Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Intent-aware Diffusion with Contrastive Learning for Sequential Recommendation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A diffusion model that generates intent-preserving augmented views lifts next-item recommendation across five datasets.

desk verdict InDiRec is a solid empirical paper with a plausible but under-validated intent mechanism; the gains look real, but the 'intent' story needs stronger evidence before the mechanism is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16077 v1 pith:7O7QFYSK submitted 2025-04-22 cs.IR

Yuanpeng Qu , Hajime Nobuhara This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IR
keywords SequentialRecommendationContrastiveLearningDiffusionModelIntentRepresentationDataAugmentationNext-ItemPredictionK-meansClusteringRobustness
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

Sequential recommenders predict the next item from a user's history, and contrastive learning is used to make them robust to sparse data; the catch is that the augmented views are usually made by random deletion, masking, or replacement, which can destroy the latent intent behind a purchase. This paper proposes InDiRec, which first clusters sequence representations into K-means intent prototypes, then uses a sequence drawn from the target's prototype as a conditioning signal for a diffusion model to generate a positive view intended to share the same purchasing intent. That view is paired with the original sequence in a contrastive loss, so the encoder is trained to treat intent-aligned views as consistent. The paper reports that on Beauty, Sports, Toys, Video, and ML-1M, InDiRec beats every compared baseline on HR and NDCG at 5 and 20, with average relative gains of 13.17% (HR) and 20.68% (NDCG), and keeps the advantage under noise injection and short interaction histories. It matters because replacing stochastic augmentation with semantically guided generation directly addresses a known failure mode in contrastive sequential recommendation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the intent-aware conditional diffusion process over sequence embeddings. After splitting training sequences into prefix-like subsequences and encoding them with a Transformer sequence encoder, K-means clustering produces $K$ intent prototypes; a query function assigns each target representation to its nearest prototype, and the encoder output of another sequence in that cluster becomes the guidance signal $s_e$. An MLP predicts the clean representation under classifier-free guidance, and the denoised sample is used as the positive view in the contrastive loss. This machinery replaces random data augmentation: instead of deleting or cropping items blindly, the model samples from a learned conditional distribution anchored to a prototype that contains sequences of the same intent.

