is fine, but the abstract's 'across small and large scale model size' would be stronger with at least one additional backbone or an explicit justification for why SASRec alone supports the scalability claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CAPE's derivation is self-contained and the sole author self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's contribution is an architectural method, CAPE, evaluated on public benchmarks and an online A/B test. The position values in Eq. (2) are computed from learned gate values, and the embeddings e[p] and gate projection W,b are learned model parameters trained end-to-end; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no reported result is forced by construction. The only author self-citation is reference [25] (TransGate) for the gating architecture used to fuse item and position embeddings. That citation supplies an architectural template rather than the paper's conclusion, and the gate-fusion choice is independently ablated in Sec. 5.4.2, so it is not load-bearing circularity. The interpolation scheme is attributed to the external CoPE work [4], not to the authors. The underspecified extension of Eq. (2) to causal self-attention backbones (SASRec/BST/DMIN) is a potential information-leakage or implementation concern, but it does not make the central claim circular: the reported gains are empirical comparisons against re-implemented baselines, not consequences of the method's definition. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs.

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

The central empirical claim rests on several hand-chosen design choices rather than derived constants. The most important are the position embedding dimension and context length, which are selected by grid search or preprocessing, and the architectural assumptions that fractional positions interpolate meaningfully, that sigmoid dissimilarities capture relevance, and that item and position embeddings need a learned gate to be fused.

free parameters (4)

position_embedding_dimension = 16 for DIN, 64 for SASRec; grid searched over [16, 32, 64]
Performance in Fig. 3 varies with this dimension; no principled choice is given.
maximum_context_length = 100 for AmazonElectronics and KuaiVideo; 50 for AmazonBooks
Set by preprocessing conventions of prior work; affects which positions are available and the memory cost.
number_of_attention_heads = grid searched over [1, 2, 4, 8]; best per backbone not reported
Standard hyperparameter for self-attention backbones; reported results may depend on this choice.
gate_projection_matrix_W_and_bias_b = learned during training
Linear layer in Eq. 5 that maps item embeddings into position space; central to the fusion mechanism.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Fractional positions can be represented by linear interpolation of integer position embeddings (Eq. 3).
Borrowed from CoPE; no justification specific to SR, and the method depends on it.
domain assumption Sigmoid dissimilarity gates capture which context items should be counted in position (Eq. 1-2).
Core premise of CAPE; supported only by empirical comparisons, not by analysis.
domain assumption Item and position embeddings live in different hidden spaces, so a learned gate is needed (Sec 4.2).
Motivates the gate architecture; evidence is ablation-level only.
domain assumption The FuxiCTR implementations of the five backbones are faithful to the original models (Sec 5.1.2).
All comparisons inherit this; no pinned code version is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Contextual-Aware Position Encoding for Sequential Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQQ5LQPW

@misc{pith2026250209027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Contextual-Aware Position Encoding for Sequential Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQQ5LQPW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09027}
}

read the original abstract

Sequential recommendation (SR), which encodes user activity to predict the next action, has emerged as a widely adopted strategy in developing commercial personalized recommendation systems. A critical component of modern SR models is the attention mechanism, which synthesizes users' historical activities. This mechanism is typically order-invariant and generally relies on position encoding (PE). Conventional SR models simply assign a learnable vector to each position, resulting in only modest gains compared to traditional recommendation models. Moreover, limited research has been conducted on position encoding tailored for sequential recommendation, leaving a significant gap in addressing its unique requirements. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel Contextual-Aware Position Encoding method for sequential recommendation, abbreviated as CAPE. To the best of our knowledge, CAPE is the first PE method specifically designed for sequential recommendation. Comprehensive experiments conducted on benchmark SR datasets demonstrate that CAPE consistently enhances multiple mainstream backbone models and achieves state-of-the-art performance, across small and large scale model size. Furthermore, we deployed CAPE in an industrial setting on a real-world commercial platform, clearly showcasing the effectiveness of our approach. Our source code is available at https://github.com/yjdy/CAPE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09027 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of CAPE. CAPE first computes the dissimilarity of target item and context items, and then accumulating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Ablation study on context length and position em [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of different fusion methods in Ama [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[29]

Haolin Zhou, Junwei Pan, Xinyi Zhou, Xihua Chen, Jie Jiang, Xiaofeng Gao, and Guihai Chen. 2024. Temporal Interest Network for User Response Prediction. In WWW ’24. 413–422

work page 2024
[1]

