C-TLSAN: Content-Enhanced Time-Aware Long- and Short-Term Attention Network for Personalized Recommendation

Siqi Liang; Yubo Wang; Yudi Zhang

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 19 references

C-TLSAN: Content-Enhanced Time-Aware Long- and Short-Term Attention Network for Personalized Recommendation

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read C-TLSAN claims that fusing product-description embeddings into both long- and short-term attention beats a text-free predecessor and an LLM recommender on next-item prediction.

desk verdict A simple content-embedding extension of TLSAN that is easy to follow and worth fixing, but the headline numbers are uninterpretable until the candidate-set and negative-sampling protocol is disclosed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13021 v1 pith:NKAEF2HG submitted 2025-06-16 cs.LG

Siqi Liang , Yudi Zhang , Yubo Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords content-awaresequentialrecommendationtime-awareattentionmechanismlong-andshort-termuserpreferencesnext-itempredictionitemtextembeddingslargelanguagemodelAmazonproductdatasetsTLSANextension

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 claims that adding item-text signals to a time-aware sequence recommender improves next-item prediction beyond what interaction counts alone can provide. It proposes C-TLSAN, an extension of the TLSAN architecture in which product descriptions are converted to compact semantic vectors and concatenated with item-ID and category embeddings inside both the long-term and short-term attention branches. On ten Amazon product categories it reports an average AUC gain of 1.66% over TLSAN and, in relative terms, Recall@10 and Precision@10 gains of about 94%, with the largest absolute jumps on text-rich categories such as Office Products, Beauty, and Home and Kitchen. It further reports that a prompt-based LLM recommender built on LLAMA 3.3 70B trails C-TLSAN on all ten categories, which the paper attributes to the LLM lacking session boundaries, time intervals, and recency cues.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the content-enhanced dual-attention block. For each item, a frozen sentence-transformer embedding of its text (all-MiniLM-L6-v2) is concatenated with the item-ID and category embeddings; this combined vector enters both the long-term attention layer, which covers sessions before the current one and adds personalized time position embeddings, and the short-term attention layer, which covers the current session and is concatenated with the long-term preference vector. Feature-wise attention in the style of the Deep Interest Network then produces a unified user vector, and a dynamic user-category vector is summed in for the final prediction. This mechanism is load-bearing because the only architectural difference from the TLSAN baseline is the injected content embedding; all reported gains are attributed to that single change.

