Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 84 references

Universal Reusability in Recommender Systems: The Case for Dataset- and Task-Independent Frameworks

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 A schema-based framework aims to end manual recommender reconfiguration.

desk verdict A clear, honest position paper that names a real deployment pain and proposes a plausible schema, but the central reusability claim is a promissory note until a prototype and benchmark arrive. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03391 v1 pith:GS3FH7RB submitted 2025-06-03 cs.IR cs.AIcs.DBcs.LG

Tri Kurniawan Wijaya , Xinyang Shao , Gonzalo Fiz Pontiveros , Edoardo D'Amico This is my paper
classification cs.IRcs.AIcs.DBcs.LG
keywords recommendersystemsdataset-andtask-independentDsDLautomatedmachinelearningfeatureengineeringmodelselectiontasktaxonomyreusability
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

The paper argues that a recommender system can be made dataset- and task-independent: given only a short machine-readable description of a dataset's columns and prediction target, the framework should automatically engineer features, choose a model, and tune hyperparameters. That description language, DsDL, classifies every recommendation task into one of four output structures — binary, numeric, ordered list, or unordered list — and uses that classification to pick preprocessing, loss, and evaluation. The payoff would be code that transfers across datasets without rewriting, lowering the barrier for non-experts and giving researchers a universal baseline to build on. The paper positions this as a road map from Level-1 automation (dataset-agnostic but task-specific) to Level-2 automation (fully dataset- and task-independent), with the caveat that the goal is to raise the floor of baseline performance rather than the ceiling of specialized accuracy. The paper presents this as a conceptual proposal rather than a benchmarked system.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Dataset Description Language (DsDL), an EBNF grammar for $S' = (C, T)$: it lists columns with types (numeric, binary, categorical, ordinal, textual, URL, and list variants) plus a target block declaring the target type (binary, numeric, ordered_list, unordered_list), label_col, key_col, and optional list_size and relevance_col. DsDL carries the argument by doing four jobs: parsing the schema, mapping label_col and key_col to the learning objective, selecting a model architecture from the target type, and configuring feature transformations and hyperparameter search. The task taxonomy in Table 1 links each target structure to a typical loss and evaluation metric, so the schema alone determines the pipeline's objective and yardstick.

What would settle it

Take a set of flat-table datasets spanning all four target types, write DsDL schemas for them, and run a Level-2 DTIRS implementation against manually tuned baselines for each dataset; if the automated pipeline frequently needs human overrides or falls far below generic defaults on a meaningful share of datasets, the claim that DsDL alone suffices for configuration is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reusability does not require a single universal model; it requires a universal interface. Representing a dataset as $S' = (C, T)$ — columns plus a task descriptor — is enough for the system to run $\Phi(S)$ for automated feature engineering and to solve $f_S^*, \theta^* = \arg\min_{f,\theta} \mathbb{E}[L(f(X';\theta), Y)]$ for model selection and optimization. The four-way task taxonomy (binary, numeric, ordered list, unordered list) is what lets one pipeline read a new dataset's DsDL and configure itself, even though models still need retraining on new data. The paper calls this Level-2 automation and presents DsDL as the foundational tool, explicitly accepting that specialized systems may still outperform it on individual tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a DsDL schema — column names, column types, a target type, a key column, and optional list size and relevance column — contains enough information for an automated system to choose features, models, and hyperparameters with acceptable performance; if it does not, DTIRS still requires human expertise and the reusability claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single codebase using DsDL could accept a new flat-table dataset and output a configured predictor for any of the four target types without manual feature engineering or model selection.
  • Non-experts could deploy recommender systems by writing only a short DsDL description, removing the domain expertise currently required for per-dataset tuning.
  • Research reproducibility would improve because published results could be re-run on new datasets by swapping the DsDL schema rather than reimplementing the pipeline.
  • Level-2 automation trades away the top of the performance distribution: DTIRS aims to improve the universal baseline, not to beat specialized per-dataset systems.
  • Moving from Level-1 to Level-2 requires solving task recognition, task-specific loss and metric configuration, and the computational overhead of automated search.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims, DsDL schemas could double as a benchmark harness: by scoring how much automated configuration improves over a fixed default pipeline on each schema, the community could quantify the 'raise the floor' claim directly.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, if DsDL were adopted as a shared standard, the same loss functions and metrics (NDCG for ordered lists, Jaccard for unordered lists, AUC for binary) could be wired automatically across implementations, so reproducibility studies would focus on model quality instead of glue code.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, the four-type taxonomy suggests an architecture the paper does not specify: a shared feature-encoding backbone with task-specific heads and losses, which would be a natural testbed for whether one pipeline can really serve all four target types.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, a stress test the paper leaves open is datasets where the target type is ambiguous (e.g., a rating column that could be treated as numeric or ordered), which would reveal whether DsDL is unambiguous enough to automate model selection without human judgement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Dataset- and Task-Independent Recommender Systems (DTIRS), a conceptual framework intended to let a single recommendation pipeline adapt to new datasets and task types without manual reconfiguration. The enabling component is a proposed Dataset Description Language (DsDL), a JSON-like schema that records column types, a target type, a label column, a key column, and optional list-size and relevance columns. The central claims are that, given a DsDL schema, DTIRS autonomously performs feature engineering, model selection, and optimization (Sections 4.3–4.5), and that these capabilities define a new automation level, Level-2, in which the same core code handles the four target types of Table 1: binary, numeric, ordered-list, and unordered-list prediction. The paper is explicitly a position/roadmap paper: the appendix FAQ A2 states that experimental results are not the focus and refers to a work-in-progress website for a prototype. The formal content is Equations (1)–(5), which are definitions and an uninstantiated optimization statement, plus the DsDL grammar and four illustrative listings.