What would settle it

Take a dataset with explicit per-interaction intent labels, run InDiRec's clustering, and check whether sequences assigned to the same intent prototype share the labelled intent significantly more often than chance; a negative result, or a result no better than random sequence assignment, would show that the guidance signal $s_e$ is not capturing genuine intent. Alternatively, substitute a same-cluster sequence with a random other sequence as $s_e$ while holding everything else fixed; if HR@20 does not drop, the intent guidance is not what drives the reported gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that contrastive sequential recommendation improves when the positive augmented views are generated from the target sequence's own intent distribution rather than by random perturbation. InDiRec operationalizes this by training a conditional DDPM on sequence embeddings: the forward process adds noise to the target embedding $e_0$, and the reverse process denoises it under a guidance signal $s_e = Encoder(sequence)$ taken from a randomly selected training sequence whose K-means prototype matches the target. The generated view $\hat{e}_0$ is encoded and pulled toward the original sequence by a contrastive loss, while the diffusion loss and a cross-entropy next-item loss are trained jointly. Evaluated by ranking all items without negative sampling, the model reports the best HR@5, HR@20, NDCG@5, and NDCG@20 on all five datasets, and ablation studies show that removing either the intent-guided signal, the diffusion loss, or the contrastive loss lowers performance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that K-means clusters of learned sequence representations correspond to real purchasing intents, so any other sequence pulled from the same cluster genuinely shares the target sequence's intent; if the clusters are arbitrary, the diffusion guidance signal carries no intent information and the generated views are no better than random augmentations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Intent-guided view generation should apply to any contrastive sequential recommender that currently relies on stochastic augmentation, since InDiRec reports consistent gains over the CL4SRec, DuoRec, and MCLRec baselines.
  • On the shortest interaction histories (five items), InDiRec still outperforms the strongest baselines, so the benefit is largest exactly where data sparsity is worst.
  • With 20% random noise inserted at test time, InDiRec degrades less than SASRec, DuoRec, MCLRec, DiffuRec, and CaDiRec, indicating that the intent-conditioned views stay semantically consistent under input corruption.
  • Because diffusion sampling happens only during training, the model's prediction-time cost matches the underlying SASRec encoder with no extra sampling at inference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method's dependence on K-means granularity is hidden in K: with per-dataset tuning from 32 to 1024 prototypes, part of the gain may come from cluster-count selection rather than from the diffusion mechanism itself.
  • Replacing the randomly sampled same-cluster sequence $s_e$ with the cluster centroid or a learned prototype embedding would separate the effect of the prototype signal from the effect of the particular sampled example.
  • Because the guidance signal is just another sequence's encoding, the framework can sit on top of any sequence encoder, so it is a drop-in upgrade for existing contrastive SR models rather than a new architecture.
  • A direct intent-preservation test on labeled data, such as gift purchases versus self-use purchases, would quantify whether the generated views actually keep intent and would turn the paper's central assumption into a measurable statistic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes InDiRec, a sequential recommendation model that replaces random contrastive augmentation with intent-guided diffusion. It segments training sequences with dynamic incremental prefix segmentation (Eq. 7), encodes the subsequences with a Transformer, and runs K-means on the resulting representations to obtain intent prototypes (Eq. 9). For a target sequence, the nearest prototype is queried (Eq. 10), a same-cluster sequence is sampled to form the guidance signal s_e, and a conditional diffusion model generates an augmented embedding view (Eqs. 12-19). The view is used as a positive pair in a contrastive loss (Eq. 20) that is jointly optimized with the next-item cross-entropy loss (Eqs. 21-23). Experiments on Beauty, Sports, Toys, Video, and ML-1M report consistent gains over general, contrastive, and diffusion baselines, plus ablations, robustness tests, and t-SNE visualizations.