What would settle it

Run the released code with a fixed candidate pool, a fixed negative-sampling seed, and identical session splits, then compare C-TLSAN with TLSAN on the ten Amazon categories; if the relative Recall@10 gain drops far below the reported roughly 94% or the AUC gain is not consistently positive, the central claim fails. The tables in the paper give exact per-category values to reproduce, including the 4.12% to 8.57% Recall@10 jump on CDs and Vinyl.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the discovery is that fusing item-level text embeddings into a time-aware dual-attention sequence model improves next-item prediction beyond what behavior-only sequences achieve. C-TLSAN starts from TLSAN, which splits a user's history into long-term and short-term sessions and applies feature-wise attention with personalized time position embeddings, and adds one ingredient: each item's representation is the concatenation of its ID embedding, its category embedding, and a sentence-transformer vector for its product description. This enriched representation is fed into both the long-term and the short-term attention branches, so the resulting user vector reflects semantics as well as co-occurrence patterns. The paper reports that this addition raises average AUC by 1.66% over TLSAN across ten Amazon categories and raises Recall@10 and Precision@10 by about 94% in relative terms across the categories where those metrics are tabulated, with examples such as CDs and Vinyl Recall@10 going from 4.12% to 8.57%. It further reports that a prompt-based LLM recommender built on LLAMA 3.3 70B trails C-TLSAN on all ten categories, which the paper explains by the LLM's blindness to session boundaries, time intervals, and recency.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains rest on the assumption that every model was evaluated under an identical next-item protocol, with the same candidate pool, negative sampling, session construction, and test-item selection, and on the manuscript's tables being internally consistent with its repeated claim of consistent improvement; the paper does not report those protocol details, and Table 1 shows one category (CDs and Vinyl) where C-TLSAN's AUC of 0.938 is below TLSAN's 0.942.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, adding content embeddings to time-aware attention is a cheap upgrade that yields an average AUC gain of 1.66% over TLSAN and roughly doubles top-10 recall and precision on the categories where those metrics are shown.
A prompt-based LLM recommender that ignores timestamps and session boundaries is not competitive with a small content-aware sequence model on next-item prediction, so pure text prompting is not sufficient for this task.
C-TLSAN's inference path uses a small sentence encoder rather than autoregressive generation, so the reported accuracy gains come with much lower serving cost than the LLM baseline.
The largest absolute gains appear in text-rich categories like Office Products, Beauty, and Home and Kitchen, suggesting that content fusion helps most where product descriptions distinguish otherwise similar items.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the paper does not report candidate pool size or negative-sample count, a fair reader should treat the relative ~94% Recall@10 and Precision@10 gains as provisional until the evaluation protocol is pinned down; those metrics are highly sensitive to how many negatives each positive is ranked against.
The named content encoder, all-MiniLM-L6-v2, is not cited, so an immediate testable extension is to swap in other sentence encoders or to fine-tune the encoder end to end to see whether the reported gains are tied to this particular embedding model.
The paper's criticism of LLM recommenders points to a hybrid design it does not test: use an LLM only to generate item content embeddings, then feed those into C-TLSAN's temporal attention, which could combine the LLM's semantic breadth with the structured temporal modeling the paper shows matters.
The manuscript's own tables deserve a consistency check: Table 1 shows C-TLSAN below TLSAN on CDs and Vinyl AUC (0.938 vs 0.942), and Table 2 reports Recall@10 and Precision@10 for nine categories, not the ten named in the abstract; both affect how the averaged headline numbers are read.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper adds all-MiniLM-L6-v2 description embeddings to TLSAN's long- and short-term attention inputs. That is a modest, sensible extension, and the architecture is described clearly enough to reimplement. The qualitative critique of prompt-based LLM recommenders in Section 4.2 is the most readable part of the paper and makes a fair point about lexical surface matching versus behavioral context. The idea itself is not new in kind—Qu et al. already used LLM embeddings to initialize ID embeddings—but applying content fusion to TLSAN's dual attention is a legitimate incremental variant.

The problem is the evaluation. Section 4.1 never states the candidate pool size, the number of negative samples, how Recall@10 is computed, or whether the ranking is full-corpus or sampled. A 93.99% relative gain in Recall@10 and 94.80% in Precision@10 is meaningless without that protocol, because a different candidate set across models would manufacture exactly this kind of gap. The stress-test note is right: the missing category in Table 2 (Clothing Shoes and Jewelry appears in Table 1 but not in Table 2) means the reported 93.99% average is computed over 9 rows instead of the claimed 10, and the omission could shift the number. Also, Table 1 shows TLSAN beating C-TLSAN on CDs and Vinyl (0.942 vs 0.938), which directly contradicts the text that C-TLSAN "either matches or surpasses" TLSAN. That is not a minor wording issue; it is a factual inconsistency in the central comparison. There are also no error bars, no significance tests, no hyperparameter values, and the "unique parameters set to optimal" is unverifiable.

The code link is present, which is good, but the paper says nothing about whether the code reproduces the tables. I would assume not, given the table issues.

This is not a paper with a load-bearing theoretical flaw. The model is coherent, the idea is plausible, and the failure to report protocol is fixable—but right now the central empirical claim is not supported by the manuscript alone. The LLM comparison is also under-specified (history length, prompt details, decoding settings, temperature), which caps what we can learn from it.

Who is this for? A practitioner who already uses TLSAN and wants to try a cheap content-enhanced version. That audience exists. It does not deserve a desk-reject on novelty grounds, but it does deserve a serious referee who will demand the missing protocol and corrected tables. I would send it to peer review with a clear "major revision" expectation: disclose the candidate set and negative-sampling procedure, fix the dataset count and the Table 1 contradiction, add error bars, and either release a runnable artifact or state honestly what the code does and doesn't reproduce.

