Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Image Fusion for Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fusing frozen CLIP image embeddings with item-ID embeddings, then running separate attention over source, target, and merged sequences, improves cross-domain next-item recommendation and achieves state-of-the-art MRR and NDCG on…

desk verdict The paper's core idea is plausible and the ablation is encouraging, but Equation (8) combines softmax probabilities over incompatible candidate sets, making the stated evaluation protocol unreproducible and the SOTA claim unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.15694 v2 pith:VFVFDDLX submitted 2024-12-31 cs.IR cs.CVcs.LG

Wangyu Wu , Siqi Song , Xianglin Qiu , Xiaowei Huang , Fei Ma , Jimin Xiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.CVcs.LG
keywords Cross-DomainSequentialRecommendationCLIPimageembeddingsfusionmultipleattentionnext-itemvisualpreferencemodelingAmazone-commercedata
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 IFCDSR, a cross-domain sequential recommendation method built on the idea that visual impressions of items carry information that item IDs alone miss. The authors argue that enriching learnable item-ID embeddings with frozen CLIP image embeddings, and applying separate attention to the target-domain sequence, the source-domain sequence, and their merged sequence, captures both intra-domain and cross-domain user preferences. On re-partitioned Amazon e-commerce data, IFCDSR reports higher MRR and NDCG than existing baselines in both the Food-Kitchen and Movie-Book scenarios. If the result holds, it gives cross-domain recommenders a cheap and general signal: pretrained visual features that require no extra vision training.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pair of item embedding spaces, $E_{id}$ and $E_{img}$, combined with multiple attention layers that process the source-domain sequence, the target-domain sequence, and the concatenated sequence separately. A frozen CLIP model supplies the image embeddings without fine-tuning, while the ID matrix is learned; attention aggregates each sub-sequence, cosine similarity scores the aggregate against all items, and a weighted sum combines the three predicted distributions into one ranking.

What would settle it

Re-run the Food-Kitchen and Movie-Book evaluations using only the target-domain score from Eq. (5) to rank items; if deleting the source and merged terms leaves MRR and NDCG unchanged, the cross-domain and image-fusion machinery carries no measurable weight in the reported comparison. Re-running each baseline on the paper's re-partitioned split would also show whether the margins in Tables 2 and 3 come from the method or from a different evaluation set.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

IFCDSR's central claim is that next-item prediction in a target domain improves when every item is represented by two parallel embeddings, a learnable ID matrix $E_{id}$ and a frozen CLIP image matrix $E_{img}$, and when the three sub-sequences $S_X$, $S_Y$, and $S_{X+Y}$ are each processed by their own attention layer, producing six attention-aggregated representations. Each representation is scored against the corresponding item matrices by cosine similarity, and the final ranking score is a weighted sum of the three sub-sequence probability scores. The paper reports that this setup outperforms GRU4Rec, SASRec, SR-GNN, MIFN, Tri-CDR, and PSJNet on MRR and NDCG@5/10 for both scenarios, and the ablation attributes the gain to image fusion and to the multiple attention mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The method's reported gains rely on adding up three scores that are computed over different pools of items, and the paper does not explain how the source-domain and merged-domain scores are applied to target-domain items; if those scores cannot be applied, the only term doing the ranking is the target-domain one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If CLIP-derived visual embeddings improve these two scenarios, the same recipe can be applied to any cross-domain recommendation setting where item images exist, without training a vision model.
  • Separating attention into $S_X$, $S_Y$, and $S_{X+Y}$ prevents one domain from dominating the merged sequence, which should help when interaction volumes differ sharply across domains.
  • Scoring against both $E_{id}$ and $E_{img}$ lets the model rank items by structural or visual match, with the trade-off controlled by the weight $\alpha$.
  • The re-partitioning protocol, which keeps only users and items with at least ten interactions and at least three items per domain per sequence, defines a reproducible CDSR benchmark on Amazon data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One implication the paper leaves implicit is that frozen visual embeddings may help cold-start items, because the image pathway offers a signal that does not depend on interaction history.
  • A natural testable extension is swapping CLIP for other frozen visual encoders to see whether the gains come specifically from language-aligned visual features or from any strong image representation.
  • The multi-sequence attention idea generalizes to more than two domains by splitting the merged sequence into per-domain and pooled sub-sequences and applying the same weighted-sum ranking.
  • The reported evaluation depends on the three probability terms in Eq. (8) being meaningfully comparable over target-domain items; making that alignment explicit, or ablating each term's contribution to the final ranking, would show how much of the gain is genuinely cross-domain.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes IFCDSR, a cross-domain sequential recommendation method that augments learnable item-ID embeddings with frozen CLIP image embeddings and applies separate attention mechanisms to the source-domain sequence, target-domain sequence, and their union. The final score for a candidate item is a weighted combination of the three resulting softmax probabilities (Eq. 8), with the target domain used for ranking (Eq. 9). The authors re-partition Amazon data into Food-Kitchen and Movie-Book scenarios and report MRR and NDCG@5/10, claiming state-of-the-art performance over GRU4Rec, SASRec, SR-GNN, MIFN, Tri-CDR, and PSJNet. An ablation on the Movie dataset attributes gains to image fusion and multiple attention.