Junyi Chen, Lu Chi, Bingyue Peng, and Zehuan Yuan. 2024. HLLM: Enhancing Sequential Recommendations via Hierarchical Large Language Models for Item and User Modeling. arXiv:2409.12740

arXiv 2024
[2]

Qiwei Chen, Huan Zhao, Wei Li, Pipei Huang, and Wenwu Ou. 2019. Be- havior Sequence Transformer for E-commerce Recommendation in Alibaba. arXiv:1905.06874

arXiv 2019
[3]

Philipp Dufter, Martin Schmitt, and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Position Information in Transformers: An Overview. arXiv:2102.11090

arXiv 2021
[4]

Olga Golovneva, Tianlu Wang, Jason Weston, and Sainbayar Sukhbaatar

work page
[5]

Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, Yunming Ye, Zhenguo Li, and Xiuqiang He. 2017. DeepFM: A Factorization-Machine based Neural Network for CTR Prediction. In IJCAI. 1725–1731

work page 2017
[6]

Ruining He and Julian McAuley. 2016. Ups and Downs: Modeling the Visual Evolution of Fashion Trends with One-Class Collaborative Filtering. In WWW ’16. 507–517

work page 2016
[7]

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

Show all 34 references

[8]

Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2018. Self-Attentive Sequential Recom- mendation. arXiv:1808.09781

2018 arXiv
[9]

Jiacheng Li, Ming Wang, Jin Li, Jinmiao Fu, Xin Shen, Jingbo Shang, and Julian McAuley. 2023. Text Is All You Need: Learning Language Representations for Sequential Recommendation. In KDD ’23. 1258–1267

2023
[10]

Yongqi Li, Meng Liu, Jianhua Yin, Chaoran Cui, Xin-Shun Xu, and Liqiang Nie. [n. d.]. Routing Micro-videos via A Temporal Graph-guided Recommendation System. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 1464–1472
[11]

Alejo Lopez-Avila, Jinhua Du, Abbas Shimary, and Ze Li. 2024. Positional encod- ing is not the same as context: A study on positional encoding for Sequential recommendation. arXiv:2405.10436 [cs.IR]

2024 arXiv
[12]

Xiao Lv, Jiangxia Cao, Shijie Guan, Xiaoyou Zhou, Zhiguang Qi, Yaqiang Zang, Ming Li, Ben Wang, Kun Gai, and Guorui Zhou. 2024. MARM: Unlocking the Future of Recommendation Systems through Memory Augmentation and Scalable Complexity. arXiv:2411.09425

2024 arXiv
[13]

Alec Radford and Karthik Narasimhan. 2018. Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-Training. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:49313245

2018
[14]

Peter Shaw, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Ashish Vaswani. 2018. Self-Attention with Relative Position Representations. In ACL’18

2018
[15]

Jianlin Su, Murtadha Ahmed, Yu Lu, Shengfeng Pan, Wen Bo, and Yunfeng Liu. 2024. RoFormer: Enhanced transformer with Rotary Position Embedding. Neurocomput. 568, C (2024), 12 pages

2024
[16]

Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, Arthur Szlam, Jason Weston, and Rob Fergus. 2015. End- to-end memory networks. In NIPS’15. 2440–2448

2015
[17]

Fei Sun, Jun Liu, Jian Wu, Changhua Pei, Xiao Lin, Wenwu Ou, and Peng Jiang
[18]

Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In NIPS’17. 6000–6010

2017
[19]

Jinpeng Wang, Ziyun Zeng, Yunxiao Wang, Yuting Wang, Xingyu Lu, Tianxiang Li, Jun Yuan, Rui Zhang, Hai-Tao Zheng, and Shu-Tao Xia. 2023. MISSRec: Pre- training and Transferring Multi-modal Interest-aware Sequence Representation for Recommendation. In ACM MM ’23. 6548–6557

2023
[20]

Pengfei Wang, Jiafeng Guo, Yanyan Lan, Jun Xu, Shengxian Wan, and Xueqi Cheng. 2015. Learning Hierarchical Representation Model for NextBasket Rec- ommendation. In SIGIR ’15. 403–412

2015
[21]

