Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Generative Multi-Target Cross-Domain Recommendation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that multi-target cross-domain recommendation can be reframed as a generation task over shared discrete semantic codes, and that this reframing lets a single recommender improve all domains at once, with the largest…

desk verdict GMC is a sensible and well-ablated combination of shared semantic item IDs and a unified generative recommender; the main obstacle is an underspecified ranking protocol that makes the headline NDCG numbers not reproducible as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12871 v3 pith:KQCDA7CR submitted 2025-07-17 cs.IR cs.AI

Jinqiu Jin , Yang Zhang , Fuli Feng , Xiangnan He This is my paper
classification cs.IRcs.AI
keywords cross-domainrecommendationmulti-targetgenerativesemanticitemidentifiersresidualquantizationdomain-awarecontrastivelearninglow-rankadaptationsequential
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that multi-target cross-domain recommendation can be solved without overlapping users, items, or auxiliary pre-training data by making the recommender generative. The proposed method, GMC, encodes each item's text into a shared set of discrete semantic codes using one residual-quantization tokenizer across all domains, then trains a single sequence-to-sequence model to generate the next item's code sequence from all domains' interaction logs. Per-domain low-rank adapters are added at fine-tuning time to preserve domain-specific behaviour without overwriting shared knowledge. On five Amazon Review subsets, GMC reports the best or near-best Recall@K and NDCG@K in almost all settings, with its largest relative gains on the smallest domains. The author's claim is that the shared code vocabulary is what makes cross-domain transfer possible, because codes, not domain-specific IDs, are the medium the recommender reasons over.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the shared discrete semantic identifier, produced by a residual quantization variational autoencoder (RQ-VAE) with four levels and 256 codewords per level. Each item's text is first embedded by a large language model; the RQ-VAE recursively quantizes the residual error to give a coarse-to-fine code sequence, and the same codebooks are used for every domain so a codeword can be shared across domains. A domain-aware contrastive loss on quantized embeddings sharpens intra-domain similarity, which the paper shows makes first-level codes domain-specific while second-level codes mix across domains. The recommender is a unified text-to-text transformer trained to generate the next item's code sequence autoregressively from all domains' histories, with constrained generation over a prefix tree of valid item codes and beam search of size 20 at inference. Per-domain LoRA matrices are the only parameters updated during fine-tuning, adding roughly 3.7% of the model's parameters per domain.

What would settle it

Hold the ranking protocol fixed by either scoring every catalogue item or restricting evaluation to beam outputs, then rerun GMC against VQ-Rec and IDGenRec on the same five domains; if the NDCG advantage over the strongest baseline collapses under the fixed protocol, the claim that shared semantic codes drive the gain is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

GMC's central claim is that discrete semantic item identifiers can serve as a transfer medium for multi-target cross-domain recommendation. A single RQ-VAE tokenizer maps the text-derived embeddings of items from all domains into the same L-level codebooks, so a code such as (3,2,4,1) can be shared by items in different domains; a unified transformer then treats recommendation as next-token generation over these shared codes using interaction sequences from every domain. A domain-aware contrastive loss pulls same-domain quantized embeddings together during tokenizer training, and domain-specific LoRA modules adapt the frozen unified recommender per domain. Experiments on five Amazon product categories report that GMC outperforms the strongest baseline on almost all metric-dataset combinations, with relative NDCG@5 gains up to about 25% on the smallest domain, and ablations show that removing the shared codebook, the unified recommender, the contrastive loss, or the LoRA fine-tuning each lowers performance.