Significance. The paper addresses a real weakness of stochastic augmentation in contrastive sequential recommendation and, if the intent mechanism is sound, offers a reusable design. The submission is strong on empirical breadth: five public datasets, released code, component ablations, robustness to sparsity and noise, and paired t-tests. The gains over baselines are substantial and consistent. However, the central mechanism is not directly validated: the K-means clusters in Eq. (9) are called intent prototypes without evidence that they capture purchasing intents, and the same-cluster sampling can collapse to self-conditioning. The contribution is therefore conditional on additional cluster-level validation and on fixing the sampling degeneracy.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.2, Algorithm 1 line 6] The intent-guided signal can be the target sequence itself. Because D(·) in Eq. (7) includes the full sequence among the subsequences for sequences of length at most n, the target training sequence is a member of the pool that K-means clusters, and RandomSample(c_e) is not constrained to exclude the target. If the target is selected, s_e is approximately the target's own representation h_e, so the conditional diffusion in Eq. (12) is conditioned on the input, the diffusion loss in Eq. (17) approaches a self-reconstruction objective, and the contrastive pair in Eq. (20) is a near-trivial reconstruction rather than an intent-based augmentation. Please exclude the target sequence (and its duplicate subsequences) from RandomSample(c_e), report how often this exclusion changes the sampled guidance, and rerun the main comparisons under this exclusion.
  2. [Section 3.1.4, Eq. (9)] The K-means clusters are called intent prototypes but are never validated as recovering latent purchasing intents. They may instead encode sequence length, item popularity, position, or artifacts of the current encoder, in which case the guidance signal s_e carries no genuine intent information and the central mechanism is unsupported. The t-SNE visualization in Section 4.6 cannot settle this question because the contrastive loss in Eq. (20) actively pulls same-cluster representations together, so clustered t-SNE is partly a consequence of the loss. Please add cluster-level diagnostics, such as category purity of cluster members, intra-cluster item overlap, cluster stability across epochs, and a control experiment that uses randomly assigned or length-stratified clusters for guidance while keeping everything else fixed.
  3. [Section 3.5 and Eq. (17)] The definition of Ldiff is ambiguous. Eq. (17) defines a per-step loss at time t, but Section 3.5 states that Ldiff is the cumulative loss across all T sampling steps, and Algorithm 1 line 9 says to calculate Ldiff via Eq. (17) after one T-step noising pass. Please state explicitly whether Ldiff is a sum over t = 1..T, an expectation over randomly sampled t, or a single-step loss, and confirm that the released code implements the stated objective; this determines the gradient scale and the role of the weight λ.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract says the method generates item sequences, but the diffusion process in Eqs. (11)-(19) operates on the sequence embedding e0, not on discrete item sequences; please rephrase to say embedding-level augmented views.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The variance term is written as (1 - \bar\alpha)I; it should be (1 - \bar\alpha_t)I.
  3. [Eq. (17)] There is an unbalanced parenthesis in \|e0 - f_theta(e_t, s_e, t))\|^2; the extra closing parenthesis should be removed.
  4. [Table 2] The caption reports paired t-tests with p < 0.05, but no actual p-values or standard deviations are given; please report mean and standard deviation over multiple seeds, or at least the exact p-values for the headline comparisons.
  5. [Section 4.5] The per-dataset hyperparameter choices reported for K, T, ω, λ, γ, and dropout should be summarized in a single table, and the text should state whether the same validation procedure was applied to all baselines before the test results in Table 2 were obtained.
  6. [Algorithm 1] Please clarify the computational cost of the training loop: lines 7-10 appear to run a T-step forward noising pass, a T-step denoising pass, and a separate T-step sampling pass in every batch; the implementation details should state the actual number of diffusion passes per batch and whether the reported runtime reflects this.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains come from held-out next-item prediction, and the intent, diffusion, and contrastive components are jointly trained objectives rather than fitted targets.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim is in Section 4.2, where InDiRec is compared against external baselines on held-out test items using HR and NDCG. The reported metrics are not used to construct the training objective; instead, the recommendation loss (Eq. 22), contrastive loss (Eq. 20), and diffusion loss (Eq. 17) are jointly optimized on training data via Eq. (23). The intent prototypes are produced by K-means on training-sequence representations (Eq. 9), and the guidance signal is a representation drawn from the same cluster (Algorithm 1, line 6); this is an operational definition of intent for the method, not a derivation of the test predictions from that definition. The concern that K-means clusters may not correspond to latent purchasing intents is a correctness/validity risk about the mechanism, not a circularity: even if the clusters were semantically meaningless, the evaluation would remain an independent empirical comparison on unseen items. Likewise, the possibility that Algorithm 1 line 6 could sample the target sequence itself is a potential implementation weakness that could degrade the method, not a by-construction reduction of the reported predictions to the training objective. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation chain: all cited methods are external prior work, and none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem that forces the proposed design. Thus no circular step is exhibited, and the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends mainly on trained hyperparameters, K-means clusters, and the DDPM framework. Most axioms are domain assumptions about the correspondence between embedding-space clusters and real user intents; none are externally verified.

