Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Sequential Learner Modeling Using Multi-Relational Graph Convolutional Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Multi-relational, sequence-aware concept embeddings can model learner knowledge for recommendation, the paper argues; a 31-user study found no significant edge over the single-relation baseline.

desk verdict A clear, well-specified method with an internal inconsistency: the baseline ConceptGCN wins every metric, all Friedman tests are non-significant, yet the abstract claims MR-ConceptGCN 'demonstrates the benefits.' read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19253 v1 pith:LW7RJED7 submitted 2026-07-21 cs.AI cs.CYcs.IR

Rawaa Alatrash , Mohamed Amine Chatti , Hong Yang , Yumeng Wang This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CYcs.IR
keywords learnermodelinguserpersonalknowledgegraphsgraphconvolutionalnetworksmulti-relationalsequentialsemanticsimilarityconceptrecommendation
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

MR-ConceptGCN proposes to model a learner by the concepts they mark as 'did not understand' (DNU) in a MOOC, enriching those concepts with graph convolution that treats RELATED TO and PREREQUISITE TO as distinct relations and scales messages by semantic similarity. It then folds in the order of DNU interactions—a causal mask lets past marks influence later ones but not vice versa, and recency weighting favors the latest marks—to form long- and short-term learner interests that drive concept recommendations. The paper's central claim is that this relation- and sequence-aware representation improves users' perceived accuracy, usefulness, diversity, and satisfaction. The reported online study (n=31) found no statistically significant differences between the new model, its two variants, and the single-relation baseline on any criterion; the baseline scored highest in mean on all of them, which the authors attribute to a learning material with few prerequisite edges.

What carries the argument

Two-layer multi-relational GCN over a personal knowledge graph with RELATED TO (bidirectional) and PREREQUISITE TO (asymmetric) edges. Node updates use frozen, Glorot-random relation matrices (self-loop, non-prerequisite, prerequisite) with neighbor weights combining degree normalization and SBERT cosine similarity; a CompGCN variant composes node and edge embeddings instead. A sequential matrix—cosine correlations plus a causal mask zeroing future-to-past entries—captures long-term interests; a position weight i/(N−1) captures recency. The final learner vector is the weighted average of updated DNU embeddings, and its nearest neighbors become recommendations.

What would settle it

Run the same recommendation study on a learning material with many prerequisite relationships and compare the overlap of MR-ConceptGCN's and ConceptGCN's top-10 lists: if the lists are largely identical, or if removing the prerequisite matrix and the causal mask leaves both the overlap and the user ratings unchanged, the claimed benefit of multi-relational and sequential modeling would be refuted in that setting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MR-ConceptGCN is a fully unsupervised learner model: take the concepts a learner marks as 'did not understand' (DNU), enrich them via two layers of multi-relational graph convolution over a personal knowledge graph with RELATED TO and PREREQUISITE TO edges, SBERT-similarity-scaled messages, and frozen random relation matrices; then combine the enriched embeddings with a causal-masked correlation matrix and a recency weight into one learner vector used for concept recommendation. Claim: this relation- and sequence-aware representation improves perceived accuracy, usefulness, diversity, and satisfaction. Reported data: no significant differences versus single-relation ConceptGCN on any criteri