Load-bearing premise

The reported evaluation assumes that holding out the last item and ranking it over the whole catalogue is well-defined for a model that only performs beam-search generation, and the paper does not specify a scoring rule for items outside the beam.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In non-overlapped scenarios, where no user or item is shared between domains, GMC still has a transfer channel: item text quantized into a common codebook.
  • Small domains benefit most: ablations show removing the shared codebook or unified recommender cuts Recall@5 by 25 to 49 percent on Scientific and Pantry.
  • The unified model can be adapted per domain with small parameter overhead, adding only about 0.17 million LoRA parameters per domain against a 4.3 million parameter model.
  • Adding more domains' data consistently improves GMC, whereas the VQ-Rec baseline does not always improve as data grows.
  • First-level codes encode domain membership while deeper codes carry domain-agnostic semantics, so cross-domain transfer happens at the finer granularities of the identifier.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the ranking procedure is made explicit and fair, the same architecture could be tested as an industrial multi-scenario recommender where text metadata is the only common signal across channels.
  • Editorial inference: a testable extension is to make identifier learning and recommender training end-to-end; the paper notes this direction itself, and coupling could remove the current dependence on a separately trained tokenizer.
  • Editorial inference: the domain-aware contrastive loss assumes intra-domain similarity helps, but in a domain containing heterogeneous categories, forcing intra-domain closeness could blur category boundaries, so one could test whether code overlap hurts when domain diversity is high.
  • Editorial inference: replacing the large language model text encoder with cheaper embeddings would show how much of the gain comes from text semantics versus the quantization and unified training machinery.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GMC, a generative framework for multi-target cross-domain recommendation (MTCDR) that does not rely on overlapping users or items. Items are first encoded by an LLM into semantic embeddings, then tokenized by a shared RQ-VAE into hierarchical discrete codes; a domain-aware contrastive loss encourages intra-domain code alignment. A unified T5-based sequence-to-sequence model is trained to generate next-item code sequences from all domains, and domain-specific LoRA adapters are fine-tuned. Experiments on five Amazon subsets compare GMC against ID-only, ID-text, pre-training-based, and generative baselines using Recall@5/10 and NDCG@5/10. Ablations isolate the shared codebook, unified recommender, contrastive loss, and LoRA fine-tuning. The central empirical claim is that GMC outperforms the strongest baselines on most metrics, particularly NDCG, with relative gains up to about 25% on smaller domains.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, GMC is a useful instantiation of generative MTCDR: it shows that shared semantic codebooks plus a unified generative recommender can transfer knowledge across domains without overlapping entities and without auxiliary pre-training data. The method is clean and well motivated, and the paper has several strengths: evaluation on five public datasets, a component-level ablation (Table 4), a parameter-efficiency statement (LoRA 0.17M, 3.7% of the 4.3M model), and analyses of code-sharing behavior across domains (Figures 3 and 4). The main weaknesses are that the evaluation's full-corpus ranking protocol for beam-search generative models is underspecified, no variance or significance information is reported, and the non-overlap property of the evaluation data is not demonstrated. These are fixable but currently prevent the headline improvements from being fully reproducible.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.1.3, §5.1.4, §3.5] The ranking protocol for generative models is underspecified. Section 5.1.3 states that the target item is ranked over the entire item set, but Section 5.1.4 describes only beam search with beam size 20 over a prefix tree and never defines a score for an item whose identifier is not emitted in the beam. No fallback rule is given (e.g., miss rank = beam_size + 1, or exclusion from truncated metrics), and no full-corpus scoring function is provided (e.g., summing token log-probabilities over each item's identifier path under constrained decoding). Without this, Table 3's NDCG improvements—e.g., Pantry N@5 +25.41% and AVERAGE N@10 +6.67%—cannot be reproduced, and the small absolute gaps (e.g., AVERAGE N@5 0.0780 vs 0.0742) mean the unspecified handling of non-generated items could change which method wins. Please specify the exact inference-time scoring rule, including how items outside the beam are ranked, and provide evaluation code or pseudocode. Note also that Eq. (10) describes greedy argmax decoding, which does not match the beam-search description in Section 5.1.4.
  2. [Tables 3 and 4] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported, and the number of random seeds is not stated. Several headline advantages are small in absolute terms (e.g., Office N@5 0.0912 vs IDGenRec 0.0902, +1.11%; Instruments R@10 0.1224 vs VQ-Rec 0.1209, +1.24%), so it is unclear whether these differences are stable. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds, and state the significance test used, for both the main comparison and the ablations.
  3. [§5.1.1, Table 2] The non-overlap property of the evaluation data is not established. The paper emphasizes that GMC targets scenarios where overlapping users or items are unavailable, and Table 1 marks GMC as 'Non-OL'. However, Section 5.1.1 does not state whether users or items appearing in multiple Amazon subsets were removed, and the statistics in Table 2 report per-domain user counts without giving the number of distinct users across all five domains. Since Amazon users commonly purchase in multiple categories, the five subsets may contain overlapping users. Please report the overlap statistics, or filter the data to make the domains disjoint, so that the experiments genuinely instantiate the non-overlapped setting claimed in the paper.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.1.4] The RQ-VAE is described as 'trained for 10k epochs' with batch size 1024; given the dataset sizes, this is likely intended to mean training steps or iterations. Please clarify.
  2. [§3.5, §5.1.4] Eq. (10) describes inference as greedy argmax decoding, while Section 5.1.4 says beam size 20 is used. Reconcile the two descriptions and state whether beam search replaces the argmax in Eq. (10).
  3. [§2, §5.1.4, §5.2] There are several typos: 'generative recommendan paradigm' in Section 2, 'to to 1024' in Section 5.1.4, 'benericial' in Section 5.2, and 'A VERAGE' in Table 3. Please proofread.
  4. [Table 3] The third-best highlighting appears as '::::' in the manuscript text; please ensure the wave underline renders correctly so that the optimal, sub-optimal, and third-best values are all clearly visible.
  5. [§5.4.3, Figure 5] In Figure 5, the 'relative improvement' axes are ambiguous: please specify whether the relative improvements are computed against the single-domain IDGenRec baseline or against VQ-Rec for each data point, and define 'Gap' explicitly in the caption.
  6. [§1] The claim of being the 'first time' the generative paradigm is applied to MTCDR is strong; consider softening to 'to our knowledge' and discussing any concurrent or closely related work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GMC's headline gains are established against external baselines on public data; the beam-search/ranking mismatch is a reproducibility issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The central claim is not circular: GMC is evaluated by comparing its generated recommendations with external baselines (SASRec, BERT4Rec, UniSRec, VQ-Rec, TIGER, IDGenRec, etc.) on five public Amazon subsets, and the reported gains in Table 3 are not obtained by fitting a parameter to the test labels. The design pieces (RQ-VAE identifiers, domain-aware contrastive loss, unified seq2seq training, and LoRA fine-tuning) each make an independent, testable contribution; the ablations in Table 4 compare against variants that remove one component, so those components are not true by construction. Self-citations such as [31], [34], [35], [55], and [63] appear only as context or related work and do not carry a load-bearing uniqueness or equivalence claim. The most serious concern is an evaluation-protocol gap: Section 5.1.3 says the target item is ranked over the entire item set, while Section 5.1.4 says only beam search with beam size 20 is used and no scoring rule for items outside the beam is given, so Table 3 may not be reproducible. That is a correctness and reproducibility problem, not a circularity problem, because it does not reduce the reported result to the paper's own fitted values or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of semantic tokenization and on an evaluation protocol that is not fully specified. No novel physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the listed free parameters are codebook hyperparameters, loss weights, and training choices that the paper does not tune or justify.