Significance. If the reported numbers are reliable, the paper makes a modest but useful empirical contribution: it is, to my knowledge, one of the first CDSR works to show that frozen CLIP visual features can improve cross-domain sequential recommendation over ID-only baselines, and the multi-attention treatment of X, Y, and X∪Y sequences is a simple and reasonable design. The strength of the paper is its clear problem framing and the use of a frozen pretrained encoder, which avoids end-to-end vision-language fine-tuning. However, the paper's central claim depends entirely on the correctness and reproducibility of the evaluation, and at present the evaluation protocol in Eq. (8) is underspecified to the point of being unreproducible. The lack of error bars, significance tests, and a clear baseline retraining protocol further weaken the empirical claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The evaluation equation is underspecified and, taken literally, appears incorrect. P^Y is defined by the same softmax mechanism as Eqs. (3)-(4) but over the item matrix E^Y for domain Y only; therefore P^Y(x_i|S)=0 for every target-domain item x_i∈X, and the λ1 term contributes nothing to the argmax over X in Eq. (9). The paper never states how the distributions over different candidate sets (X, Y, and X∪Y) are combined, whether by zero-padding, masking, renormalization, or some other rule. If Eq. (8) is literal, the reported MRR/NDCG values in Tables 2-3 are not reproducible from the described protocol, and the implementation may diverge from the text. The authors must specify the exact candidate-set handling, or provide code, before the empirical claim can be evaluated.
  2. [§4, Tables 2-3] All results are single-run point estimates with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The abstract and §4.1 claim that IFCDSR 'significantly outperforms' baselines, but differences such as Food NDCG@10 9.92 vs. 9.01 and Movie-Book MRR 2.75 vs. 2.51 cannot be assessed for significance from the reported numbers. The authors should report multiple seeds with means and variances, and ideally paired significance tests across users or sequences.
  3. [§4, 'Dataset and Evaluated Metric', Tables 2-3] The authors re-partitioned the Amazon datasets (filtering users and items, splitting latest sequences into validation and test), but the paper does not state whether baseline results were recomputed on this same partition. If the baseline numbers in Tables 2-3 are taken from the original papers, which used different data splits or preprocessing, the comparison is invalid. The paper should state explicitly how each baseline was run, and should also include the cross-domain baselines discussed in §2.2 (PiNet, DASL, DAT-MDI) that are absent from the experiments.
  4. [§4.2, Table 4] The ablation study is too terse to support the contribution claims. Table 4 shows only MRR on the Movie dataset, with no NDCG, no error bars, and no indication of which components are enabled by the checkmarks. The text says 'original-framework' for the first row, but the table header does not define the checkmark convention. Please report both scenarios, both metrics, and multiple runs.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The method name is inconsistent: the title and abstract use IFCDSR, while §1 and the contributions list use IFCDRS. Please standardize the acronym.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (3)] In Eq. (3), the condition 'x_t∈S_X' after the softmax is confusing: the predicted next item should be x_{t+1}∈X, not the current sequence item. Clarify the notation for the candidate set over which the softmax is taken.
  3. [§3.2] The text says the final user representation is a set of six sequence representations, but Eq. (8) combines probabilities rather than representations. Please align the terminology: either describe the combination at the probability level or define how the representations are merged.
  4. [§4] The paper mentions several related baselines (PiNet, DASL, DAT-MDI) in §2.2 but does not include them in the experiments. Adding results or explicitly explaining their omission would strengthen the comparison.
  5. [§4, 'Implementation Details'] No code or data-split release is mentioned. Given the re-partitioned datasets and the underspecified evaluation, a reproducibility statement or code link is needed.
  6. [§4.1] The text of §4.1 is only two sentences and does not discuss the results in Tables 2-3. Please expand the analysis, especially for the cases where the improvements over the best baseline are small.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: IFCDSR's claimed gains are empirical results from a trained model, not derived from its input features or self-citations by construction.