Load-bearing premise

The system assumes that the cosine similarity between a candidate concept's embedding and the learner model embedding in semantic space faithfully measures how much that concept will help the learner understand their misunderstood concepts; if semantic similarity does not track pedagogical helpfulness, the recommendation pipeline and its validation collapse regardless of the graph propagation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the approach works as claimed, concept recommendation becomes a sequencing problem: recommended concepts can be arranged along inferred prerequisite paths, giving learners a concrete study order from their DNU concepts.
  • Because all relation matrices are random and frozen, the model needs no labels or training; it can be deployed in small-data educational settings where supervised sequential recommenders are impractical.
  • The causal mask makes the learner model naturally updatable: when a learner marks a new concept DNU, past marks influence it, but future ones cannot retroactively change earlier representations.
  • The same combination of typed graph relations, semantic similarity, and a recency-causal sequence module could transfer to other user-modeling domains beyond education, such as skill assessment or interest drift in recommendation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The study's null result suggests the value of distinguishing PREREQUISITE TO depends heavily on the density of prerequisite edges; a learning material rich in prerequisites would be the sharpest test of the model's core claim.
  • The pipeline's true bottleneck may be the cosine-similarity proxy in SBERT space rather than the graph architecture; substituting a compatibility function that encodes pedagogical relations (e.g., prerequisite strength or content-utility) could flip the results.
  • The paper never compares against a sequential baseline that skips the graph entirely; without that ablation, the contribution of the GCN versus the contribution of the sequence mask is unidentified.
  • Treating 'understood' concepts as literal zeros discards information; weighting them as negative evidence or confidence-scaled background knowledge is a direct, testable extension.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MR-ConceptGCN, a fully unsupervised approach to learner modeling in the CourseMapper environment. It constructs Personal Knowledge Graphs (PKGs) with two concept-level relations (RELATED TO and PREREQUISITE TO), enriches item embeddings with two multi-relational GCN variants (an RR-GCN-style method and a CompGCN-style method, both with frozen random relation parameters and SBERT-based edge weighting), and then builds a sequential learner model that combines long-term semantic/sequential correlations with short-term recency weighting over DNU concepts. The approach is evaluated through a within-subject online user study (n=31) in which each participant received recommendations from MR-GCN CompGCN, MR-GCN RRGCN, and the single-relation ConceptGCN baseline, followed by ResQue questionnaire items and Precision@10. The abstract and conclusion claim that MR-ConceptGCN demonstrates benefits in accuracy, usefulness, diversity, and satisfaction; the paper's own statistical results do not support that claim.