free parameters (6)
  • RQ-VAE codebook size N = 256
    Set per level in Section 5.1.4; controls identifier granularity and cross-domain sharing capacity.
  • Number of quantization levels L = 4
    Follows prior works but directly determines how many codewords the recommender must generate.
  • Quantization loss weight beta = 0.25
    Hand-set coefficient in Eq. (5) balancing reconstruction and codebook losses.
  • Weight of domain-aware contrastive loss = 1.0 (implicit)
    Eq. (7) sums Lrecon, Lrq, and Ldcl without reported coefficients; the implicit equal weighting affects identifier learning.
  • RQ-VAE training duration = 10k epochs
    Stated in Section 5.1.4; implausibly large for batch size 1024 and likely a typo, which hurts reproducibility.
  • LoRA rank and alpha = not reported
    Domain-specific LoRA is a core design choice in Section 3.5, but the rank and alpha are omitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLM text embeddings of item title, brand, and categories contain enough semantic signal to support next-item recommendation.
    GMC builds all item identifiers from LLaMA-3.1 embeddings of the concatenated text fields (Section 3.3), so if text is uninformative the whole pipeline fails.
  • domain assumption Domain labels align with semantic similarity, so pulling intra-domain quantized embeddings together improves identifier quality.
    Motivates the domain-aware contrastive loss in Eq. (6); on domains with heterogeneous item types within a category this assumption may distort codes.
  • domain assumption Next-item recommendation can be modeled as autoregressive generation of hierarchical semantic code sequences.
    Adopted from TIGER and LC-Rec; GMC relies on this equivalence to train the T5 model with Eq. (8).
  • domain assumption Full-corpus ranking of the held-out item is well-defined for a generative model that only emits beam search outputs.
    Section 5.1.3 states ranking over the entire item set, but Section 5.1.4 gives only beam size 20 generation and constrained prefix trees; no scoring rule for items outside the beam is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generative Multi-Target Cross-Domain Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KQCDA7CR