free parameters (9)
  • Number of intent prototypes K = Beauty 32, Sports 256, Toys 1024, Video 128, ML-1M 1024
    Tuned per dataset in Section 4.5.3; controls the granularity of the intent clusters used to guide diffusion.
  • Diffusion steps T = Beauty and ML-1M 50, Sports and Toys 200, Video 100
    Tuned per dataset in Section 4.5.4; directly affects generated view quality and training cost.
  • Guidance scale omega = 2
    Tuned in Section 4.5.5; controls the strength of intent conditioning in classifier-free guidance.
  • Loss weights lambda and gamma = lambda 1 for most datasets, 0.2 for Toys; gamma 0.4 Sports, 0.8 Video, 0.2 others
    Tuned in Section 4.5.1; balances recommendation, contrastive, and diffusion losses.
  • Dropout rate = 0.5 on Beauty, Sports, Toys; 0.4 Video; 0.1 ML-1M
    Tuned in Section 4.5.2; regularizes the sequence encoder.
  • Segmentation bounds m and n = m = 4, n = 50
    Fixed in Section 4.1.4; defines the length range of subsequences produced by D(·).
  • Contrastive temperature tau = 1.0
    Fixed in Section 4.1.4; scales the contrastive similarity.
  • Embedding size d = 64
    Fixed in Section 4.1.4; dimension of item and sequence embeddings.
  • Hyperparameter p = 0.1
    Mentioned in Section 4.1.4 but never used or explained elsewhere in the paper; the role of p is unclear.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption K-means cluster centers in sequence embedding space represent latent purchasing intents.
    Invoked in Section 3.1.4, Eq. 9; this is the core intent representation assumption.
  • domain assumption A randomly selected sequence from the same intent cluster shares the target sequence's intent and can serve as a valid guidance signal.
    Invoked in Section 3.2.2; if false, the diffusion condition s_e is not intent-aligned.
  • domain assumption DDPM forward and reverse processes on continuous sequence embeddings produce meaningful sequence representations after re-encoding.
    Invoked throughout Section 3.2; the generative model is trained and used entirely in embedding space.
  • domain assumption The shared sequence encoder Trans is differentiable and can simultaneously serve recommendation, contrastive, and diffusion objectives.
    Invoked in Section 3.5 and Algorithm 1; multi-task learning relies on a shared representation space.
  • domain assumption Dynamic incremental prefix segmentation D(·) yields subsequences with enough semantic content for intent clustering.
    Invoked in Section 3.1.1, Eq. 7; this segmentation strategy is inherited from session-based recommendation literature.
invented entities (1)
  • Intent prototypes C = {c_j}
    purpose: Quantize the space of sequence representations into K latent intent categories used as conditioning for the diffusion model.
    The prototypes are learned cluster centers with no falsifiable handle outside the paper; they are internal latent variables whose validity is only evaluated indirectly through recommendation accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intent-aware Diffusion with Contrastive Learning for Sequential Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7O7QFYSK

@misc{pith2026250416077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intent-aware Diffusion with Contrastive Learning for Sequential Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7O7QFYSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16077}
}
read the original abstract

Contrastive learning has proven effective in training sequential recommendation models by incorporating self-supervised signals from augmented views. Most existing methods generate multiple views from the same interaction sequence through stochastic data augmentation, aiming to align their representations in the embedding space. However, users typically have specific intents when purchasing items (e.g., buying clothes as gifts or cosmetics for beauty). Random data augmentation used in existing methods may introduce noise, disrupting the latent intent information implicit in the original interaction sequence. Moreover, using noisy augmented sequences in contrastive learning may mislead the model to focus on irrelevant features, distorting the embedding space and failing to capture users' true behavior patterns and intents. To address these issues, we propose Intent-aware Diffusion with contrastive learning for sequential Recommendation (InDiRec). The core idea is to generate item sequences aligned with users' purchasing intents, thus providing more reliable augmented views for contrastive learning. Specifically, InDiRec first performs intent clustering on sequence representations using K-means to build intent-guided signals. Next, it retrieves the intent representation of the target interaction sequence to guide a conditional diffusion model, generating positive views that share the same underlying intent. Finally, contrastive learning is applied to maximize representation consistency between these intent-aligned views and the original sequence. Extensive experiments on five public datasets demonstrate that InDiRec achieves superior performance compared to existing baselines, learning more robust representations even under noisy and sparse data conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16077 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example illustrates that random data augmenta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our InDiRec. InDiRec first performs Intent-guided Signal Construction on training sequences, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Performance comparison across different noise ra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance of InDiRec w.r.t. different hyperpa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of learned intent representations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Renqin Cai, Jibang Wu, Aidan San, Chong Wang, and Hongning Wang. 2021. Category-aware Collaborative Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 388–397

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In Proceed- ings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning . 1597–1607

    2020

  3. [3]