full rationale

IFCDSR is an empirical supervised recommendation method, and its derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. Image embeddings come from a frozen CLIP encoder, ID embeddings are learned, and the prediction probabilities in Eqs. (3)-(5) are standard softmax/cosine scores trained by cross-entropy (Eq. 6), combined with fixed weights (alpha=0.7, lambda1=0.1, lambda2=0.4). No parameter is fitted to test labels, and the reported MRR/NDCG improvements are external comparisons rather than consequences of a fitted quantity. The only questionable passage is Eq. (8), which sums P^X, P^Y, and P^{X+Y} even though P^Y is a softmax over items in domain Y and is therefore zero for target-domain items x_i in X; this makes the source-domain term inert and the evaluation protocol underspecified. That is a correctness and reproducibility concern, not circularity: the method's output does not reduce by definition to its input, and no load-bearing claim depends on a self-citation. Whether baseline results were recomputed on the same partition is a comparison-validity issue also outside circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new objects, forces, or dimensions. It relies on standard assumptions about CLIP features and benchmark construction, and uses a handful of hand-picked hyperparameters that are not analyzed for robustness.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha = 0.7
    Weights ID-based vs image-based prediction in Eq. (5); chosen without sensitivity analysis.
  • lambda1 = 0.1
    Weights the source-domain loss in Eq. (7) and source-domain probability in evaluation; borrowed from prior work [32].
  • lambda2 = 0.4
    Weights the merged-sequence loss and probability; same as lambda1.
  • CLIP model variant = unspecified
    The paper says a frozen CLIP model but does not name the backbone (e.g., ViT-B/32), image size, or pooling.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption CLIP image embeddings capture visual preference information relevant to user choice.
    The whole method hinges on this; no validation is provided.
  • domain assumption The Amazon re-partitioning used to build the two CDSR scenarios is a fair and representative benchmark.
    Baselines may have been tuned on different splits; the partition protocol is described only coarsely.
  • domain assumption Next-item prediction with cross-entropy loss on the latest interaction is the correct objective for CDSR.
    Standard in the field, but not argued for.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Image Fusion for Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFVFDDLX

@misc{pith2026250215694,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Image Fusion for Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFVFDDLX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.15694}
}
read the original abstract

Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation (CDSR) aims to predict future user interactions based on historical interactions across multiple domains. The key challenge in CDSR is effectively capturing cross-domain user preferences by fully leveraging both intra-sequence and inter-sequence item interactions. In this paper, we propose a novel method, Image Fusion for Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation (IFCDSR), which incorporates item image information to better capture visual preferences. Our approach integrates a frozen CLIP model to generate image embeddings, enriching original item embeddings with visual data from both intra-sequence and inter-sequence interactions. Additionally, we employ a multiple attention layer to capture cross-domain interests, enabling joint learning of single-domain and cross-domain user preferences. To validate the effectiveness of IFCDSR, we re-partitioned four e-commerce datasets and conducted extensive experiments. Results demonstrate that IFCDSR significantly outperforms existing methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.15694 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) In the traditional CDSR framework, the input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of our proposed IFCDSR. Items from domains [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Iván Cantador, Ignacio Fernández-Tobías, Shlomo Berkovsky, and Paolo Cre- monesi. 2015. Cross-domain recommender systems. In Recommender systems handbook. Springer, 919–959

