Bridge the Domains: Large Language Models Enhanced Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation

Chong Chen; Feng Tian; Howard Zhong; Qidong Liu; Wei Huang; Xiang Li; Xiangyu Zhao; Yejing Wang; Zijian Zhang

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Bridge the Domains: Large Language Models Enhanced Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LLM4CDSR claims that frozen LLM semantic item embeddings, adapted by a small trainable layer and aligned with hierarchical LLM user profiles, outperform graph-based and contrastive-only cross-domain sequential recommenders on all tested…

desk verdict Strong, well-engineered CDSR recipe with a potentially load-bearing test-label leakage in the LLM profile alignment that must be checked before trusting the headline gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18383 v1 pith:DAS7N7V4 submitted 2025-04-25 cs.IR cs.AI

Qidong Liu , Xiangyu Zhao , Yejing Wang , Zijian Zhang , Howard Zhong , Chong Chen , Xiang Li , Wei Huang

show 1 more author

Feng Tian

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.IRcs.AI

keywords RecommenderSystemsLargeLanguageModelsCross-domainSequentialRecommendationsemanticitemembeddingshierarchicaluserprofilingcontrastiveregularizationoverlapdilemma

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 sets out to show that large language models can remove the two main bottlenecks in cross-domain sequential recommendation: the reliance on overlapping users who have interacted in every domain, and the difficulty of extracting a user's shifting interests from one long mixed sequence of behaviors. The proposed model, LLM4CDSR, uses frozen LLM embeddings of item text as a semantic bridge between domains, a small trainable adapter with contrastive regularization to adapt those embeddings to the recommendation task, and a hierarchical LLM profiling step to summarize user preferences from partitioned behavior sequences. Across three public datasets the model reports consistent, statistically significant gains over single-domain, graph-based cross-domain, and LLM-based baselines, with the largest relative improvements on the sparser domain. The intended conclusion is that semantic item text can carry the cross-domain bridge that previously required collaborative overlap.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the frozen LLM-based global embedding layer $E_{LLM}$, a matrix of semantic item embeddings obtained by prompting an LLM with item attributes such as title, brand, and description. Because these embeddings come from text rather than co-occurrence, items in different domains can sit close together even when no overlapping user has interacted with both, which is exactly the bridge the method claims to provide. A trainable two-layer adapter maps $E_{LLM}$ into the recommendation space, and a contrastive regularization loss $\mathcal{L}_{reg}$ pulls co-occurring cross-domain item pairs together while pushing unrelated pairs apart. On the user side, the hierarchical profiling module applies K-means to $E_{LLM}$, partitions the mixed sequence into $K$ clusters, summarizes each cluster and then the entire sequence with LLM prompts, and aligns the resulting profile embedding with the global user representation via the contrastive alignment loss $\mathcal{L}_{profile}$. The tri-thread framework then combines two domain-local self-attention encoders with one shared encoder, and logit fusion concatenates local and global user vectors to score items.

What would settle it

Permute the rows of the frozen LLM embedding matrix $E_{LLM}$ before training the adapter, keeping the architecture and losses otherwise identical: if LLM4CDSR still matches its reported accuracy, the semantic embeddings are not the load-bearing bridge; if accuracy collapses, the semantic premise is confirmed as essential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, on the paper's own terms, is that a frozen, general-purpose LLM embedding layer plus a trainable adapter can replace the collaborative bridges that earlier cross-domain recommenders build from overlapping users. The model freezes an LLM-based global embedding matrix derived from item attribute text, projects it through a two-layer adapter, and regularizes it with an in-batch contrastive loss that pulls together co-occurring items from the two domains. On the user side, a hierarchical profiling module partitions the mixed interaction sequence by clustering the same LLM embeddings, asks the LLM to summarize each partition and then the whole sequence, and aligns the encoded profile with the global user representation through a contrastive alignment loss. These pieces sit inside a tri-thread framework that runs one self-attention encoder per domain plus a shared encoder for the mixed sequence, fusing local and global user vectors by concatenation. The paper reports that this design outperforms all compared baselines on all three datasets, and that the margin persists when the overlap ratio is reduced.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the similarity structure inside general-purpose LLM embeddings of item text matches the similarity structure of users' cross-domain preferences, so that frozen semantic embeddings plus a small adapter can carry the bridge that collaborative methods build from overlapping users.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Cross-domain recommenders no longer need overlapping users: LLM4CDSR keeps its advantage when the overlap ratio is cut to 25%, while graph-based baselines degrade sharply.
Serving remains cheap: LLM item embeddings and user profiles are cached ahead of time, so inference runs through the adapter and self-attention only, with latency matching the fastest baselines.
The semantic bridge transfers across backbone architectures: replacing SASRec with GRU4Rec or Bert4Rec still yields gains over the corresponding baselines.
Every module earns its place: removing the unified LLM representation, the hierarchical profile alignment, the contrastive regularization, the clustering partition, or the LLM-based local initialization each lowers accuracy in the ablations.