@misc{pith2026250712871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generative Multi-Target Cross-Domain Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KQCDA7CR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12871}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, there has been a surge of interest in Multi-Target Cross-Domain Recommendation (MTCDR), which aims to enhance recommendation performance across multiple domains simultaneously. Existing MTCDR methods primarily rely on domain-shared entities (\eg users or items) to fuse and transfer cross-domain knowledge, which may be unavailable in non-overlapped recommendation scenarios. Some studies model user preferences and item features as domain-sharable semantic representations, which can be utilized to tackle the MTCDR task. Nevertheless, they often require extensive auxiliary data for pre-training. Developing more effective solutions for MTCDR remains an important area for further exploration. Inspired by recent advancements in generative recommendation, this paper introduces GMC, a generative paradigm-based approach for multi-target cross-domain recommendation. The core idea of GMC is to leverage semantically quantized discrete item identifiers as a medium for integrating multi-domain knowledge within a unified generative model. GMC first employs an item tokenizer to generate domain-shared semantic identifiers for each item, and then formulates item recommendation as a next-token generation task by training a domain-unified sequence-to-sequence model. To further leverage the domain information to enhance performance, we incorporate a domain-aware contrastive loss into the semantic identifier learning, and perform domain-specific fine-tuning on the unified recommender. Extensive experiments on five public datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of GMC compared to a range of baseline methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Illustration of the MTCDR task. (b) Illustration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall framework of the proposed GMC method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of residual vectors and semantic codes in item identifier learning. Each bar consists of items with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Code Similarity of Item Identifiers. 5.4.2 Similarity Analysis w.r.t. Item Identifiers. In this part, we show that the domain-shared codebook and domain-aware con￾trastive loss designs can benefit the semantic identifier learning from improving the quality of tokenized…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance comparison in different multi-domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. From Raw IDs to Semantic Planning: How Recommender Systems Utilize Information at Scale

    cs.IR 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Recommender systems are moving from raw IDs to semantic IDs, and the next step should be semantic planning that first predicts an exposure's purpose before choosing or generating content.

  2. Empowering Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation with Hybrid Tokenization and Serial-Parallel Decoding

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GenCDSR combines shared/domain-specific item tokenization with serial-parallel decoding, improving cross-domain sequential recommendation accuracy by ~1.5% while cutting inference latency by ~85%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Nuo Chen, Lin Zheng, and Sentao Chen. 2025. Recurrent-optimized user associa- tion representation for multi-target cross-domain sequential recommendation. Knowledge and Information Systems (2025), 1–27

    2025

  2. [2]

    Qiang Cui, Tao Wei, Yafeng Zhang, and Qing Zhang. 2020. HeroGRAPH: A Het- erogeneous Graph Framework for Multi-Target Cross-Domain Recommendation. In ORSUM@ RecSys

    2020

  3. [3]

    Zeyu Cui, Jianxin Ma, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Hongxia Yang. 2022. M6-rec: Generative pretrained language models are open-ended recommender systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.08084 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Rene De La Briandais. 1959. File searching using variable length keys. In Papers presented at the the March 3-5, 1959, western joint computer conference . 295–298

    1959

  5. [5]

    Yashar Deldjoo, Zhankui He, Julian McAuley, Anton Korikov, Scott Sanner, Arnau Ramisa, René Vidal, Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, and Silvia Milano. 2024. A review of modern recommender systems using generative models (gen-recsys). In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 6448–6458

    2024

  6. [6]