Bottom line: worth engaging with, not in its current form.

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper proposes C-TLSAN, an extension of the TLSAN sequential recommender that fuses sentence-level content embeddings (computed with all-MiniLM-L6-v2) with item ID and category embeddings in both the long-term and short-term attention modules. The authors benchmark C-TLSAN against TLSAN, several neural baselines, and a prompt-based LLM recommender (LLaMA 3.3 70B) on Amazon product datasets, reporting an average AUC improvement of 1.66% and very large relative gains in Recall@10 (93.99%) and Precision@10 (94.80%) over TLSAN. The paper concludes that content-enhanced temporal attention consistently outperforms baselines, while LLM-based recommendation underperforms due to weak temporal modeling.

Significance. If the empirical claims were supported, the paper would offer a simple and practical enhancement to TLSAN, with a timely comparison against prompt-based LLM recommenders. The inclusion of a code URL and multiple Amazon categories is a positive feature. However, the reported results are not adequately supported by the manuscript as written: evaluation details are missing, a headline metric is computed over a subset of the claimed datasets, and one table directly contradicts the "consistently outperforms" statement. The contribution is therefore only conditionally established.

major comments (5)

[§4.1, Table 2] The abstract and conclusion claim improvements "across 10 Amazon product categories," but Table 2 reports Recall@10 and Precision@10 for only 9 datasets, omitting Clothing Shoes and Jewelry, which appears in Table 1. Recomputing the announced 93.99% average Recall@10 improvement reproduces that number only over the 9 listed rows; the missing category could materially change the average. Please either add the missing row or correct the abstract and conclusion to say 9 categories.
[§4.1, Metrics Comparison] The evaluation protocol never specifies the candidate pool size, the number of negative samples, or whether Recall@10 and Precision@10 are computed by full-corpus ranking or sampled ranking. Because C-TLSAN augments item embeddings with content vectors, a content-based pre-filtering of candidates in C-TLSAN but not in TLSAN would make the large relative gains an artifact of the retrieval set. The authors must disclose the exact candidate generation for every model and confirm that the candidate sets are identical across models.
[§4.1, Table 1] The text states that "cTLSAN either matches or surpasses TLSAN" and that C-TLSAN "consistently outperforms" baselines, but Table 1 reports AUC 0.938 for C-TLSAN against 0.942 for TLSAN on CDs and Vinyl. This is a direct contradiction in the reported data, and the claim should be revised or the discrepancy explained.
[§4.1, hyperparameters and statistical reporting] The sentence "We keep the common parameters in each model the same and the unique parameters the optimal" is not accompanied by any hyperparameter values, optimization ranges, or search protocol; nor are standard deviations, number of seeds, or significance tests reported. On datasets where the AUC gap is only 0.004, the reader cannot tell whether the improvement is systematic or within run-to-run variation. Please provide full hyperparameter settings, repeat experiments over multiple seeds, and report variance or significance tests.
[§3.2] The method is described only in prose; no equations define the content-fusion operation, the attention mechanism, or the time-position embeddings, and Figure 1 is a schematic. Since C-TLSAN's contribution is precisely this fusion, please provide formal definitions and tensor dimensions so the architecture is implementable from the paper.

minor comments (7)