Significance. If the central claim were established, DTIRS would be a genuinely useful community resource: it could lower the barrier to entry for recommender systems, improve reproducibility by providing a universal baseline, and reuse pipeline code across datasets and tasks. The four-way task taxonomy in Table 1 is a clean, practical organizing device, and the DsDL grammar is a concrete, testable proposal for a machine-readable dataset description format. The paper is also honest in its limitations: Section 8.2 acknowledges the flat-table restriction, Section 8.5 acknowledges missing domain-knowledge integration, and FAQ A2 openly states that no experiments are included. However, the manuscript currently ships no implementation, benchmark, or formal argument, so the paper's principal claim remains an unverified architectural vision rather than a demonstrated framework.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.5, Eq. (5), and Appendix A2] The central claim that DTIRS autonomously performs feature engineering, model selection, and optimization is not supported by an implementation, a benchmark, or a formal argument. Equation (5) is an uninstantiated arg-min over an unspecified candidate family F_T; the paper does not specify F_T, the search algorithm, or any empirical protocol. FAQ A2 acknowledges the absence of experimental results and asserts that a traditional experiment can be replicated in DTIRS with the same results, but this is a definitional statement, not evidence that DTIRS can select competitive models in practice. The authors should either provide a prototype with experiments on multiple datasets spanning at least two of the four task types in Table 1, or rewrite the abstract and Section 4.5 claims as explicit research goals rather than achieved capabilities.
  2. [Section 5.2.1–5.2.2, Listings 2 and 3] DsDL as specified does not carry enough semantic information for the task-aware model selection claimed in Section 5.3. In Listing 2, user_id and ad_id are merely categorical columns and key_col is index_id, not a user or item key; similarly, in Listing 3, key_col is index_id rather than user_id or movie_id. A DsDL schema therefore cannot tell the model-selection function of Section 4.4 whether the problem is collaborative filtering over a user-item interaction matrix or supervised regression over a flattened feature table. Since Equation (4) selects among F_T using only the task descriptor T, the manuscript needs either to add explicit semantic roles such as user_key and item_key to DsDL, or to give a concrete mapping from TargetType to candidate model families and demonstrate that this mapping produces competitive models. Without this, the central reusability claim fails: the schema adds no selection information beyond what generic AutoML already obtains from column types.
  3. [Section 6.3 and Section 8.2] The Level-2 definition of task-independence is circular as stated: a system is task-independent if it can solve 'any recommendation task defined in DsDL,' but DsDL is introduced by the same paper and is currently restricted to flat tables (Section 8.2). Table 1 covers four target structures but omits tasks such as session-based or sequential recommendation, multi-task objectives, and tasks requiring relational structure. The claim of universal reusability is therefore bounded by an arbitrary taxonomy that the authors themselves control. The paper should either narrow the contribution to the four stated task types on flat tables and say so explicitly in the title and abstract, or extend DsDL with the mechanisms (e.g., sequence columns, relational joins) needed to represent the omitted task classes.
  4. [Section 4.3, Eq. (3)] The automated feature engineering claim is underspecified. Equation (3) defines X' = Phi(S), but the surrounding text only lists generic AutoML techniques such as missing-value handling, categorical encoding, and feature selection. The manuscript never specifies which transformations are triggered by which schema entries, nor does it offer any evidence that column types alone determine the correct preprocessing. This matters because Section 4.3 is one of the three pillars of Level-2 autonomy (feature engineering, model selection, optimization). A concrete decision rule, or at least a worked example showing how a schema entry such as list_of_categorical leads to a specific transformation, is needed to make the claim falsifiable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'Instead of treating datasets as rigid structures, we represents a dataset D' contains a subject-verb agreement error and should read 'we represent.'
  2. [Section 5.1, Listing 1] The EBNF grammar contains typographical artifacts that obscure the definition, including broken tokens such as 'la be l_ co l' and the missing spacing around 'list_size'; these should be cleaned and the grammar should be machine-checked or compiled to a parser.
  3. [Section 2] The sentence 'In the following, we discusses the practical limitations' should read 'we discuss.'
  4. [Section 5.2.1] In Listing 2, the sentence 'The model then need to perform' should be 'The model then needs to perform.'
  5. [Section 3 and reference [69]] Reference [69] (the authors' own 'Dataset-agnostic recommender systems') is cited in the reproducibility discussion but is not positioned in Section 3 relative to DTIRS; the authors should state how DTIRS differs from that prior proposal and what new contribution DsDL makes beyond it.
  6. [Appendix A2] The claim that a prototype is available at https://dtirs.gitlab.io would be more verifiable if the manuscript included a versioned repository identifier, a minimal working example, or a link to the code at the time of submission; the current description as 'work in progress' makes the reproducibility argument difficult to assess.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DTIRS is a position/roadmap paper whose claims are proposals, not derived predictions, and its self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper does not fit parameters, train models, or report empirical predictions, so there is no fitted input being renamed as a prediction. The central claim—that DsDL enables autonomous feature engineering, model selection, and optimization—is presented as a research proposal and formalized in Eqs. (3)–(5) as objectives for future automation; Appendix Q2 explicitly states that 'experimental results are not the focus of this paper because the core contribution is conceptual.' DsDL is introduced in this paper, not imported from prior work, and the only directly related self-citation [69] appears in Section 2 as one of several references supporting the well-known reproducibility problem, alongside independent works [11,20,23,67]; it is not load-bearing for the DsDL/DTIRS argument. The closest candidate for self-definitional circularity is Table 2's Level-2 characterization 'Task-Independent: Can solve any recommendation task defined in DsDL,' which scopes task independence to the authors' own schema; however, this is an explicitly stated boundary rather than a derivation of a result from an input, and the paper acknowledges related scope limits in Sections 8.2 and 8.5. No equation reduces to itself by construction, and no uniqueness or prior-work theorem is invoked to force the framework's choices. Under the requirement to exhibit a specific reduction, no circular step can be quoted; the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on the sufficiency of the DsDL schema and the exhaustiveness of the four task categories. Both are introduced as assumptions rather than demonstrated. There are no fitted parameters in the paper.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The four output-structure categories (binary, real-valued, ordered list, unordered list) are exhaustive for recommendation tasks.
    Used in Section 4.4 and Table 1 to define task-independent modeling; the paper itself notes in a footnote that the categorization is based on observation and may need extension.
  • ad hoc to paper A DsDL schema provides sufficient information for autonomous feature engineering, model selection, and optimization.
    Core operational premise of DTIRS, assumed in Sections 4.3 and 5.3; no implementation or benchmark is provided to support it.
  • ad hoc to paper A traditional pipeline's experiment can be replicated in DTIRS with identical results provided the same models and hyperparameters are used.
    Asserted in FAQ A2 to justify the absence of experiments; this assumes the DTIRS wrapper and automated preprocessing do not alter results, which is unproven.
invented entities (1)
  • Dataset Description Language (DsDL)
    purpose: A structured schema language to describe dataset columns, target types, key columns, and task parameters so that a framework can autonomously configure a recommendation pipeline.
    The paper provides the EBNF grammar and examples, but no implementation, usage outside the authors' description, or benchmark. The associated website is described as work in progress.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Universal Reusability in Recommender Systems: The Case for Dataset- and Task-Independent Frameworks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GS3FH7RB