Significance. The proposed direction is timely: extending GCN-based learner modeling from single-relation PKGs to multi-relational, sequence-aware representations in an unsupervised setting could be useful for educational recommender systems. The manuscript has clear strengths: a fully unsupervised formulation, explicit equations for the propagation and sequential weighting, use of a standard evaluation framework (ResQue), and a within-subject study with randomized model order. However, the empirical validation is internally inconsistent with the headline claim: every comparative test is non-significant with small effect sizes, and the ConceptGCN baseline — the method the paper sets out to improve — has the highest mean on every construct and the highest Precision@10. The significance of the claimed contribution therefore rests on overinterpretation of the reported results rather than on evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 3] The central claim in the abstract and conclusion—that MR-ConceptGCN "demonstrates the benefits" and is "particularly effective"—is contradicted by the paper's own statistics. All six Friedman tests are non-significant (p-values from .072 to .627) with Kendall's W <= .08, and ConceptGCN achieves the highest mean on every ResQue construct and the highest Precision@10 (68% vs. 64% for MR-GCN CompGCN and 63% for MR-GCN RRGCN). The text itself states that "the three models exhibit comparable performance" and that relation type "does not critically impact the perceived performance." The conclusions in Sections 1 and 6 must be revised to match these data; as written, the paper's main claim is unsupported by its own evaluation.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Section 5] The authors attribute the null result to the PKG being "not sufficiently complex," specifically containing relatively few PREREQUISITE TO relations, and the Limitations section notes the short-term, single-learning-material setting. This is a load-bearing concession: the proposed contribution is precisely the multi-relational, sequence-aware modeling component, and if the constructed PKG under-activates that component, the study cannot provide evidence for the central modeling claim. The Conclusion nevertheless asserts that the approach is "particularly effective in improving users' perceptions of accuracy, usefulness, diversity, and overall satisfaction." This overstates what the data and the authors' own limitation analysis can support.
  3. [Sections 3.2–3.3 and Section 4] The evaluation pipeline is largely self-referential within a single semantic embedding space. SBERT cosine similarity defines the PKG adjacency matrix (Eq. 9), the correlation matrix C (Eq. 31), the concept-to-material weight w_cos (Eq. 38), and the final top-10 recommendation ranking in Section 4. The learner embedding e_L is a weighted average of DNU concept embeddings, so the recommended concepts are the top-cosine neighbors of that point in the same SBERT space. With no offline metric or ablation that isolates the effect of GCN propagation (e.g., comparing against a non-graph SBERT baseline, random relation matrices, or different propagation depths), the user study cannot attribute the observed ratings to the multi-relational GCN component rather than to SBERT semantic similarity. This is a testability concern for the modeling claim, not merely a presentation issue.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typographical errors: "effecively" (Abstract), "sequntial" (Section 5), "prerequisiste" in Eq. (14), "concepts concepts" in Section 3.3.2, and "T able" in Tables 2–3 captions.
  2. [Eq. (14) and Section 3.2.1.4] The worked example says "the final embedding of MC2 at layer 2 is calculated as follows" but the displayed equation is for e^2_{MC1}; the node label is inconsistent with the text.
  3. [Eq. (37)] The position weight w_pos_i = i/(N-1) is undefined when N=1 (division by zero). The paper should specify how the degenerate single-DNU-concept case is handled.
  4. [Eqs. (28)–(36)] The dimensions and orientation of V, e_DNU, and beta are not fully specified. Clarify that V is a matrix of row vectors and confirm the ordering of multiplication, since the worked example is otherwise hard to verify.
  5. [Section 4.1] Each ResQue construct is measured with a single 5-point Likert item; no reliability or validity information is reported. This is acceptable for a pilot study, but the limitation should be acknowledged when interpreting the non-significant comparisons.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No material circularity; the MR-ConceptGCN advantage claim is contradicted by the paper's own non-significant, numerically reversed results, which is an evidentiary inconsistency rather than a definitional loop.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that no output is fed back as an input and no parameter is fitted to the evaluation. Concept embeddings are initialized with SBERT (Eqs. 1-8), edge weights are SBERT-cosine or prerequisite scores (Eqs. 9-10), relation matrices are random and frozen (Eqs. 11-13), propagation is a fixed aggregation (Eqs. 14-15, 20), and the learner model is a weighted average of DNU embeddings (Eqs. 26, 38). The recommendation step is explicitly top-k cosine similarity to the learner embedding (Section 4). This is a fixed, unsupervised scoring pipeline; the human ResQue responses and precision judgments are external anchors collected after the recommendations are generated, not training labels. The paper's reliance on cosine similarity as a proxy for pedagogical helpfulness is an explicit evaluative/utility assumption, not a circular derivation: it would threaten validity if similarity does not track helpfulness, but it does not make the model equivalent to its own output. The self-citations (ConceptGCN, prerequisite inference, PKG construction) supply components and a baseline; none asserts uniqueness or imports the target result. The important problem is empirical: Section 4.2 reports no significant Friedman differences (e.g., perceived usefulness p=.072, W=.08; all other p>.14), small effect sizes, and ConceptGCN with the highest mean on every criterion and highest Precision@10 (68% vs. 64%/63%). The authors themselves state the models 'exhibit comparable performance' and that relation type 'does not critically impact the perceived performance,' and Section 5 attributes the null result to a PKG with 'relatively few PREREQUISITE TO relationships.' Those passages undermine the abstract's 'demonstrating the benefits' claim, but they are evidence against the claim, not evidence that the derivation reduces to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model contains no learned parameters or external labels; its behavior is determined by SBERT embeddings, hand-set thresholds, random frozen matrices, and a fixed two-layer architecture. Every component is either imported from cited prior work or chosen by hand, and none of the free choices is ablated.

free parameters (6)
  • Number of GCN layers L=2 = 2
    Chosen by hand; receptive field and no ablation reported (Section 3.2.1.3).
  • Random relation-specific matrices W_self, W_related_to, W_prerequisite_to = Glorot random, frozen; seed unspecified
    Random matrices affect final embeddings; no seed or multi-seed averaging is reported (Eqs. 11–13).
  • PKG construction thresholds = top-15 keyphrases, top-5 MCs, top-20 RCs, top-3 Cats
    Hand-set pipeline thresholds with no sensitivity analysis (Section 3.1).
  • SBERT model variant / embedding dimension = not specified
    All cosine similarities and the final recommendations depend on the choice of SBERT model and embedding size (Section 3.2.1.1).
  • Long/short-term combination coefficient 1/2 = 0.5
    w_C = 1/2 (w_cos + w_pos) is chosen without ablation (Eq. 38).
  • Number of recommended concepts = 10
    Top-10 selection defines Precision@10 and all user ratings; no sensitivity analysis (Section 4).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Self-reported DNU (Did Not Understand) marks are an accurate signal of learner knowledge state.
    The learner model is built exclusively from U/DNU marks, with no independent knowledge assessment (Section 3.3.1).
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity in SBERT space captures semantic and pedagogical relatedness between concepts and materials.
    Used to weight ADJ, correlation matrix C, w_cos, and the final recommendation ranking (Eqs. 9, 31, 38).
  • domain assumption The automatically inferred PREREQUISITE TO relations are correct.
    The PRE matrix relies entirely on the multi-criteria inference of Alatrash et al. (2025), with no validation in this study (Section 3.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Random, frozen relation transformation matrices preserve enough relation semantics for unsupervised propagation.
    Motivated by RR-GCN results on other benchmarks, but not validated for this PKG/learner-modeling setting (Section 3.2.2.3).
  • domain assumption Two propagation layers are sufficient for the learner modeling task.
    L is fixed to 2 and no layer-depth analysis is provided (Section 3.2.1.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sequential Learner Modeling Using Multi-Relational Graph Convolutional Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LW7RJED7