    Yongjun Chen, Zhiwei Liu, Jia Li, Julian McAuley, and Caiming Xiong. 2022. Intent Contrastive Learning for Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. 2172–2182

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Ziqiang Cui, Haolun Wu, Bowei He, Ji Cheng, and Chen Ma. 2024. Context Matters: Enhancing Sequential Recommendation with Context-aware Diffusion- based Contrastive Learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Confer- ence on Information and Knowledge Management . 404–414

    2024

  5. [5]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 4171–4186

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alex Nichol. 2021. Diffusion models beat GANs on image synthesis. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 8780–8794

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Hanwen Du, Huanhuan Yuan, Zhen Huang, Pengpeng Zhao, and Xiaofang Zhou

    work page

  8. [8]

    Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde- Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron C

    Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde- Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron C. Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative Adversarial Nets. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 2672– 2680

    work page 2014

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

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

  2. [10]

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. 2020. Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 6840–6851

    2020

  3. [11]

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. 2022. Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance. (2022). arXiv:2207.12598

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. 2021. Billion-Scale Similarity Search with GPUs. IEEE Transactions on Big Data 7, 3 (2021), 535–547

    2021

  5. [13]

    Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2018. Self-Attentive Sequential Recom- mendation. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining . 197–206

    2018

  6. [14]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Opti- mization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Kingma and Max Welling

    Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling. 2014. Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes. In 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Walid Krichene and Steffen Rendle. 2020. On Sampled Metrics for Item Recom- mendation. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 1748–1757

    2020

  9. [17]

    Xuewei Li, Aitong Sun, Mankun Zhao, Jian Yu, Kun Zhu, Di Jin, Mei Yu, and Ruiguo Yu. 2023. Multi-Intention Oriented Contrastive Learning for Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 411–419

    2023

  10. [18]

    Xiang Li, John Thickstun, Ishaan Gulrajani, Percy S Liang, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. 2022. Diffusion-LM Improves Controllable Text Generation. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 4328–4343

    2022

  11. [19]

    Zihao Li, Aixin Sun, and Chenliang Li. 2023. DiffuRec: A Diffusion Model for Sequential Recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 42, 3, Article 66 (2023), 28 pages

    2023

  12. [20]

    Chang Liu, Xiaoguang Li, Guohao Cai, Zhenhua Dong, Hong Zhu, and Lifeng Shang. 2021. Noninvasive self-attention for side information fusion in sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence . 4249–4256

    2021

  13. [21]

    Qidong Liu, Fan Yan, Xiangyu Zhao, Zhaocheng Du, Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, and Feng Tian. 2023. Diffusion Augmentation for Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 1576–1586

    2023

  14. [22]

    Yu, Julian McAuley, and Caiming Xiong

    Zhiwei Liu, Yongjun Chen, Jia Li, Philip S. Yu, Julian McAuley, and Caiming Xiong. 2021. Contrastive Self-supervised Sequential Recommendation with Robust Augmentation. arXiv:2108.06479

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Anjing Luo, Pengpeng Zhao, Yanchi Liu, Fuzhen Zhuang, Deqing Wang, Jiajie Xu, Junhua Fang, and Victor S. Sheng. 2021. Collaborative self-attention network for session-based recommendation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intellig...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Xiuyuan Qin, Huanhuan Yuan, Pengpeng Zhao, Junhua Fang, Fuzhen Zhuang, Guanfeng Liu, Yanchi Liu, and Victor Sheng. 2023. Meta-optimized Contrastive Learning for Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Ruihong Qiu, Zi Huang, Hongzhi Yin, and Zijian Wang. 2022. Contrastive Learn- ing for Representation Degeneration Problem in Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 813–823

    2022

  18. [26]

    Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, Zeno Gantner, and Lars Schmidt-Thieme

  19. [27]

    Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, and Lars Schmidt-Thieme. 2010. Factor- izing personalized Markov chains for next-basket recommendation. InProceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web . 811–820

    2010

  20. [28]

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

  21. [29]