@misc{pith2026250603391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Universal Reusability in Recommender Systems: The Case for Dataset- and Task-Independent Frameworks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GS3FH7RB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03391}
}
read the original abstract

Recommender systems are pivotal in delivering personalized experiences across industries, yet their adoption and scalability remain hindered by the need for extensive dataset- and task-specific configurations. Existing systems often require significant manual intervention, domain expertise, and engineering effort to adapt to new datasets or tasks, creating barriers to entry and limiting reusability. In contrast, recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the transformative potential of reusable systems, where a single model can handle diverse tasks without significant reconfiguration. Inspired by this paradigm, we propose the Dataset- and Task-Independent Recommender System (DTIRS), a framework aimed at maximizing the reusability of recommender systems while minimizing barriers to entry. Unlike LLMs, which achieve task generalization directly, DTIRS focuses on eliminating the need to rebuild or reconfigure recommendation pipelines for every new dataset or task, even though models may still need retraining on new data. By leveraging the novel Dataset Description Language (DsDL), DTIRS enables standardized dataset descriptions and explicit task definitions, allowing autonomous feature engineering, model selection, and optimization. This paper introduces the concept of DTIRS and establishes a roadmap for transitioning from Level-1 automation (dataset-agnostic but task-specific systems) to Level-2 automation (fully dataset- and task-independent systems). Achieving this paradigm would maximize code reusability and lower barriers to adoption. We discuss key challenges, including the trade-offs between generalization and specialization, computational overhead, and scalability, while presenting DsDL as a foundational tool for this vision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03391 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the typical recommender system workflow (left) compared to our proposed DTIRS (right). The typical workflow often requires human expert and manual effort for feature engineering, model development, and hyperparameter tuning across different datasets, creating a barrier to entry; the results are typically dataset- or task-specific codes or pipelines, reducing reusability. In contrast, with the help of DsD… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [69]