Reading between the lines

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

If the semantic-embedding premise is right, the method's next bottleneck is text quality: on datasets where item titles are missing, translated, or uniformly generic, the frozen semantic bridge should weaken, and the model's margin over collaborative baselines should shrink accordingly.
The clustering-then-summarizing recipe is a general answer to long prompts: any sequential recommender with very long user histories could partition by embedding similarity before asking an LLM to summarize, which is a testable extension outside cross-domain settings.
An ablation that replaces the LLM-generated profile text with a cheap surrogate, such as the most frequent category in each partition, would isolate whether the profile module's value comes from LLM reasoning or simply from extra dense supervision through the alignment loss.

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

Worth a look, with a caution: the profile alignment module may be leaking the test item into training. If that's true, the headline gains—especially the 31.7% H@10 improvement on Book—are inflated.

What's actually new: the paper combines frozen LLM item embeddings, a trainable adapter, contrastive regularization, and hierarchical LLM user profiling into a tri-thread framework for cross-domain sequential recommendation. That specific combination is new in the cited literature; prior LLM methods are single-domain or generate recommendations directly. The experiments are broad: three datasets, twelve baselines, ablations, an overlap-ratio study, efficiency and generality checks. They also ship code. The engineering story is coherent—caching LLM embeddings and profiles makes serving cheap.

The soft spot is load-bearing. Section 3.4 says user profiles are derived from the mixed sequence S_tilde, and Algorithm 1 line 5 computes profiles before training. Section 4.1.1 splits the last interaction as test and the penultimate as validation, but nowhere does the text say the profile generation excludes those items. If the profile is generated from the full sequence, then the alignment loss in Eq. (7) trains the global user vector (computed from the prefix) to be similar to a summary that contains the test item. That is test-label leakage through an auxiliary objective. The w/o Profile ablation hurts, and the Book domain, with the longest sequences, shows the largest gains—exactly the pattern leakage would produce. This needs to be verified before any conclusion about semantic profiling is drawn.

Secondary issues: the paper reports average metrics over three random seeds but no standard deviations; hyperparameters alpha and beta are searched on a small validation set; baseline tuning is not described. Those are minor compared to the leakage question.

Who is this for? Anyone working on LLM-enhanced recommendation or cross-domain transfer. The recipe is useful, and the leakage pitfall is instructive. I would send it to peer review—it deserves a serious referee—but the referee should require the authors to re-run with prefix-only profiles and report both sets of numbers. I would not accept the current results at face value.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LLM4CDSR, a cross-domain sequential recommendation (CDSR) method that combines frozen LLM-generated item embeddings with a trainable adapter, a tri-thread framework for local and global preference modeling, contrastive regularization, and a hierarchical LLM-based user profiling module aligned to the global user representation through a contrastive loss. The authors evaluate on three datasets (Cloth-Sport, Electronic-Phone, Book-Movie) against 12 baselines from SDSR, CDSR, and LLM-based groups, reporting consistent improvements in H@10 and N@10, and further provide ablations, an overlap-ratio study, hyperparameter analysis, efficiency comparison, and a generality study.