@misc{pith2026260719253,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sequential Learner Modeling Using Multi-Relational Graph Convolutional Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LW7RJED7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19253}
}
read the original abstract

User modeling is a critical task in a variety of personalized systems. Recognizing their effectiveness in learning from graph-structured data, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), particularly Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs), are increasingly employed for user modeling. However, existing approaches typically treat different relation types in a graph as homogeneous, limiting their ability to capture richer semantics and construct more informative user models. While multi-relational GNNs (MR-GNNs) have been adopted for representation learning and recommendation, their application for user modeling remains unexplored. Moreover, existing GNN-based user modeling approaches ignore the user interaction sequence. To address these research gaps, in this work we propose MR-ConceptGCN, a novel fully unsupervised approach focused on concept-based sequential learner modeling using multi-relational GCNs (MR-GCNs). MR-ConceptGCN effecively combines Personal Knowledge Graphs (PKGs), MR-GCNs, and the pre-trained language model SBERT to obtain enhanced relation- and semantic-aware representations of the PKG items. The enriched embeddings of the knowledge concepts that a learner did not understand when interacting with learning materials in CourseMapper are then used to construct a sequential learner model that combines long-term and short-term learner interactions. We report the results of an online user study (n = 31), demonstrating the benefits of MR-ConceptGCN in terms of several important user-centric aspects including accuracy, usefulness, diversity, and satisfaction with an educational recommender system.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ain, Q.U., Chatti, M.A., Bakar, K.G.C., Joarder, S., Alatrash, R. (2023). Auto- matic construction of educational knowledge graphs: A word embedding-based approach.Information,14(10), 526, https://doi.org/10.3390/info14100526

    doi:10.3390/info14100526 2023

  2. [2]

    Ain, Q.U., Chatti, M.A., Meteng Kamdem, P.A., Alatrash, R., Joarder, S., Siep- mann, C. (2024). Learner modeling and recommendation of learning resources using personal knowledge graphs.Proceedings of the 14th learning analytics and knowledge conference(pp. 273–283)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Ain, Q.U., Chatti, M.A., Qussa, J., Shakhshir, A., Alatrash, R., Joarder, S. (2025). An optimized pipeline for automatic educational knowledge graph construction. Knowledge graphs: 14th international joint conference, ijckg 2025, heraklion, crete, greece, october 15–17, 2025, proceedings(p. 271–287). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag

    2025

  4. [4]

    Alatrash, R., Chatti, M.A., Ain, Q.U., Fang, Y., Joarder, S., Siepmann, C. (2024). Conceptgcn: Knowledge concept recommendation in moocs based on knowledge graph convolutional networks and sbert.Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence,6, 100193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100193

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Alatrash, R., Chatti, M.A., Ain, Q.U., Joarder, S. (2024). Transparent learner knowledge state modeling using personal knowledge graphs and graph neural networks.Adjunct proceedings of the 32nd acm conference on user modeling, adaptation and personalization(p. 591–596). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2024

  6. [6]

    Alatrash, R., Chatti, M.A., Wibowo, N., Ain, Q.U. (2025). Inferring prerequisite knowledge concepts in educational knowledge graphs: A multi-criteria approach. International joint conference on knowledge graphs(pp. 288–303)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Balog, K., & Kenter, T. (2019). Personal knowledge graphs: A research agenda. Proceedings of the 2019 acm sigir international conference on theory of infor- mation retrieval(p. 217–220). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2019

  8. [8]

    Boka, T.F., Niu, Z., Neupane, R.B. (2024). A survey of sequential recommendation systems: Techniques, evaluation, and future directions.Information Systems, 125, 102427, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2024.102427

    arXiv 2024

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Bordes, A., Usunier, N., Garcia-Dur´ an, A., Weston, J., Yakhnenko, O. (2013). Trans- lating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data.Proceedings of the 27th international conference on neural information processing systems - volume 2 42 (p. 2787–2795). Red Hook, NY, USA:...