    Jing Du, Zesheng Ye, Bin Guo, Zhiwen Yu, and Lina Yao. 2024. Identifiability of Cross-Domain Recommendation via Causal Subspace Disentanglement. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 2091–2101

    2024

  7. [7]

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

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Junchen Fu, Fajie Yuan, Yu Song, Zheng Yuan, Mingyue Cheng, Shenghui Cheng, Jiaqi Zhang, Jie Wang, and Yunzhu Pan. 2024. Exploring adapter-based transfer learning for recommender systems: Empirical studies and practical insights. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 208–217

    2024

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Jingtong Gao, Xiangyu Zhao, Bo Chen, Fan Yan, Huifeng Guo, and Ruiming Tang. 2023. AutoTransfer: instance transfer for cross-domain recommendations. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 1478–1487

    2023

  2. [10]

    Shijie Geng, Shuchang Liu, Zuohui Fu, Yingqiang Ge, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2022. Recommendation as language processing (rlp): A unified pretrain, personalized prompt & predict paradigm (p5). In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 299–315

    2022

  3. [11]

    Xiaobo Guo, Shaoshuai Li, Naicheng Guo, Jiangxia Cao, Xiaolei Liu, Qiongxu Ma, Runsheng Gan, and Yunan Zhao. 2023. Disentangled representations learning for multi-target cross-domain recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 4 (2023), 1–27

    2023

  4. [12]

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

  5. [13]

    Yupeng Hou, Zhankui He, Julian McAuley, and Wayne Xin Zhao. 2023. Learning vector-quantized item representation for transferable sequential recommenders. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 . 1162–1171

    2023

  6. [14]

    Yupeng Hou, Shanlei Mu, Wayne Xin Zhao, Yaliang Li, Bolin Ding, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2022. Towards universal sequence representation learning for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Dis- covery and Data Mining . 585–593

    2022

  7. [15]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2022

  8. [16]

    Guangneng Hu, Yu Zhang, and Qiang Yang. 2018. Conet: Collaborative cross networks for cross-domain recommendation. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management . 667–676

    2018

  9. [17]

    Wenyue Hua, Shuyuan Xu, Yingqiang Ge, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2023. How to index item ids for recommendation foundation models. In Proceedings of the Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region . 195–204

    2023

  10. [18]

    Zepeng Huai, Yuji Yang, Mengdi Zhang, Zhongyi Zhang, Yichun Li, and Wei Wu. 2023. M2GNN: Metapath and Multi-interest Aggregated Graph Neural Network for Tag-based Cross-domain Recommendation. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Developm...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Zhaoxin Huan, Ke Ding, Ang Li, Xiaolu Zhang, Xu Min, Yong He, Liang Zhang, Jun Zhou, Linjian Mo, Jinjie Gu, et al . 2024. Exploring Multi-Scenario Multi- Modal CTR Prediction with a Large Scale Dataset. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research ...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Kalervo Järvelin and Jaana Kekäläinen. 2002. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 20, 4 (2002), 422–446

    2002

  13. [21]

    Jianchao Ji, Zelong Li, Shuyuan Xu, Wenyue Hua, Yingqiang Ge, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. Genrec: Large language model for generative recommen- dation. In European Conference on Information Retrieval . Springer, 494–502

    2024

  14. [22]

    Bowen Jin, Hansi Zeng, Guoyin Wang, Xiusi Chen, Tianxin Wei, Ruirui Li, Zhengyang Wang, Zheng Li, Yang Li, Hanqing Lu, Suhang Wang, Jiawei Han, and Xianfeng Tang. 2024. Language Models as Semantic Indexers. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learnin...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2018. Self-attentive sequential recom- mendation. In 2018 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 197–206

    2018

  16. [24]

    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 & data mining . 1748–1757

    2020

  17. [25]

    Doyup Lee, Chiheon Kim, Saehoon Kim, Minsu Cho, and Wook-Shin Han. 2022. Autoregressive image generation using residual quantization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 11523–11532

    2022

  18. [26]

    Hanyu Li, Weizhi Ma, Peijie Sun, Jiayu Li, Cunxiang Yin, Yancheng He, Guoqiang Xu, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2024. Aiming at the Target: Filter Collabora- tive Information for Cross-Domain Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Resea...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Jiacheng Li, Ming Wang, Jin Li, Jinmiao Fu, Xin Shen, Jingbo Shang, and Julian McAuley. 2023. Text is all you need: Learning language representations for sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 1258–1267