[References [12]] The reference for the Llama 3 technical report lists Touvron et al.; the Llama 3 technical report is authored by Grattafiori et al. Please correct or verify the citation.
[Table 2] The dataset label "Movies_and_TV_5" is used without explaining the "_5" suffix; clarify the data version (e.g., 5-core filtering).
[Throughout] The paper uses "C-TLSAN" and "cTLSAN" interchangeably; choose one casing for consistency.
[§4.2] The qualitative examples of LLM failures are presented without explaining how they were selected; clarify whether these are representative cases or illustrative anecdotes.
[Template front matter] The manuscript retains ACM template placeholders such as "Conference acronym ’XX", "Woodstock, NY", and "Received 20 February 2007", which should be removed before submission.
[§4.1 / Code availability] The code repository is mentioned only as a URL; include a reproducibility appendix with environment specifications, command lines, and seed settings so that the experiments can be rerun.
[§3.3, Figure 2] The LLM prompt asks the model to choose between two items, while other models are evaluated with ranking metrics; specify how the LLM's pairwise outputs are converted to Recall@10/Precision@10 or state that the LLM is compared only on AUC.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported gains are an empirical comparison, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance comparison of C-TLSAN against TLSAN and other baselines. C-TLSAN is defined as TLSAN plus content embeddings fused into the long- and short-term attention layers, with the remaining architecture explicitly following TLSAN [16]. That reference is external prior work and is not authored by the present paper's authors, so no self-citation chain bears the load. The content vectors come from the fixed pretrained model all-MiniLM-L6-v2 and are not fitted to the evaluation targets. No equation in Sections 3 or 4 defines the reported metrics in terms of the model's fitted parameters or training objective, and no quantity labeled a prediction is a renamed fit. Concerns raised in review, such as the unspecified candidate-pool and negative-sampling protocol in Section 4.1, the appearance of 9 rows in Table 2 versus the claimed 10 categories, and the CDs and Vinyl AUC row where TLSAN (0.942) exceeds C-TLSAN (0.938), are evaluation-protocol and reporting-quality issues. They affect whether the empirical comparison is fair and reproducible, but they do not make the central claim circular by construction. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be quoted, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim depends on hand-chosen filtering thresholds, unspecified architecture and evaluation settings, and a pretrained text encoder imported from prior work. No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)

Behavior filtering thresholds = 10 users, 8 items, 5 to 90 transactions
Section 4.1 defines the evaluation subsets with these hand-chosen thresholds. All results depend on this filtering, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
Content embedding fusion dimension and projection = not reported
The paper says content embeddings are concatenated with ID and category embeddings, but the fusion dimension, any projection layer, and how the pretrained all-MiniLM-L6-v2 vectors are incorporated are not specified.
Attention and training hyperparameters = not reported
Section 4.1 states common parameters are kept the same and unique parameters are optimal, but no values, ranges, or search procedures are given for learning rate, batch size, embedding dimensions, or number of negative samples.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption TLSAN is accurately reimplemented and provides a valid baseline.
The paper says the remaining architecture follows TLSAN [16] but provides no code, hyperparameters, or verification that the baseline is configured as in the original paper.
domain assumption all-MiniLM-L6-v2 sentence embeddings capture item semantics useful for recommendation.
The method assumes description embeddings add signal beyond ID and category embeddings. No ablation, embedding quality analysis, or alternative encoders are tested.
domain assumption The evaluation protocol is identical and correctly implemented across all compared models.
Section 4.1 omits the candidate pool size and negative sampling details. The large relative gains in Recall@10 and Precision@10 depend on these protocol choices.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of C-TLSAN: Content-Enhanced Time-Aware Long- and Short-Term Attention Network for Personalized Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NKAEF2HG

@misc{pith2026250613021,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: C-TLSAN: Content-Enhanced Time-Aware Long- and Short-Term Attention Network for Personalized Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NKAEF2HG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13021}
}

read the original abstract

Sequential recommender systems aim to model users' evolving preferences by capturing patterns in their historical interactions. Recent advances in this area have leveraged deep neural networks and attention mechanisms to effectively represent sequential behaviors and time-sensitive interests. In this work, we propose C-TLSAN (Content-Enhanced Time-Aware Long- and Short-Term Attention Network), an extension of the TLSAN architecture that jointly models long- and short-term user preferences while incorporating semantic content associated with items, such as product descriptions. C-TLSAN enriches the recommendation pipeline by embedding textual content linked to users' historical interactions directly into both long-term and short-term attention layers. This allows the model to learn from both behavioral patterns and rich item content, enhancing user and item representations across temporal dimensions. By fusing sequential signals with textual semantics, our approach improves the expressiveness and personalization capacity of recommendation systems. We conduct extensive experiments on large-scale Amazon datasets, benchmarking C-TLSAN against state-of-the-art baselines, including recent sequential recommenders based on Large Language Models (LLMs), which represent interaction history and predictions in text form. Empirical results demonstrate that C-TLSAN consistently outperforms strong baselines in next-item prediction tasks. Notably, it improves AUC by 1.66%, Recall@10 by 93.99%, and Precision@10 by 94.80% on average over the best-performing baseline (TLSAN) across 10 Amazon product categories. These results highlight the value of integrating content-aware enhancements into temporal modeling frameworks for sequential recommendation. Our code is available at https://github.com/booml247/cTLSAN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13021 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Model architecture of C-TLSAN. 3.3 LLM Based Sequential Recommendation You are a smart recommendation assistant. Here is the customer’s recent browsing history: 1. [Product description 1] 2. [Product description 2] 3. [Product description 3] ... Now, we want to recommend one of the following two items: [Product ID 1]: [Product description] [Product ID 2]: [Product description] Based on the customer’s interest, which… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Example prompt for sequential product recommen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Recall@K and Precision@K on Amazon Office Products dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[1]