    Dataset-Agnostic Recommender Systems

    Tri Kurniawan Wijaya, Edoardo D’Amico, and Xinyang Shao. Dataset-agnostic recommender systems. CoRR, abs/2501.07294, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    Adomavicius and A

    G. Adomavicius and A. Tuzhilin. Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 17(6):734–749, 2005

    2005

  4. [3]

    Auto-surprise: An automated recommender-system (autorecsys) library with tree of parzens estimator (tpe) optimization

    Rohan Anand and Joeran Beel. Auto-surprise: An automated recommender-system (autorecsys) library with tree of parzens estimator (tpe) optimization. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 585–587, 2020

    2020

  5. [4]

    Elliot: A comprehensive and rigorous framework for reproducible recommender systems evaluation

    Vito Walter Anelli, Alejandro Bellogín, Antonio Ferrara, Daniele Malitesta, Felice Antonio Merra, Claudio Pomo, Francesco Maria Donini, and Tommaso Di Noia. Elliot: A comprehensive and rigorous framework for reproducible recommender systems evaluation. In Proceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information...

    2021

  6. [5]

    Exploiting graph structured cross-domain representation for multi-domain recommendation

    Alejandro Ariza-Casabona, Bartlomiej Twardowski, and Tri Kurniawan Wijaya. Exploiting graph structured cross-domain representation for multi-domain recommendation. In European Conference on Information Retrieval, pages 49–65. Springer, 2023

    2023

  7. [6]

    Fab: content-based, collaborative recommendation

    Marko Balabanovi´c and Yoav Shoham. Fab: content-based, collaborative recommendation. Communications of the ACM, 40(3):66–72, 1997

    work page 1997

  8. [7]

    Tallrec: An effective and efficient tuning framework to align large language model with recommendation

    Keqin Bao, Jizhi Zhang, Yang Zhang, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, and Xiangnan He. Tallrec: An effective and efficient tuning framework to align large language model with recommendation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 1007–1014, 2023

    2023

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    Hyperopt: a python library for model selection and hyperparameter optimization

    James Bergstra, Brent Komer, Chris Eliasmith, Dan Yamins, and David D Cox. Hyperopt: a python library for model selection and hyperparameter optimization. Computational Science & Discovery, 8(1):014008, 2015

    2015

  2. [9]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  3. [10]

    Hybrid recommender systems: Survey and experiments

    Robin Burke. Hybrid recommender systems: Survey and experiments. User modeling and user-adapted interaction, 12:331–370, 2002

    2002

  4. [11]

    A system- atic study on reproducibility of reinforcement learning in recommendation systems

    Emanuele Cavenaghi, Gabriele Sottocornola, Fabio Stella, and Markus Zanker. A system- atic study on reproducibility of reinforcement learning in recommendation systems. ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems, 1(3):1–23, 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    Pefa: Parameter-free adapters for large-scale embedding-based retrieval models

    Wei-Cheng Chang, Jyun-Yu Jiang, Jiong Zhang, Mutasem Al-Darabsah, Choon Hui Teo, Cho- Jui Hsieh, Hsiang-Fu Yu, and SVN Vishwanathan. Pefa: Parameter-free adapters for large-scale embedding-based retrieval models. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web S...

    2024

  6. [13]

    A comprehensive survey on automated machine learning for recommendations.ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems, 2(2):1–38, 2024

    Bo Chen, Xiangyu Zhao, Yejing Wang, Wenqi Fan, Huifeng Guo, and Ruiming Tang. A comprehensive survey on automated machine learning for recommendations.ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems, 2(2):1–38, 2024. 15

    2024

  7. [14]

    Neural feature search: A neural architecture for automated feature engineering

    Xiangning Chen, Qingwei Lin, Chuan Luo, Xudong Li, Hongyu Zhang, Yong Xu, Yingnong Dang, Kaixin Sui, Xu Zhang, Bo Qiao, et al. Neural feature search: A neural architecture for automated feature engineering. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 71–...