    2023

  20. [28]

    Jinming Li, Wentao Zhang, Tian Wang, Guanglei Xiong, Alan Lu, and Gerard Medioni. 2023. GPT4Rec: A generative framework for personalized recommen- dation and user interests interpretation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03879 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lei Li, Yongfeng Zhang, Dugang Liu, and Li Chen. 2024. Large Language Models for Generative Recommendation: A Survey and Visionary Discussions. In Pro- ceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COL...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Pan Li and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2020. Ddtcdr: Deep dual transfer cross domain recommendation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 331–339

    2020

  23. [31]

    Yongqi Li, Xinyu Lin, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, Liang Pang, Wenjie Li, Liqiang Nie, Xiangnan He, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. A survey of generative search and recom- mendation in the era of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16924 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Yongqi Li, Nan Yang, Liang Wang, Furu Wei, and Wenjie Li. 2024. Learning to rank in generative retrieval. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 38. 8716–8723

    2024

  25. [33]

    Zhi Li, Daichi Amagata, Yihong Zhang, Takahiro Hara, Shuichiro Haruta, Kei Yonekawa, and Mori Kurokawa. 2024. Mutual information-based preference disentangling and transferring for non-overlapped multi-target cross-domain recommendations. In Proceedings of the 47th Internation...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Xinyu Lin, Wenjie Wang, Yongqi Li, Shuo Yang, Fuli Feng, Yinwei Wei, and Tat- Seng Chua. 2024. Data-efficient Fine-tuning for LLM-based Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 365–374

    2024

  27. [35]

    Xinyu Lin, Chaoqun Yang, Wenjie Wang, Yongqi Li, Cunxiao Du, Fuli Feng, See- Kiong Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. Efficient Inference for Large Language Model- based Generative Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05165 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Enze Liu, Bowen Zheng, Cheng Ling, Lantao Hu, Han Li, and Wayne Xin Zhao

  29. [37]

    Qijiong Liu, Xiaoyu Dong, Jiaren Xiao, Nuo Chen, Hengchang Hu, Jieming Zhu, Chenxu Zhu, Tetsuya Sakai, and Xiao-Ming Wu. 2024. Vector Quantization for Recommender Systems: A Review and Outlook. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03110 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Qi Liu, Kai Zheng, Rui Huang, Wuchao Li, Kuo Cai, Yuan Chai, Yanan Niu, Yiqun Hui, Bing Han, Na Mou, et al . 2024. RecFlow: An Industrial Full Flow Recommendation Dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20868 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Xiaopeng Liu, Juan Zhang, Chongqi Ren, Shenghui Xu, Zhaoming Pan, and Zhimin Zhang. 2024. Heterogeneous Graph-based Framework with Disentangled Representations Learning for Multi-target Cross Domain Recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00909 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  33. [41]

    Chen Ma, Peng Kang, and Xue Liu. 2019. Hierarchical gating networks for sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 825–833

    2019

  34. [42]

    Jianmo Ni, Jiacheng Li, and Julian McAuley. 2019. Justifying recommendations using distantly-labeled reviews and fine-grained aspects. In EMNLP-IJCNLP. 188–197

    2019

  35. [43]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of machine learning research 21, 140 (2020), 1–67

    2020

  36. [44]

    Generative Multi-Target Cross-Domain Recommendation Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY

    Shashank Rajput, Nikhil Mehta, Anima Singh, Raghunandan Hulikal Keshavan, Trung Vu, Lukasz Heldt, Lichan Hong, Yi Tay, Vinh Tran, Jonah Samost, et al. Generative Multi-Target Cross-Domain Recommendation Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY

    2018

  37. [45]