    2013

  2. [10]

    Chang, J., Gao, C., Zheng, Y., Hui, Y., Niu, Y., Song, Y., . . . Li, Y. (2021). Sequential recommendation with graph neural networks.Proceedings of the 44th interna- tional acm sigir conference on research and development in information retrieval (p. 378–387). New York, NY, US...

    2021

  3. [11]

    (2023, April)

    Chen, W., Feng, F., Wang, Q., He, X., Song, C., Ling, G., Zhang, Y. (2023, April). Catgcn: Graph convolutional networks with categorical node features.IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng.,35(4), 3500–3511, https://doi.org/10.1109/ TKDE.2021.3133013

    2023

  4. [12]

    Zhang, Y

    Chen, W., Gu, Y., Ren, Z., He, X., Xie, H., Guo, T., . . . Zhang, Y. (2019). Semi-supervised user profiling with heterogeneous graph attention networks. Proceedings of the 28th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (p. 2116–2122). AAAI Press

    2019

  5. [13]

    Degraeve, V., Vandewiele, G., Ongenae, F., Hoecke, S.V. (2022). R-gcn: The r could stand for random.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02424, ,

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Deng, Y., Lu, D., Huang, D., Chung, C.-J., Lin, F. (2019). Knowledge graph based learning guidance for cybersecurity hands-on labs.Proceedings of the acm con- ference on global computing education(p. 194–200). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2019

  7. [15]

    Donkers, T., Loepp, B., Ziegler, J. (2017). Sequential user-based recurrent neural network recommendations.Proceedings of the eleventh acm conference on recom- mender systems(p. 152–160). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2017

  8. [16]

    Fan, L., Li, Q., Liu, B., Wu, X.-M., Zhang, X., Lv, F., . . . Yang, K. (2022). Modeling user behavior with graph convolution for personalized product search.Pro- ceedings of the acm web conference 2022(p. 203–212). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2022

  9. [17]

    (2020, nov)

    Fang, H., Zhang, D., Shu, Y., Guo, G. (2020, nov). Deep learning for sequential recommendation: Algorithms, influential factors, and evaluations.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst.,39(1), 42, https://doi.org/10.1145/3426723

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Glorot, X., & Bengio, Y. (2010). Understanding the difficulty of training deep feed- forward neural networks.Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics(pp. 249–256). 43

    2010

  11. [19]

    He, X., Deng, K., Wang, X., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, M. (2020). Lightgcn: Simplify- ing and powering graph convolution network for recommendation.Proceedings of the 43rd international acm sigir conference on research and development in information retrieval(pp. 639–648)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Hidasi, B., & Karatzoglou, A. (2018). Recurrent neural networks with top-k gains for session-based recommendations.Proceedings of the 27th acm international conference on information and knowledge management(p. 843–852). New York,

    2018

  13. [21]

    Hidasi, B., Karatzoglou, A., Baltrunas, L., Tikk, D. (2016). Session-based recom- mendations with recurrent neural networks. Y. Bengio & Y. LeCun (Eds.), 4th international conference on learning representations, ICLR 2016, san juan, puerto rico, may 2-4, 2016, conference track...

    2016

  14. [22]

    Hsu, C., & Li, C.-T. (2021). Retagnn: Relational temporal attentive graph neural networks for holistic sequential recommendation.Proceedings of the web con- ference 2021(p. 2968–2979). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2021

  15. [23]

    Hu, Z., Dong, Y., Wang, K., Sun, Y. (2020). Heterogeneous graph transformer. Proceedings of the web conference 2020(p. 2704–2710). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2020

  16. [24]

    Huang, Z., Li, X., Ye, Y., Ng, M.K. (2021). Mr-gcn: multi-relational graph con- volutional networks based on generalized tensor product.Proceedings of the twenty-ninth international joint conference on artificial intelligence

    2021

  17. [25]