    2019

  8. [15]

    Uncovering chatgpt’s capabilities in recommender systems

    Sunhao Dai, Ninglu Shao, Haiyuan Zhao, Weijie Yu, Zihua Si, Chen Xu, Zhongxiang Sun, Xiao Zhang, and Jun Xu. Uncovering chatgpt’s capabilities in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 1126–1132, 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of naacL-HLT, volume 1. Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2019

    2019

  10. [17]

    The llama 3 herd of models

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Lenskit: a modular recommender framework

    Michael D Ekstrand, Michael Ludwig, Jack Kolb, and John T Riedl. Lenskit: a modular recommender framework. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems, pages 349–350, 2011

    2011

  12. [19]

    Neural architecture search: A survey

    Thomas Elsken, Jan Hendrik Metzen, and Frank Hutter. Neural architecture search: A survey. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 20(55):1–21, 2019

    2019

  13. [20]

    Are we really making much progress? a worrying analysis of recent neural recommendation approaches

    Maurizio Ferrari Dacrema, Paolo Cremonesi, and Dietmar Jannach. Are we really making much progress? a worrying analysis of recent neural recommendation approaches. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on recommender systems, pages 101–109, 2019

    2019

  14. [21]

    Cross- domain meta-learner for cold-start recommendation

    Renchu Guan, Haoyu Pang, Fausto Giunchiglia, Yanchun Liang, and Xiaoyue Feng. Cross- domain meta-learner for cold-start recommendation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(8):7829–7843, 2022

    2022

  15. [22]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    The effect of third party implementations on reproducibil- ity

    Balázs Hidasi and Ádám Tibor Czapp. The effect of third party implementations on reproducibil- ity. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 272–282, 2023

    2023

  17. [24]

    The autofeat python library for automated feature engineering and selection

    Franziska Horn, Robert Pack, and Michael Rieger. The autofeat python library for automated feature engineering and selection. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: International Workshops of ECML PKDD 2019, Würzburg, Germany, September 16–20, 2019, Proceedi...

    2019

  18. [25]

    Ecat: A entire space continual and adaptive transfer learning framework for cross-domain recommendation

    Chaoqun Hou, Yuanhang Zhou, Yi Cao, and Tong Liu. Ecat: A entire space continual and adaptive transfer learning framework for cross-domain recommendation. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages ...

    2024

  19. [26]

    Collaborative filtering for implicit feedback datasets

    Yifan Hu, Yehuda Koren, and Chris V olinsky. Collaborative filtering for implicit feedback datasets. In 2008 Eighth IEEE international conference on data mining, pages 263–272. Ieee, 2008

    2008

  20. [27]

    Self-supervised contrastive enhancement with symmetric few-shot learning towers for cold-start news recom- mendation

    Hao Jiang, Chuanzhen Li, Juanjuan Cai, Runyu Tian, and Jingling Wang. Self-supervised contrastive enhancement with symmetric few-shot learning towers for cold-start news recom- mendation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Mana...

    2023

  21. [28]

    Knowledge- aware cross-semantic alignment for domain-level zero-shot recommendation

    Junji Jiang, Hongke Zhao, Ming He, Likang Wu, Kai Zhang, and Jianping Fan. Knowledge- aware cross-semantic alignment for domain-level zero-shot recommendation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 965–975, 2023

    2023

  22. [29]

    Automatic multi-task learning framework with neural architecture search in recommendations

    Shen Jiang, Guanghui Zhu, Yue Wang, Chunfeng Yuan, and Yihua Huang. Automatic multi-task learning framework with neural architecture search in recommendations. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 1290–1300, 2024. 16

    2024

  23. [30]

    Neural input search for large scale recommendation models

    Manas R Joglekar, Cong Li, Mei Chen, Taibai Xu, Xiaoming Wang, Jay K Adams, Pranav Khaitan, Jiahui Liu, and Quoc V Le. Neural input search for large scale recommendation models. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining...

    2020

  24. [31]

    Large language models meet collaborative filtering: An efficient all-round llm-based recommender system

    Sein Kim, Hongseok Kang, Seungyoon Choi, Donghyun Kim, Minchul Yang, and Chanyoung Park. Large language models meet collaborative filtering: An efficient all-round llm-based recommender system. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mi...