Chuhan Wu, Fangzhao Wu, Tao Qi, Chenliang Li, and Yongfeng Huang. 2022. Is News Recommendation a Sequential Recommendation Task?. In SIGIR ’22. 2382–2386

2022
[22]

Xue Xia, Pong Eksombatchai, Nikil Pancha, Dhruvil Deven Badani, Po-Wei Wang, Neng Gu, Saurabh Vishwas Joshi, Nazanin Farahpour, Zhiyuan Zhang, and An- drew Zhai. 2023. TransAct: Transformer-based Realtime User Action Model for Recommendation at Pinterest. arXiv:2306.00248

2023 arXiv
[23]

Zhibo Xiao, Luwei Yang, Wen Jiang, Yi Wei, Yi Hu, and Hao Wang. 2020. Deep Multi-Interest Network for Click-through Rate Prediction. In CIKM ’20. 2265–2268

2020
[24]

Jose, and Xiangnan He

Fajie Yuan, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Ioannis Arapakis, Joemon M. Jose, and Xiangnan He. 2019. A Simple Convolutional Generative Network for Next Item Recommendation. In WSDM ’19. 582–590

2019
[25]

Jun Yuan, Neng Gao, and Ji Xiang. 2019. Transgate: knowledge graph embedding with shared gate structure. In AAAI, Vol. 33. 3100–3107

2019
[26]

Jiaqi Zhai, Lucy Liao, Xing Liu, Yueming Wang, Rui Li, Xuan Cao, Leon Gao, Zhao- jie Gong, Fangda Gu, Michael He, Yinghai Lu, and Yu Shi. 2024. Actions Speak Louder than Words: Trillion-Parameter Sequential Transducers for Generative Recommendations. arXiv:2402.17152

2024 arXiv
[27]

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 AAAI’19

2019
[28]

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 SIGKDD’18. 1059–1068

2018
[30]

Kun Zhou, Hui Wang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Yutao Zhu, Sirui Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Zhongyuan Wang, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2020. S3-Rec: Self-Supervised Learning for Sequential Recommendation with Mutual Information Maximization. In CIKM ’20. 1893–1902

2020
[31]

Jieming Zhu, Jinyang Liu, Shuai Yang, Qi Zhang, and Xiuqiang He. 2021. Open Benchmarking for Click-Through Rate Prediction. InCIKM ’21. ACM, 2759–2769

2021
[2016]

arXiv:1511.06939

Session-based Recommendations with Recurrent Neural Networks. arXiv:1511.06939

arXiv
[2019]

In CIKM ’19 (CIKM ’19)

BERT4Rec: Sequential Recommendation with Bidirectional Encoder Repre- sentations from Transformer. In CIKM ’19 (CIKM ’19) . 1441–1450
[2024]

arXiv:2405.18719

Contextual Position Encoding: Learning to Count What’s Important. arXiv:2405.18719

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [29]

Haolin Zhou, Junwei Pan, Xinyi Zhou, Xihua Chen, Jie Jiang, Xiaofeng Gao, and Guihai Chen. 2024. Temporal Interest Network for User Response Prediction. In WWW ’24. 413–422

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Junyi Chen, Lu Chi, Bingyue Peng, and Zehuan Yuan. 2024. HLLM: Enhancing Sequential Recommendations via Hierarchical Large Language Models for Item and User Modeling. arXiv:2409.12740

arXiv 2024

[3] [2]

Qiwei Chen, Huan Zhao, Wei Li, Pipei Huang, and Wenwu Ou. 2019. Be- havior Sequence Transformer for E-commerce Recommendation in Alibaba. arXiv:1905.06874

arXiv 2019

[4] [3]

Philipp Dufter, Martin Schmitt, and Hinrich Schütze. 2021. Position Information in Transformers: An Overview. arXiv:2102.11090

arXiv 2021

[5] [4]

Olga Golovneva, Tianlu Wang, Jason Weston, and Sainbayar Sukhbaatar

work page

[6] [5]

Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, Yunming Ye, Zhenguo Li, and Xiuqiang He. 2017. DeepFM: A Factorization-Machine based Neural Network for CTR Prediction. In IJCAI. 1725–1731

work page 2017

[7] [6]

Ruining He and Julian McAuley. 2016. Ups and Downs: Modeling the Visual Evolution of Fashion Trends with One-Class Collaborative Filtering. In WWW ’16. 507–517

work page 2016

[8] [7]

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