    Ilkou, E. (2022). Personal knowledge graphs: Use cases in e-learning platforms.Com- panion proceedings of the web conference 2022(p. 344–348). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2022

  18. [26]

    (2018, November)

    Kang, W.-C., & McAuley, J. (2018, November). Self-Attentive Sequential Recommen- dation .2018 ieee international conference on data mining (icdm)(p. 197-206). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society

    2018

  19. [27]

    Kumar, S., Zhang, X., Leskovec, J. (2019). Predicting dynamic embedding trajectory in temporal interaction networks.Proceedings of the 25th acm sigkdd interna- tional conference on knowledge discovery & data mining(p. 1269–1278). New

    2019

  20. [28]

    Li, J., Ren, P., Chen, Z., Ren, Z., Lian, T., Ma, J. (2017). Neural attentive session-based recommendation.Proceedings of the 2017 acm on conference on information and knowledge management(p. 1419–1428). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. 44

    2017

  21. [29]

    Li, J., Wang, Y., McAuley, J. (2020). Time interval aware self-attention for sequential recommendation.Proceedings of the 13th international conference on web search and data mining(p. 322–330). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2020

  22. [30]

    (2020, 7)

    Li, S., & Zhao, H. (2020, 7). A survey on representation learning for user modeling. C. Bessiere (Ed.),Proceedings of the twenty-ninth international joint confer- ence on artificial intelligence, IJCAI-20(pp. 4997–5003). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligen...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Sheng, M

    Li, Z., Yang, C., Chen, Y., Wang, X., Chen, H., Xu, G., . . . Sheng, M. (2024, Novem- ber). Graph and sequential neural networks in session-based recommendation: A survey.ACM Comput. Surv.,57(2), 37, https://doi.org/10.1145/3696413

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Li, Z., Zhao, H., Liu, Q., Huang, Z., Mei, T., Chen, E. (2018). Learning from history and present: Next-item recommendation via discriminatively exploiting user behaviors.Proceedings of the 24th acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining(pp. 1734–1743)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Lin, J., Pan, W., Ming, Z. (2020). Fissa: Fusing item similarity models with self- attention networks for sequential recommendation.Proceedings of the 14th acm conference on recommender systems(p. 130–139). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2020

  26. [34]

    Liu, Q., Zeng, Y., Mokhosi, R., Zhang, H. (2018). Stamp: Short-term attention/mem- ory priority model for session-based recommendation.Proceedings of the 24th acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining (p. 1831–1839). New York, NY, USA: Associatio...

    2018

  27. [35]

    Lv, F., Jin, T., Yu, C., Sun, F., Lin, Q., Yang, K., Ng, W. (2019). Sdm: Sequential deep matching model for online large-scale recommender system.Proceedings of the 28th acm international conference on information and knowledge management (p. 2635–2643). New York, NY, USA: Ass...

    2019

  28. [36]

    Ma, C., Ma, L., Zhang, Y., Sun, J., Liu, X., Coates, M. (2020). Memory augmented graph neural networks for sequential recommendation.Proceedings of the aaai conference on artificial intelligence(Vol. 34, pp. 5045–5052)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Mendes, P.N., Jakob, M., Garc ´ ıa-Silva, A., Bizer, C. (2011). Dbpedia spotlight: shedding light on the web of documents.Proceedings of the 7th international conference on semantic systems(p. 1–8). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2011

  30. [38]

    (2023, September)

    Nasir, M., & Ezeife, C.I. (2023, September). A survey and taxonomy of sequential recommender systems for e-commerce product recommendation.SN Comput. Sci.,4(6), 708, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-023-02166-5 45

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    (2025, October)

    Pan, L.-W., Pan, W.-K., Wei, M.-Y., Yin, H.-Z., Ming, Z. (2025, October). A survey on sequential recommendation.Front. Comput. Sci.,20(3), 32, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11704-025-41329-w

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    Pancha, N., Zhai, A., Leskovec, J., Rosenberg, C. (2022). Pinnerformer: Sequence modeling for user representation at pinterest.Proceedings of the 28th acm sigkdd conference on knowledge discovery and data mining(p. 3702–3712). New York,

    2022

  33. [41]

    (2011, October)

    Pu, P., Chen, L., Hu, R. (2011, October). A user-centric evaluation framework for recommender systems.Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recom- mender systems(pp. 157–164). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2011

  34. [42]

    Purificato, E., Boratto, L., De Luca, E.W. (2023). Tutorial on user profiling with graph neural networks and related beyond-accuracy perspectives.Proceedings of the 31st acm conference on user modeling, adaptation and personalization (p. 309–312). New York, NY, USA: Associatio...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Quadrana, M., Karatzoglou, A., Hidasi, B., Cremonesi, P. (2017). Personal- izing session-based recommendations with hierarchical recurrent neural net- works.Proceedings of the eleventh acm conference on recommender systems (p. 130–137). New York, NY, USA: Association for Compu...