    2024

  25. [32]

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners

    Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:22199–22213, 2022

    2022

  26. [33]

    Matrix factorization techniques for recom- mender systems

    Yehuda Koren, Robert Bell, and Chris V olinsky. Matrix factorization techniques for recom- mender systems. Computer, 42(8):30–37, 2009

    2009

  27. [34]

    Advances in collaborative filtering

    Yehuda Koren, Steffen Rendle, and Robert Bell. Advances in collaborative filtering. Recom- mender systems handbook, pages 91–142, 2021

    2021

  28. [35]

    Auto- weka 2.0: Automatic model selection and hyperparameter optimization in weka

    Lars Kotthoff, Chris Thornton, Holger H Hoos, Frank Hutter, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. Auto- weka 2.0: Automatic model selection and hyperparameter optimization in weka. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(25):1–5, 2017

    2017

  29. [36]

    Melu: Meta-learned user preference estimator for cold-start recommendation

    Hoyeop Lee, Jinbae Im, Seongwon Jang, Hyunsouk Cho, and Sehee Chung. Melu: Meta-learned user preference estimator for cold-start recommendation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 1073–1082, 2019

    2019

  30. [37]

    Prompt distillation for efficient llm-based recommenda- tion

    Lei Li, Yongfeng Zhang, and Li Chen. Prompt distillation for efficient llm-based recommenda- tion. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 1348–1357, 2023

    2023

  31. [38]

    Automlp: Automated mlp for sequential recommendations

    Muyang Li, Zijian Zhang, Xiangyu Zhao, Wanyu Wang, Minghao Zhao, Runze Wu, and Ruocheng Guo. Automlp: Automated mlp for sequential recommendations. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pages 1190–1198, 2023

    2023

  32. [39]

    Recai: Leveraging large language models for next-generation recommender systems

    Jianxun Lian, Yuxuan Lei, Xu Huang, Jing Yao, Wei Xu, and Xing Xie. Recai: Leveraging large language models for next-generation recommender systems. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024, pages 1031–1034, 2024

    2024

  33. [40]

    Llara: Large language-recommendation assistant

    Jiayi Liao, Sihang Li, Zhengyi Yang, Jiancan Wu, Yancheng Yuan, Xiang Wang, and Xiangnan He. Llara: Large language-recommendation assistant. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 1785– 1795, 2024

    2024

  34. [41]

    Tune: A research platform for distributed model selection and training

    Richard Liaw, Eric Liang, Robert Nishihara, Philipp Moritz, Joseph E Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Tune: A research platform for distributed model selection and training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.05118, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  35. [42]

    DARTS: differentiable architecture search

    Hanxiao Liu, Karen Simonyan, and Yiming Yang. DARTS: differentiable architecture search. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net, 2019

    2019

  36. [43]

    Automated feature selection: A reinforcement learning perspective

    Kunpeng Liu, Yanjie Fu, Le Wu, Xiaolin Li, Charu Aggarwal, and Hui Xiong. Automated feature selection: A reinforcement learning perspective. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(3):2272–2284, 2021

    2021

  37. [44]

    Online Meta-Learning for Model Update Aggregation in Federated Learning for Click-Through Rate Prediction

    Xianghang Liu, Bartłomiej Twardowski, and Tri Kurniawan Wijaya. Online Meta-Learning for Model Update Aggregation in Federated Learning for Click-Through Rate Prediction. 28th ACM SIGKDD 2022 Workshop on AdKDD, 2022

    2022

  38. [45]

    Content-based recommender systems: State of the art and trends

    Pasquale Lops, Marco De Gemmis, and Giovanni Semeraro. Content-based recommender systems: State of the art and trends. Recommender systems handbook, pages 73–105, 2011

    2011

  39. [46]

    Bayesian optimization for automated model selection

    Gustavo Malkomes, Charles Schaff, and Roman Garnett. Bayesian optimization for automated model selection. Advances in neural information processing systems, 29, 2016

    2016

  40. [47]

    Recpack: An (other) experimentation toolkit for top-n recommendation using implicit feedback data

    Lien Michiels, Robin Verachtert, and Bart Goethals. Recpack: An (other) experimentation toolkit for top-n recommendation using implicit feedback data. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 648–651, 2022. 17

    2022

  41. [48]

    Ctr-bert: Cost-effective knowledge distillation for billion-parameter teacher models

    Aashiq Muhamed, Iman Keivanloo, Sujan Perera, James Mracek, Yi Xu, Qingjun Cui, Santosh Rajagopalan, Belinda Zeng, and Trishul Chilimbi. Ctr-bert: Cost-effective knowledge distillation for billion-parameter teacher models. In NeurIPS Efficient Natural Language and Speech Proce...