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Junbum Cha, Jonghwan Mun, and Byungseok Roh. 2023. Learning to generate text-grounded mask for open-world semantic segmentation from only image-text pairs. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 11165–11174

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    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. WWW Companion ’25, April 28-May 2, 2025, Sydney, NSW, Australia Wangyu Wu et al

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Chen Chen, Jie Guo, and Bin Song. 2021. Dual attention transfer in session-based recommendation with multi-dimensional integration. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 869–878

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Junyoung Chung, Caglar Gulcehre, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling. In NIPS 2014 Workshop on Deep Learning, December 2014

    2014

  6. [6]

    Xiaoyi Dong, Jianmin Bao, Yinglin Zheng, Ting Zhang, Dongdong Chen, Hao Yang, Ming Zeng, Weiming Zhang, Lu Yuan, Dong Chen, et al. 2023. Maskclip: Masked self-distillation advances contrastive language-image pretraining. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 10995–11005

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Chen Gao, Xiangning Chen, Fuli Feng, Kai Zhao, Xiangnan He, Yong Li, and Depeng Jin. 2019. Cross-Domain Recommendation Without Sharing User- Relevant Data. In The World Wide Web Conference (San Francisco, CA, USA) (WWW ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 491–502. doi:10.1145/3308558.3313538

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Jiayi Guo, Chaoqun Du, Jiangshan Wang, Huijuan Huang, Pengfei Wan, and Gao Huang. 2022. Assessing a single image in reference-guided image synthesis. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 36. 753–761

    work page 2022

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Lei Guo, Li Tang, Tong Chen, Lei Zhu, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, and Hongzhi Yin. 2021. DA-GCN: A Domain-aware Attentive Graph Convolution Network for Shared-account Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Xiaojiao Guo, Xuhang Chen, Shenghong Luo, Shuqiang Wang, and Chi-Man Pun

  3. [11]

    Xiaojiao Guo, Xuhang Chen, Shuqiang Wang, and Chi-Man Pun. 2025. Under- water Image Restoration Through a Prior Guided Hybrid Sense Approach and Extensive Benchmark Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Di He, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, Liwei Wang, Nenghai Yu, Tie-Yan Liu, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2016. Dual learning for machine translation. 29 (2016), 820–828

    2016

  5. [13]

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

  6. [14]

    Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory.Neural computation 9, 8 (1997), 1735–1780

    1997

  7. [15]

    Guangneng Hu, Yu Zhang, and Qiang Yang. 2018. Conet: Collaborative Cross Networks for Cross-Domain Recommendation. In ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Kalervo Järvelin and Jaana Kekäläinen. 2002. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    Jingen Jiang, Mingyang Zhao, Zeyu Shen, and Dong-Ming Yan. 2022. EDSF: Fast and accurate ellipse detection via disjoint-set forest. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) . IEEE, 1–6

    2022

  10. [18]

    Jingen Jiang, Mingyang Zhao, Shiqing Xin, Yanchao Yang, Hanxiao Wang, Xiao- hong Jia, and Dong-Ming Yan. 2023. Structure-aware surface reconstruction via primitive assembly. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 14171–14180

    2023

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2018. Self-Attentive Sequential Recom- mendation. In IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Diederik Kingma and Lei Jimmy Ba

    P. Diederik Kingma and Lei Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Yehuda Koren, Robert Bell, and Chris Volinsky. 2009. Matrix factorization tech- niques for recommender systems. Computer 42, 8 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, et al. 1995. Convolutional networks for images, speech, and time series. The handbook of brain theory and neural networks (1995)