    2017

  36. [44]

    Reimers, N., & Gurevych, I. (2019). Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks.ArXiv,abs/1908.10084, ,

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Schlichtkrull, M., Kipf, T.N., Bloem, P., Van Den Berg, R., Titov, I., Welling, M. (2018). Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks.The seman- tic web: 15th international conference, eswc 2018, heraklion, crete, greece, june 3–7, 2018, proceedings 15(pp. 593–...

    2018

  38. [46]

    (2017, January)

    Shi, C., Li, Y., Zhang, J., Sun, Y., Yu, P.S. (2017, January). A survey of heterogeneous information network analysis.IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng.,29(1), 17–37, https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2016.2598561 Skjæveland, M.G., Balog, K., Bernard, N., Lajewska, W., Linjordet, ...

    2017

  39. [47]

    Sun, F., Liu, J., Wu, J., Pei, C., Lin, X., Ou, W., Jiang, P. (2019). Bert4rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder representations from transformer. Proceedings of the 28th acm international conference on information and knowledge management(pp. 1441–1450)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Tang, J., & Wang, K. (2018). Personalized top-n sequential recommendation via con- volutional sequence embedding.Proceedings of the eleventh acm international conference on web search and data mining(pp. 565–573)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Tuan, T.X., & Phuong, T.M. (2017). 3d convolutional networks for session-based rec- ommendation with content features.Proceedings of the eleventh acm conference on recommender systems(pp. 138–146)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Vashishth, S., Sanyal, S., Nitin, V., Talukdar, P.P. (2019). Composition-based multi- relational graph convolutional networks.CoRR,abs/1911.03082, , 1911.03082

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Wang, H., Zhang, F., Wang, J., Zhao, M., Li, W., Xie, X., Guo, M. (2018). Rip- plenet: Propagating user preferences on the knowledge graph for recommender systems.Proceedings of the 27th acm international conference on information and knowledge management(pp. 417–426)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Wang, H., Zhao, M., Xie, X., Li, W., Guo, M. (2019). Knowledge graph convo- lutional networks for recommender systems.The world wide web conference (p. 3307–3313). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2019

  45. [53]

    (2019, 7)

    Wang, S., Hu, L., Wang, Y., Cao, L., Sheng, Q.Z., Orgun, M. (2019, 7). Sequen- tial recommender systems: Challenges, progress and prospects.Proceedings of the twenty-eighth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI- 19(pp. 6332–6338). International Joint...

    2019

  46. [54]

    Wang, X., He, X., Cao, Y., Liu, M., Chua, T.-S. (2019). Kgat: Knowledge graph attention network for recommendation.Proceedings of the 25th acm sigkdd inter- national conference on knowledge discovery & data mining(p. 950–958). New

    2019

  47. [55]

    Wang, Z., Wei, W., Cong, G., Li, X.-L., Mao, X.-L., Qiu, M. (2020). Global context enhanced graph neural networks for session-based recommendation.Proceed- ings of the 43rd international acm sigir conference on research and development in information retrieval(p. 169–178). New...

    2020

  48. [56]

    (2022, December)

    Wu, S., Sun, F., Zhang, W., Xie, X., Cui, B. (2022, December). Graph neural networks in recommender systems: A survey.ACM Comput. Surv.,55(5), 37, https:// 47 doi.org/10.1145/3535101

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Wu, S., Tang, Y., Zhu, Y., Wang, L., Xie, X., Tan, T. (2019). Session-based recommendation with graph neural networks.Proceedings of the thirty-third aaai conference on artificial intelligence and thirty-first innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference and n...