Position-aware context attention for session-based recommendation

Yi Cao, Weifeng Zhang, Bo Song, Weike Pan, and Congfu Xu. Position-aware context attention for session-based recommendation. Neurocomput., 376(C): 65–72, February 2020. ISSN 0925-2312. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2019.09.016. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.09.016

work page doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2019.09.016 2020
[2]

Sequential recommendation with user memory networks

Xu Chen, Hongteng Xu, Yongfeng Zhang, Jiaxi Tang, Yixin Cao, Zheng Qin, and Hongyuan Zha. Sequential recommendation with user memory networks. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM), pages 108–116, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3159652.3159668

arXiv 2018
[3]

TiM4Rec: An Efficient Sequential Recommendation Model Based on Time-Aware Structured State Space Duality Model

Hao Fan, Mengyi Zhu, Yanrong Hu, Hailin Feng, Zhijie He, Hongjiu Liu, and Qingyang Liu. Tim4rec: An efficient sequential recommendation model based on time-aware structured state space duality model, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2409.16182

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[4]

Deep learning for sequential recommendation: Algorithms, influential factors, and evaluations

Hui Fang, Danning Zhang, Yiheng Shu, and Guibing Guo. Deep learning for sequential recommendation: Algorithms, influential factors, and evaluations. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) , pages 1652–1655, 2020. doi: 10. 1145/3397271.3401131

arXiv 2020
[5]

Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks

Balázs Hidasi, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Linas Baltrunas, and Domonkos Tikk. Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2016. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1511.06939

arXiv 2016
[6]

Csan: Contextual self-attention network for user sequential recommendation

Xiaowen Huang, Shengsheng Qian, Quan Fang, Jitao Sang, and Changsheng Xu. Csan: Contextual self-attention network for user sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , MM ’18, page 447–455, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450356657. doi: 10.1145/3240508.3240609. U...

arXiv 2018
[7]

An empirical explo- ration of recurrent network architectures

Rafal Jozefowicz, Wojciech Zaremba, and Ilya Sutskever. An empirical explo- ration of recurrent network architectures. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2342–2350. PMLR, 2015

work page 2015
[9]

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 Recom- mender Systems, RecSys ’24, page 53–62, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400705052. doi: 10.1...

arXiv 2024

Show all 19 references

[10]

Sequence-aware recommender systems

Massimo Quadrana, Paolo Cremonesi, and Dietmar Jannach. Sequence-aware recommender systems. ACM Computing Surveys , 51(4):66:1–66:36, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3190616

2018 doi
[11]

Bert4rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder representations from transformer

Fei Sun, Jun Liu, Jian Wu, Changhua Pei, Xiao Lin, Wenwu Ou, and Peng Jiang. Bert4rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder representations from transformer. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) ...