    2021

  42. [49]

    The elephant in the room: Rethinking the usage of pre-trained language model in sequential recommendation

    Zekai Qu, Ruobing Xie, Chaojun Xiao, Zhanhui Kang, and Xingwu Sun. The elephant in the room: Rethinking the usage of pre-trained language model in sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 53–62, 2024

    2024

  43. [50]

    Cornac: A comparative framework for multimodal recommender systems

    Aghiles Salah, Quoc-Tuan Truong, and Hady W Lauw. Cornac: A comparative framework for multimodal recommender systems. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(95):1–5, 2020

    2020

  44. [51]

    Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms

    Badrul Sarwar, George Karypis, Joseph Konstan, and John Riedl. Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 285–295, 2001

    2001

  45. [52]

    Selecting a classification method by cross-validation

    Cullen Schaffer. Selecting a classification method by cross-validation. Machine learning, 13:135–143, 1993

    1993

  46. [53]

    Autorec: Autoencoders meet collaborative filtering

    Suvash Sedhain, Aditya Krishna Menon, Scott Sanner, and Lexing Xie. Autorec: Autoencoders meet collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 111–112, 2015

    2015

  47. [54]

    RBoard: A Unified Platform for Reproducible and Reusable Recommender System Benchmarks

    Xinyang Shao, Edoardo D’Amico, Gábor Fodor, and Tri Kurniawan Wijaya. RBoard: A Unified Platform for Reproducible and Reusable Recommender System Benchmarks. CoRR, abs/2409.05526, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Librec-auto: A tool for recommender systems experimen- tation

    Nasim Sonboli, Masoud Mansoury, Ziyue Guo, Shreyas Kadekodi, Weiwen Liu, Zijun Liu, Andrew Schwartz, and Robin Burke. Librec-auto: A tool for recommender systems experimen- tation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, p...

    2021

  49. [56]

    Large language models enhanced collaborative filtering

    Zhongxiang Sun, Zihua Si, Xiaoxue Zang, Kai Zheng, Yang Song, Xiao Zhang, and Jun Xu. Large language models enhanced collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , pages 2178–2188, 2024

    2024

  50. [57]

    Are we evaluating rigorously? benchmarking recommendation for reproducible evaluation and fair comparison

    Zhu Sun, Di Yu, Hui Fang, Jie Yang, Xinghua Qu, Jie Zhang, and Cong Geng. Are we evaluating rigorously? benchmarking recommendation for reproducible evaluation and fair comparison. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 2020

    2020

  51. [58]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  52. [59]

    A meta-learning perspective on cold-start recommendations for items

    Manasi Vartak, Arvind Thiagarajan, Conrado Miranda, Jeshua Bratman, and Hugo Larochelle. A meta-learning perspective on cold-start recommendations for items. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  53. [60]

    Introducing lenskit-auto, an experimental au- tomated recommender system (autorecsys) toolkit

    Tobias Vente, Michael Ekstrand, and Joeran Beel. Introducing lenskit-auto, an experimental au- tomated recommender system (autorecsys) toolkit. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 1212–1216, 2023

    2023

  54. [61]

    Autosr: Automatic sequen- tial recommendation system design

    Chunnan Wang, Hongzhi Wang, Junzhe Wang, and Guosheng Feng. Autosr: Automatic sequen- tial recommendation system design. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2024

    2024

  55. [62]

    Sta: Self-controlled text augmentation for improving text classifications

    Congcong Wang, Gonzalo Fiz Pontiveros, Steven Derby, and Tri Kurniawan Wijaya. Sta: Self-controlled text augmentation for improving text classifications. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on e-Commerce and NLP@ LREC-COLING 2024, pages 97–114, 2024

    2024

  56. [63]

    A pre-trained zero-shot sequential recom- mendation framework via popularity dynamics

    Junting Wang, Praneet Rathi, and Hari Sundaram. A pre-trained zero-shot sequential recom- mendation framework via popularity dynamics. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 433–443, 2024

    2024

  57. [64]

    Au- torec: An automated recommender system

    Ting-Hsiang Wang, Xia Hu, Haifeng Jin, Qingquan Song, Xiaotian Han, and Zirui Liu. Au- torec: An automated recommender system. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 582–584, 2020. 18

    2020

  58. [65]

    Automatic fea- ture selection by one-shot neural architecture search in recommendation systems

    He Wei, Yuekui Yang, Haiyang Wu, Yangyang Tang, Meixi Liu, and Jianfeng Li. Automatic fea- ture selection by one-shot neural architecture search in recommendation systems. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pages 1765–1772, 2023

    2023

  59. [66]

    Llmrec: Large language models with graph augmentation for recommendation

    Wei Wei, Xubin Ren, Jiabin Tang, Qinyong Wang, Lixin Su, Suqi Cheng, Junfeng Wang, Dawei Yin, and Chao Huang. Llmrec: Large language models with graph augmentation for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages ...

    2024

  60. [67]

    Reproduce, replicate, reevaluate

    Luisa Werner, Nabil Layaïda, Pierre Genevès, Jérôme Euzenat, and Damien Graux. Reproduce, replicate, reevaluate. the long but safe way to extend machine learning methods. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 15850–15858, 2024

    2024

  61. [68]

    Loureiro

    Tri Kurniawan Wijaya, Edoardo D’Amico, Gábor Fodor, and Manuel V . Loureiro. Rs4rs: Semantically find recent publications from top recommendation system-related venues. In Tommaso Di Noia, Pasquale Lops, Thorsten Joachims, Katrien Verbert, Pablo Castells, Zhenhua Dong, and Ben...