    2019

  50. [58]

    Xia, X., Eksombatchai, P., Pancha, N., Badani, D.D., Wang, P.-W., Gu, N., . . . Zhai, A. (2023). Transact: Transformer-based realtime user action model for rec- ommendation at pinterest.Proceedings of the 29th acm sigkdd conference on knowledge discovery and data mining(p. 524...

    2023

  51. [59]

    Yan, Q., Zhang, Y., Liu, Q., Wu, S., Wang, L. (2021). Relation-aware heterogeneous graph for user profiling.Proceedings of the 30th acm international conference on information & knowledge management(p. 3573–3577). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2021

  52. [60]

    Yan, S., Zhao, T., Deng, J. (2022). Interaction-aware hypergraph neural networks for user profiling.2022 ieee 9th international conference on data science and advanced analytics (dsaa)(p. 1-10)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Yang, B., tau Yih, W., He, X., Gao, J., Deng, L. (2014). Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases.International conference on learning representations

    2014

  54. [62]

    Yang, F., Yue, Y., Li, G., Payne, T.R., Man, K.L. (2023). Kemim: Knowledge- enhanced user multi-interest modeling for recommender systems.IEEE Access, 11, 55425-55434, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3264550

    2023

  55. [63]

    Yang, L., Wang, S., Tao, Y., Sun, J., Liu, X., Yu, P.S., Wang, T. (2023). Dgrec: Graph neural network for recommendation with diversified embedding genera- tion.Proceedings of the sixteenth acm international conference on web search and data mining(p. 661–669). New York, NY, U...

    2023

  56. [64]

    You, J., Wang, Y., Pal, A., Eksombatchai, P., Rosenburg, C., Leskovec, J. (2019). Hierarchical temporal convolutional networks for dynamic recommender sys- tems.The world wide web conference(p. 2236–2246). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2019

  57. [65]

    Yu, L., Zhang, C., Liang, S., Zhang, X. (2019). Multi-order attentive ranking model for sequential recommendation.Proceedings of the thirty-third aaai conference on 48 artificial intelligence and thirty-first innovative applications of artificial intelli- gence conference and ...

    2019

  58. [66]

    Yu, Z., Lian, J., Mahmoody, A., Liu, G., Xie, X. (2019). Adaptive user modeling with long and short-term preferences for personalized recommendation.Proceedings of the 28th international joint conference on artificial intelligence(p. 4213–4219). AAAI Press

    2019

  59. [67]

    Yuan, F., He, X., Jiang, H., Guo, G., Xiong, J., Xu, Z., Xiong, Y. (2020). Future data helps training: Modeling future contexts for session-based recommendation. Proceedings of the web conference 2020(p. 303–313). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery

    2020

  60. [68]

    Yuan, F., Karatzoglou, A., Arapakis, I., Jose, J.M., He, X. (2019). A simple convolutional generative network for next item recommendation.Proceedings of the twelfth acm international conference on web search and data mining (p. 582–590). New York, NY, USA: Association for Com...

    2019

  61. [69]

    Zhang, S., Tay, Y., Yao, L., Sun, A. (2018). Next item recommendation with self- attention.ArXiv,abs/1808.06414, ,

    2018 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Zhou, C., Bai, J., Song, J., Liu, X., Zhao, Z., Chen, X., Gao, J. (2018). Atrank: an attention-based user behavior modeling framework for recommendation. Proceedings of the thirty-second aaai conference on artificial intelligence and thirtieth innovative applications of artifi...

    2018

  63. [71]

    Zhou, G., Mou, N., Fan, Y., Pi, Q., Bian, W., Zhou, C., . . . Gai, K. (2019). Deep interest evolution network for click-through rate prediction.Proceedings of the thirty-third aaai conference on artificial intelligence and thirty-first innovative applications of artificial int...

    2019

  64. [72]

    Zhou, G., Zhu, X., Song, C., Fan, Y., Zhu, H., Ma, X., . . . Gai, K. (2018). Deep interest network for click-through rate prediction.Proceedings of the 24th acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining(p. 1059–1068). New York, NY, USA: Association f...

    2018

  65. [73]

    Zhou, P., Ye, Q., Xie, Y., Gao, J., Wang, S., Kim, J.B., . . . Kim, S. (2023). Attention calibration for transformer-based sequential recommendation.Proceedings of the 32nd acm international conference on information and knowledge management (p. 3595–3605). New York, NY, USA: ...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.