2019
[12]

Llama 3 technical report, 2024

Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, et al. Llama 3 technical report, 2024. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07143

2024 arXiv
[13]

Sheng, Mehmet A

Shoujin Wang, Longbing Cao, Yan Wang, Quan Z. Sheng, Mehmet A. Orgun, and Defu Lian. A survey on session-based recommender systems. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(7):1–38, 2019. doi: 10.1145/3465401

2019 doi
[14]

Sequential recommendation with latent relations based on large language model, 2024

Shenghao Yang, Weizhi Ma, Peijie Sun, Qingyao Ai, Yiqun Liu, Mingchen Cai, and Min Zhang. Sequential recommendation with latent relations based on large language model, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.18348

2024 arXiv
[15]

Sequential recommender system based on hierar- chical attention network

Haochao Ying, Fuzhen Zhuang, Fuzheng Zhang, Yanchi Liu, Guandong Xu, Xing Xie, Hui Xiong, and Jian Wu. Sequential recommender system based on hierar- chical attention network. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , IJCAI’18, page...

2018
[16]

Tlsan: Time-aware long- and short-term attention network for next-item recommendation

Jianqing Zhang, Dongjing Wang, and Dongjin Yu. Tlsan: Time-aware long- and short-term attention network for next-item recommendation. Neurocomputing, 441:179–191, 2021. ISSN 0925-2312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2021.02

2021 doi
[17]

URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925231221002605
[18]

Har- nessing large language models for text-rich sequential recommendation

Zhi Zheng, WenShuo Chao, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hengshu Zhu, and Hui Xiong. Har- nessing large language models for text-rich sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 , WWW ’24, page 3207–3216, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery....

2024
[19]

Atrank: an attention-based user behavior modeling framework for recommendation

Chang Zhou, Jinze Bai, Junshuai Song, Xiaofei Liu, Zhengchao Zhao, Xiusi Chen, and Jun Gao. Atrank: an attention-based user behavior modeling framework for recommendation. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirtieth Innovative A...

2018
[20]

Deep interest network for click-through rate prediction

Guorui Zhou, Xiaoqiang Zhu, Chenru Song, Ying Fan, Han Zhu, Xiao Ma, Yanghui Yan, Junqi Jin, Han Li, and Kun Gai. Deep interest network for click-through rate prediction. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , page...

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Position-aware context attention for session-based recommendation

Yi Cao, Weifeng Zhang, Bo Song, Weike Pan, and Congfu Xu. Position-aware context attention for session-based recommendation. Neurocomput., 376(C): 65–72, February 2020. ISSN 0925-2312. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2019.09.016. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.09.016

work page doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2019.09.016 2020

[2] [2]

Sequential recommendation with user memory networks

Xu Chen, Hongteng Xu, Yongfeng Zhang, Jiaxi Tang, Yixin Cao, Zheng Qin, and Hongyuan Zha. Sequential recommendation with user memory networks. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM), pages 108–116, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3159652.3159668

arXiv 2018

[3] [3]

TiM4Rec: An Efficient Sequential Recommendation Model Based on Time-Aware Structured State Space Duality Model

Hao Fan, Mengyi Zhu, Yanrong Hu, Hailin Feng, Zhijie He, Hongjiu Liu, and Qingyang Liu. Tim4rec: An efficient sequential recommendation model based on time-aware structured state space duality model, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2409.16182

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

Deep learning for sequential recommendation: Algorithms, influential factors, and evaluations

Hui Fang, Danning Zhang, Yiheng Shu, and Guibing Guo. Deep learning for sequential recommendation: Algorithms, influential factors, and evaluations. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) , pages 1652–1655, 2020. doi: 10. 1145/3397271.3401131

arXiv 2020

[5] [5]

Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks

Balázs Hidasi, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Linas Baltrunas, and Domonkos Tikk. Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2016. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1511.06939

arXiv 2016

[6] [6]

Csan: Contextual self-attention network for user sequential recommendation

Xiaowen Huang, Shengsheng Qian, Quan Fang, Jitao Sang, and Changsheng Xu. Csan: Contextual self-attention network for user sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , MM ’18, page 447–455, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450356657. doi: 10.1145/3240508.3240609. U...

arXiv 2018

[7] [7]

An empirical explo- ration of recurrent network architectures

Rafal Jozefowicz, Wojciech Zaremba, and Ilya Sutskever. An empirical explo- ration of recurrent network architectures. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2342–2350. PMLR, 2015

work page 2015

[8] [9]

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 Recom- mender Systems, RecSys ’24, page 53–62, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400705052. doi: 10.1...

arXiv 2024