    1995

  16. [24]

    Chenglin Li, Mingjun Zhao, Huanming Zhang, Chenyun Yu, Lei Cheng, Guo- qiang Shu, Beibei Kong, and Di Niu. 2022. RecGURU: Adversarial Learning of Generalized User Representations for Cross-Domain Recommendation. In ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Mingxian Li, Hao Sun, Yingtie Lei, Xiaofeng Zhang, Yihang Dong, Yilin Zhou, Zimeng Li, and Xuhang Chen. 2024. High-Fidelity Document Stain Removal via A Large-Scale Real-World Dataset and A Memory-Augmented Transformer. In W ACV

    2024

  18. [26]

    Pan Li, Zhichao Jiang, Maofei Que, Yao Hu, and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2021. Dual Attentive Sequential Learning for Cross-Domain Click-Through Rate Prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02768 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Pan Li and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2020. DDTCDR: Deep Dual Transfer Cross Domain Recommendation. In ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM)

    2020

  20. [28]

    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

  21. [29]

    Guanyu Lin, Chen Gao, Yu Zheng, Jianxin Chang, Yanan Niu, Yang Song, Zhiheng Li, Depeng Jin, and Yong Li. 2023. Dual-interest Factorization-heads Attention for Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 . 917–927

    2023

  22. [30]

    Mingsheng Long, Jianmin Wang, Guiguang Ding, Wei Cheng, Xiang Zhang, and Wei Wang. 2012. Dual transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 2012 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining . SIAM, 540–551

    2012

  23. [31]

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

    2024

  24. [32]

    de Rijke

    Muyang Ma, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Zhaochun Ren, Lifan Zhao, Jun Ma, and M. de Rijke. 2022. Mixed Information Flow for Cross-domain Sequential Recommendations. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

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

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

    2019

  26. [34]

    Norman Mu, Alexander Kirillov, David Wagner, and Saining Xie. 2022. Slip: Self-supervision meets language-image pre-training. In European conference on computer vision. Springer, 529–544

    2022

  27. [35]

    Wentao Ouyang, Xiuwu Zhang, Lei Zhao, Jinmei Luo, Yu Zhang, Heng Zou, Zhao- jie Liu, and Yanlong Du. 2020. MiNet: Mixed Interest Network for Cross-Domain Click-Through Rate Prediction. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Managemen...

    2020

  28. [36]

    Sinno Jialin Pan and Qiang Yang. 2009. A survey on transfer learning. 22, 10 (2009), 1345–1359. Publisher: IEEE

    2009

  29. [37]

    Weike Pan, Evan Xiang, Nathan Liu, and Qiang Yang. 2010. Transfer learning in collaborative filtering for sparsity reduction. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 24. Issue: 1

    2010

  30. [38]

    Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, and Lars Schmidt-Thieme. 2010. Factor- izing personalized markov chains for next-basket recommendation. In WWW. 811–820

    2010

  31. [39]

    Wenchao Sun, Pengjie Ren, Yujie Lin, Muyang Ma, Zhumin Chen, Zhaochun Ren, Jun Ma, and Maarten de Rijke. 2022. Parallel Split-Join Networks for Shared Ac- count Cross-domain Sequential Recommendations. IEEE Transactions on Knowl- edge and Data Engineering (TKDE) (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    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 NeurIPS. 5998–6008

    2017

  33. [41]

    Voorhees

    Ellen M. Voorhees. 1999. The TREC-8 Question Answering Track Report. In Text REtrieval Conference (TREC)

    1999

  34. [42]

    Sheng, and Mehmet Orgun

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

    2019

  35. [43]

    Yixuan Wei, Yue Cao, Zheng Zhang, Houwen Peng, Zhuliang Yao, Zhenda Xie, Han Hu, and Baining Guo. 2023. iclip: Bridging image classification and con- trastive language-image pre-training for visual recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and P...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Yinwei Wei, Xiang Wang, Qi Li, Liqiang Nie, Yan Li, Xuanping Li, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Contrastive learning for cold-start recommendation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 5382–5390