    2024

  62. [70]

    Empowering news recommendation with pre-trained language models

    Chuhan Wu, Fangzhao Wu, Tao Qi, and Yongfeng Huang. Empowering news recommendation with pre-trained language models. In Proceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, pages 1652–1656, 2021

    2021

  63. [71]

    MM-GEF: Multi-modal representation meet collaborative filtering

    Hao Wu, Alejandro Ariza-Casabona, Bartlomiej Twardowski, and Tri Kurniawan Wijaya. MM-GEF: Multi-modal representation meet collaborative filtering. CoRR, abs/2308.07222, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    M2eu: Meta learning for cold-start recommendation via enhancing user preference estimation

    Zhenchao Wu and Xiao Zhou. M2eu: Meta learning for cold-start recommendation via enhancing user preference estimation. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 1158–1167, 2023

    2023

  65. [73]

    Towards open-world recommendation with knowledge augmentation from large language models

    Yunjia Xi, Weiwen Liu, Jianghao Lin, Xiaoling Cai, Hong Zhu, Jieming Zhu, Bo Chen, Ruiming Tang, Weinan Zhang, and Yong Yu. Towards open-world recommendation with knowledge augmentation from large language models. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender System...

    2024

  66. [74]

    Extreme meta-classification for large- scale zero-shot retrieval

    Sachin Yadav, Deepak Saini, Anirudh Buvanesh, Bhawna Paliwal, Kunal Dahiya, Siddarth Asokan, Yashoteja Prabhu, Jian Jiao, and Manik Varma. Extreme meta-classification for large- scale zero-shot retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery ...

    2024

  67. [75]

    On hyperparameter optimization of machine learning algorithms: Theory and practice

    Li Yang and Abdallah Shami. On hyperparameter optimization of machine learning algorithms: Theory and practice. Neurocomputing, 415:295–316, 2020

    2020

  68. [76]

    ihas: Instance-wise hierarchical architecture search for deep learning recommendation models

    Yakun Yu, Shi-ang Qi, Jiuding Yang, Liyao Jiang, and Di Niu. ihas: Instance-wise hierarchical architecture search for deep learning recommendation models. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 3030–3039, 2023

    2023

  69. [77]

    Dns-rec: Data-aware neural architecture search for recommender systems

    Sheng Zhang, Maolin Wang, Xiangyu Zhao, Ruocheng Guo, Yao Zhao, Chenyi Zhuang, Jinjie Gu, Zijian Zhang, and Hongzhi Yin. Dns-rec: Data-aware neural architecture search for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pages 591–600, 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    A collaborative transfer learning framework for cross-domain recommendation

    Wei Zhang, Pengye Zhang, Bo Zhang, Xingxing Wang, and Dong Wang. A collaborative transfer learning framework for cross-domain recommendation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 5576–5585, 2023

    2023

  71. [79]

    Recbole: Towards a unified, comprehensive and efficient framework for recommendation algorithms

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Shanlei Mu, Yupeng Hou, Zihan Lin, Yushuo Chen, Xingyu Pan, Kaiyuan Li, Yujie Lu, Hui Wang, Changxin Tian, et al. Recbole: Towards a unified, comprehensive and efficient framework for recommendation algorithms. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Confe...

    2021

  72. [80]

    Automl for deep recommender systems: A survey

    Ruiqi Zheng, Liang Qu, Bin Cui, Yuhui Shi, and Hongzhi Yin. Automl for deep recommender systems: A survey. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 41(4):1–38, 2023. 19

    2023

  73. [81]

    Nas-ctr: efficient neural architecture search for click-through rate prediction

    Guanghui Zhu, Feng Cheng, Defu Lian, Chunfeng Yuan, and Yihua Huang. Nas-ctr: efficient neural architecture search for click-through rate prediction. In Proceedings of the 45th Interna- tional ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 332...

    2022

  74. [82]

    Difer: Differentiable automated feature engineering

    Guanghui Zhu, Zhuoer Xu, Chunfeng Yuan, and Yihua Huang. Difer: Differentiable automated feature engineering. In International Conference on Automated Machine Learning, pages 17–1. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  75. [83]

    Bars: Towards open benchmarking for recommender systems

    Jieming Zhu, Quanyu Dai, Liangcai Su, Rong Ma, Jinyang Liu, Guohao Cai, Xi Xiao, and Rui Zhang. Bars: Towards open benchmarking for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 29...

    2022

  76. [84]

    Barret Zoph and Quoc V . Le. Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning. In5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings. OpenReview.net, 2017. 20

    2017

Pith tools

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