    Zihua Si, Zhongxiang Sun, Jiale Chen, Guozhang Chen, Xiaoxue Zang, Kai Zheng, Yang Song, Xiao Zhang, Jun Xu, and Kun Gai. 2023. Generative retrieval with semantic tree-structured item identifiers via contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13375 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Anima Singh, Trung Vu, Nikhil Mehta, Raghunandan Keshavan, Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Yilin Zheng, Lichan Hong, Lukasz Heldt, Li Wei, Devansh Tandon, et al. 2024. Better generalization with semantic ids: A case study in ranking for recommendations. In Proceedings of the 18th AC...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Zijian Song, Wenhan Zhang, Lifang Deng, Jiandong Zhang, Kaigui Bian, and Bin Cui. 2024. MultiLoRA: Multi-Directional Low Rank Adaptation for Multi-Domain Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 2148–2157

    2024

  40. [48]

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

  41. [49]

    Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Zheng Chen, Shuaiqiang Wang, Haichao Zhu, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Dawei Yin, Maarten Rijke, and Zhaochun Ren. 2024. Learning to tokenize for generative retrieval. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Juntao Tan, Shuyuan Xu, Wenyue Hua, Yingqiang Ge, Zelong Li, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. Idgenrec: Llm-recsys alignment with textual id learning. In Proceed- ings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 355–364

    2024

  43. [51]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Aaron Van Den Oord, Oriol Vinyals, et al. 2017. Neural discrete representation learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    A Vaswani. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Wenjie Wang, Honghui Bao, Xinyu Lin, Jizhi Zhang, Yongqi Li, Fuli Feng, See- Kiong Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. Learnable Item Tokenization for Generative Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 2400–2409

    2024

  47. [55]

    Wenjie Wang, Xinyu Lin, Fuli Feng, Xiangnan He, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. Generative recommendation: Towards next-generation recommender paradigm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03516 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ye Wang, Jiahao Xun, Minjie Hong, Jieming Zhu, Tao Jin, Wang Lin, Haoyuan Li, Linjun Li, Yan Xia, Zhou Zhao, et al. 2024. EAGER: Two-Stream Generative Recommender with Behavior-Semantic Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and ...

    2024

  49. [57]

    Tianxin Wei, Bowen Jin, Ruirui Li, Hansi Zeng, Zhengyang Wang, Jianhui Sun, Qingyu Yin, Hanqing Lu, Suhang Wang, Jingrui He, and Xianfeng Tang. 2024. Towards Unified Multi-Modal Personalization: Large Vision-Language Models for Generative Recommendation and Beyond. InThe Twelf...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Le Wu, Xiangnan He, Xiang Wang, Kun Zhang, and Meng Wang. 2022. A survey on accuracy-oriented neural recommendation: From collaborative filtering to information-rich recommendation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35, 5 (2022), 4425–4445

    2022

  51. [59]

    Ruobing Xie, Qi Liu, Liangdong Wang, Shukai Liu, Bo Zhang, and Leyu Lin

  52. [60]

    Shuyuan Xu, Wenyue Hua, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. Openp5: An open-source platform for developing, training, and evaluating llm-based recommender sys- tems. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 386–394

    2024

  53. [61]

    Wujiang Xu, Shaoshuai Li, Mingming Ha, Xiaobo Guo, Qiongxu Ma, Xiaolei Liu, Linxun Chen, and Zhenfeng Zhu. 2023. Neural node matching for multi-target cross domain recommendation. In 2023 IEEE 39th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 2154–2166

    2023

  54. [62]

    Wujiang Xu, Qitian Wu, Runzhong Wang, Mingming Ha, Qiongxu Ma, Linxun Chen, Bing Han, and Junchi Yan. 2024. Rethinking cross-domain sequential recommendation under open-world assumptions. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024. 3173–3184

    2024

  55. [63]

    Yiyan Xu, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, Yunshan Ma, Jizhi Zhang, and Xiangnan He

  56. [64]

    Zhiming Yang, Haining Gao, Dehong Gao, Luwei Yang, Libin Yang, Xiaoyan Cai, Wei Ning, and Guannan Zhang. 2024. MLoRA: Multi-Domain Low-Rank Adaptive Network for CTR Prediction. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 287–297

    2024

  57. [65]

    Zhenrui Yue, Sara Rabhi, Gabriel de Souza Pereira Moreira, Dong Wang, and Even Oldridge. 2023. LlamaRec: Two-stage recommendation using large language models for ranking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02089 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Tianzi Zang, Yanmin Zhu, Haobing Liu, Ruohan Zhang, and Jiadi Yu. 2022. A survey on cross-domain recommendation: taxonomies, methods, and future directions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 2 (2022), 1–39