    Qiaoyu Tan, Jianwei Zhang, Jiangchao Yao, Ninghao Liu, Jingren Zhou, Hongxia Yang, and Xia Hu. 2021. Sparse-Interest Network for Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 598–606

    2021

  22. [30]

    Yong Kiam Tan, Xinxing Xu, and Yong Liu. 2016. Improved Recurrent Neural Networks for Session-based Recommendations. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on Deep Learning for Recommender Systems . 17–22

    2016

  23. [31]

    Jiaxi Tang and Ke Wang. 2018. Personalized Top-N Sequential Recommendation via Convolutional Sequence Embedding. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 565–573

    2018

  24. [32]

    Yusuke Tashiro, Jiaming Song, Yang Song, and Stefano Ermon. 2021. CSDI: Con- ditional Score-based Diffusion Models for Probabilistic Time Series Imputation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 24804–24816

    2021

  25. [33]

    Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing Data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9, 86 (2008), 2579–2605

    2008

  26. [34]

    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 Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 6000–6010

    2017

  27. [35]

    Joojo Walker, Ting Zhong, Fengli Zhang, Qiang Gao, and Fan Zhou. 2022. Rec- ommendation via/nbsp;Collaborative Diffusion Generative Model. In Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management . 593–605

    2022

  28. [36]

    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. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 6332–6338

    2019

  29. [37]

    Wenjie Wang, Yiyan Xu, Fuli Feng, Xinyu Lin, Xiangnan He, and Tat-Seng Chua

  30. [38]

    Yu Wang, Zhiwei Liu, Liangwei Yang, and Philip S. Yu. 2024. Conditional De- noising Diffusion for Sequential Recommendation. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 156–169

    2024

  31. [39]

    Jiancan Wu, Xiang Wang, Fuli Feng, Xiangnan He, Liang Chen, Jianxun Lian, and Xing Xie. 2021. Self-supervised Graph Learning for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 726–735

    2021

  32. [40]

    Liwei Wu, Shuqing Li, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and James Sharpnack. 2020. SSE-PT: Sequential Recommendation Via Personalized Transformer. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 328–337

    2020

  33. [41]

    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 . 346–353

    2019

  34. [42]

    In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    Diffusion Recommender Model. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 832–841

  35. [43]

    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

  36. [44]

    Zhengyi Yang, Jiancan Wu, Zhicai Wang, Xiang Wang, Yancheng Yuan, and Xiangnan He. 2023. Generate What You Prefer: Reshaping Sequential Recom- mendation via Guided Diffusion. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 24247–24261

    2023

  37. [45]

    Junliang Yu, Hongzhi Yin, Xin Xia, Tong Chen, Jundong Li, and Zi Huang. 2024. Self-Supervised Learning for Recommender Systems: A Survey.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 36, 1 (2024), 335–355

    2024

  38. [46]

    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 Pro- ceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on In...

    2020

  39. [47]

    Xu Xie, Fei Sun, Zhaoyang Liu, Shiwen Wu, Jinyang Gao, Jiandong Zhang, Bolin Ding, and Bin Cui. 2022. Contrastive Learning for Sequential Recommendation. In 2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering . 1259–1273

    2022

  40. [48]

    Yanqiao Zhu, Yichen Xu, Feng Yu, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, and Liang Wang. 2021. Graph Contrastive Learning with Adaptive Augmentation. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2021. 2069–2080

    2021

  41. [52]

    Peilin Zhou, Jingqi Gao, Yueqi Xie, Qichen Ye, Yining Hua, Jaeboum Kim, Shoujin Wang, and Sunghun Kim. 2023. Equivariant Contrastive Learning for Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 129–140

    2023

  42. [2009]

    In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence

    BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence . 452–461

  43. [2016]

    In 4th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2016

    Session-based Recommendations with Recurrent Neural Networks. In 4th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2016

    2016

  44. [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

  45. [2023]

    arXiv:2304.04541

    Sequential Recommendation with Diffusion Models. arXiv:2304.04541

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.