    2021

  37. [45]

    Shu Wu, Yuyuan Tang, Yanqiao Zhu, Liang Wang, Xing Xie, and Tieniu Tan. 2019. Session-based recommendation with graph neural networks. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Wangyu Wu, Tianhong Dai, Zhenhong Chen, Xiaowei Huang, Jimin Xiao, Fei Ma, and Renrong Ouyang. 2025. Adaptive Patch Contrast for Weakly Supervised Semantic Segmentation. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 139 (2025), 109626

    2025

  39. [47]

    Wangyu Wu, Tianhong Dai, Xiaowei Huang, Fei Ma, and Jimin Xiao. 2024. Im- age Augmentation with Controlled Diffusion for Weakly-Supervised Semantic Segmentation. In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 6175–6179

    2024

  40. [48]

    Wangyu Wu, Tianhong Dai, Xiaowei Huang, Fei Ma, and Jimin Xiao. 2024. Top-k pooling with patch contrastive learning for weakly-supervised semantic segmen- tation. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). IEEE, 5270–5275

    2024

  41. [49]

    Zitao Xu, Weike Pan, and Zhong Ming. 2023. A multi-view graph contrastive learning framework for cross-domain sequential recommendation. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 491–501

    2023

  42. [50]

    Yuhao Yang, Chao Huang, Lianghao Xia, Chunzhen Huang, Da Luo, and Kangyi Lin. 2023. Debiased contrastive learning for sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2023 . 1063–1073

    2023

  43. [51]

    Yifan Yang, Weiquan Huang, Yixuan Wei, Houwen Peng, Xinyang Jiang, Huiqiang Jiang, Fangyun Wei, Yin Wang, Han Hu, Lili Qiu, et al . 2023. Attentive mask clip. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . Image Fusion for Cross-Domain Sequential ...

    2023

  44. [52]

    Jianjian Yin, Yi Chen, Zhichao Zheng, Junsheng Zhou, and Yanhui Gu. 2024. Uncertainty-Participation Context Consistency Learning for Semi-supervised Semantic Segmentation. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP) (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Jianjian Yin, Zhichao Zheng, Yulu Pan, Yanhui Gu, and Yi Chen. 2023. Semi- supervised semantic segmentation with multi-reliability and multi-level feature augmentation. Expert Systems with Applications 233 (2023), 120973

    2023

  46. [54]

    Zeping Yu, Jianxun Lian, Ahmad Mahmoody, Gongshen Liu, and Xing Xie. 2019. Adaptive User Modeling with Long and Short-Term Preferences for Personalized Recommendation. In IJCAI. 4213–4219

    2019

  47. [55]

    Desen Yuan. 2024. Balancing Easy and Hard Distortions: A Multi-Rate Knowledge Distillation Strategy for Blind Image Quality Assessment. In ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 8265–8269

    2024

  48. [56]

    Desen Yuan and Lei Wang. [n. d.]. Dual-Criterion Quality Loss for Blind Image Quality Assessment. In ACM Multimedia 2024

    2024

  49. [57]

    Wei Zhao, Benyou Wang, Jianbo Ye, Yongqiang Gao, Min Yang, and Xiaojun Chen. 2018. PLASTIC: Prioritize Long and Short-term Information in Top-n Recommendation using Adversarial Training. In IJCAI. 3676–3682

    2018

  50. [58]

    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 KDD. 1059–1068

    2018

  51. [59]

    Feng Zhu, Chaochao Chen, Yan Wang, Guanfeng Liu, and Xiaolin Zheng. 2019. Dtcdr: A framework for dual-target cross-domain recommendation. In Proceed- ings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 1533–1542

    2019

  52. [2015]

    In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    Session-based Recommendations with Recurrent Neural Networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

  53. [2024]

    In ACM MM

    Dual-Hybrid Attention Network for Specular Highlight Removal. In ACM MM. 10173–10181

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.