    2022

  59. [67]

    Neil Zeghidour, Alejandro Luebs, Ahmed Omran, Jan Skoglund, and Marco Tagliasacchi. 2021. Soundstream: An end-to-end neural audio codec. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 30 (2021), 495–507

    2021

  60. [68]

    Hansi Zeng, Chen Luo, Bowen Jin, Sheikh Muhammad Sarwar, Tianxin Wei, and Hamed Zamani. 2024. Scalable and effective generative information retrieval. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 . 1441–1452

    2024

  61. [69]

    In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    Diffusion Models for Generative Outfit Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1350–1359

  62. [70]

    Jiaqi Zhang, Yu Cheng, Yongxin Ni, Yunzhu Pan, Zheng Yuan, Junchen Fu, Youhua Li, Jie Wang, and Fajie Yuan. 2024. Ninerec: A benchmark dataset suite for evaluating transferable recommendation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    Shuai Zhang, Lina Yao, Aixin Sun, and Yi Tay. 2019. Deep learning based recom- mender system: A survey and new perspectives. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 52, 1 (2019), 1–38

    2019

  64. [72]

    Tingting Zhang, Pengpeng Zhao, Yanchi Liu, Victor S Sheng, Jiajie Xu, Deqing Wang, Guanfeng Liu, Xiaofang Zhou, et al . 2019. Feature-level deeper self- attention network for sequential recommendation.. In IJCAI. 4320–4326

    2019

  65. [73]

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Yi Zhao, Chaozhuo Li, Jiquan Peng, Xiaohan Fang, Feiran Huang, Senzhang Wang, Xing Xie, and Jibing Gong. 2023. Beyond the overlapping users: Cross-domain recommendation via adaptive anchor link learning. In Proceedings of the 46th international ACM SIGIR conference on research...

    2023

  67. [75]

    Jiaqi Zhai, Lucy Liao, Xing Liu, Yueming Wang, Rui Li, Xuan Cao, Leon Gao, Zhaojie Gong, Fangda Gu, Jiayuan He, Yinghai Lu, and Yu Shi. 2024. Actions Speak Louder than Words: Trillion-Parameter Sequential Transducers for Generative Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 41st I...

    2024

  68. [76]

    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 se- quential recommendation with mutual information maximization. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on in...

    2020

  69. [77]

    Feng Zhu, Yan Wang, Chaochao Chen, Jun Zhou, Longfei Li, and Guanfeng Liu

  70. [78]

    Feng Zhu, Yan Wang, Jun Zhou, Chaochao Chen, Longfei Li, and Guanfeng Liu

  71. [79]

    Jieming Zhu, Mengqun Jin, Qijiong Liu, Zexuan Qiu, Zhenhua Dong, and Xiu Li

  72. [80]

    Yongchun Zhu, Zhenwei Tang, Yudan Liu, Fuzhen Zhuang, Ruobing Xie, Xu Zhang, Leyu Lin, and Qing He. 2022. Personalized transfer of user preferences for cross-domain recommendation. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining . 1507–1515

    2022

  73. [81]

    Bowen Zheng, Yupeng Hou, Hongyu Lu, Yu Chen, Wayne Xin Zhao, Ming Chen, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. Adapting large language models by integrating collaborative semantics for recommendation. In 2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) . IEEE, 1435–1448

    2024

  74. [86]

    IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2021)

    A unified framework for cross-domain and cross-system recommendations. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2021)

    2021

  75. [88]

    InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems

    CoST: Contrastive Quantization based Semantic Tokenization for Genera- tive Recommendation. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 969–974

  76. [2016]

    In Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations

    Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks. In Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations

  77. [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

  78. [2021]

    In Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21

    Cross-Domain Recommendation: Challenges, Progress, and Prospects. In Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-21. 4721–4728

  79. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining

    Contrastive cross-domain recommendation in matching. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining . 4226–4236

  80. [2023]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023), 10299–10315

    Recommender systems with generative retrieval. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2023), 10299–10315

    2023

  81. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05546 (2024)

    End-to-End Learnable Item Tokenization for Generative Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05546 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.