Significance. If the experimental claims hold, the paper offers a practical way to inject LLM semantic knowledge into CDSR without online LLM inference, since item embeddings and user profiles are cached. The tri-thread architecture with frozen LLM embeddings plus a small adapter is a plausible and efficient design, and the broad evaluation (three datasets, twelve baselines, ablation and overlap studies) is a strength. The released code also supports reproducibility. However, the central empirical claim depends on the integrity of the profile-generation protocol, and the potential test-label leakage in the profiling module (Section 3.4 and Algorithm 1) is a load-bearing concern that must be resolved before the reported gains can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.4 and Algorithm 1, line 5; Section 4.1.1] The profiling step is not specified to exclude validation/test items, creating a test-label leakage risk that is load-bearing for the central claim. Algorithm 1 line 5 derives user profiles {\tilde{P}_i} for all users before training, and Section 3.4.2 states that the mixed sequence \tilde{S} is partitioned and summarized by the LLM. Section 4.1.1 splits v_{n_u-1} as validation and v_{n_u} as test, but nowhere states that profile generation drops these items. If profiles are generated from the full \tilde{S}, then the alignment loss in Eq. (7) optimizes the prefix-based global representation \tilde{u} to be similar to a profile embedding that contains the target item's title and semantics. This is label leakage through an auxiliary training signal: even though the profile is frozen and not used at inference, the model parameters are updated to extract information about the held-out item from the prefix, which can artificially inflate H@10 and N@10. The unusually large improvement on the Book domain (31.73% H@10 over AMID) is consistent with such leakage. The authors must clarify the exact input to the LLM summarizer for each user and, if leakage exists, rerun all experiments with profiles generated only from the training prefix (and similarly for the validation split), then report whether the margins in Table 2 persist.
[Section 4.1.4 and Table 2] The paper reports averages of three runs and claims statistically significant improvements via a two-sided t-test with p<0.05, but it does not report standard deviations or per-run values. Without variance information, the significance claims cannot be assessed, and it is unclear whether the 3-10% gains over AMID/LLM-ESR on most domains are within run-to-run noise. Please report standard deviations or confidence intervals for all methods and all result tables, and specify the number of runs used for each baseline.
[Section 4.1.3 and Table 2] The hyperparameter tuning protocol for the baselines is not described. The paper states the settings for LLM4CDSR (alpha and beta grids, fixed gamma, tau, K, dimension, batch size, learning rate), but it does not say whether each baseline was tuned per dataset or used default hyperparameters. This matters because several baselines are close to LLM4CDSR on some domains (e.g., AMID and LLM-ESR on Electronic and Phone), and an uneven tuning procedure could change the ranking. Please report the search space and selected hyperparameters for each baseline, or state that default settings from the original papers were used and justify that choice.
[Section 4.4 and Table 3] The overlap study and the ablation w/o Profile are both affected by the same profiling-protocol ambiguity. In Section 4.4, overlap users are converted to non-overlap users by deleting interactions from one domain, but the paper does not state whether user profiles are recomputed on the adjusted sequences or remain based on the original full sequences. If profiles still contain the deleted interactions, the overlap study cannot support the claim that LLM4CDSR alleviates the overlap dilemma. Similarly, the w/o Profile ablation in Table 3 only shows the effect of removing the alignment loss; if the profile contains held-out items, this ablation is confounded by leakage. Please clarify the profiling inputs in these experiments and, if needed, rerun them with profiles generated on the appropriate training-only data.

minor comments (7)

[Section 2 and Section 4.1.1] The notation is inconsistent: Eq. (1) formulates the prediction target as v_{n_u+1}, but the experimental setup treats v_{n_u} as the test item and v_{n_u-1} as validation. Please define n_u consistently, e.g., as the length of the prefix used for prediction, or clarify that v_{n_u+1} is the next item after the full historical sequence.
[Section 3.3.1] The Cloth item prompt template contains 'rating is <DATE>'; the placeholder appears to be mislabeled and should likely be <RATING> or another appropriate attribute. Please correct this typo.
[Table 1] The column labeled 'Overlap' appears to list the number of overlapping users, but the units are not stated. Please relabel it as '# Overlap Users' or similar, and clarify the corresponding counts for each domain pair.
[Figure 4] The subplot labels in Figure 4 are incomplete: panels are labeled only as '(a) (Book)', '(b) (Movie)', etc., without showing which hyperparameter (alpha or beta) and which metric are plotted. Please add complete axis titles and legend information.
[Section 4.6 and Table 4] The efficiency comparison is reported only on the Douban dataset, and it is unclear whether the 'Parameter' column counts local model parameters only or also includes any LLM components. This matters because URLLM's 6335M likely includes a large language model, while LLM4CDSR's 7.72M does not. Please state the parameter-counting convention explicitly.
[Section 4.7] The text refers to 'LLMCDSR' instead of 'LLM4CDSR' in the sentence 'We compare the performance of LLMCDSR and baselines...'; please unify the model name throughout the paper.
[Section 4.5 and Figure 4] The sentence 'By comparison, the trends for Book and Movie domains differ with beta rising from 0.1 to 0.01' appears to contain a typo, since the reported beta grid is {0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 10}. Please correct the range and clarify the trend description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: LLM4CDSR's predictions are produced by the tri-thread SRS objective; the LLM-profile alignment is a regularization term, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central prediction, Eq. (3), is a standard dot-product ranking score between concatenated item/user representations computed from self-attention over embedding sequences, trained with the SRS loss of Eq. (4). The frozen LLM embeddings and the trainable adapter are inputs, not fitted labels. The hierarchical LLM profile enters only through the auxiliary alignment loss Eq. (7), which pulls the learned global user representation toward a frozen LLM-generated summary; it is not used at inference and does not by construction determine the next-item score. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears: the cited LLM capabilities and prior LLM-SRS works are external baselines or background, and the paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem or prior-work ansatz to force its design. The only substantive concern is a possible implementation ambiguity: Algorithm 1 derives user profiles before training and Section 4.1.1 splits the last mixed-sequence item as the test item without explicitly stating that profile generation excludes that item. If the profile contains the test item, Eq. (7) could leak target information into training. However, this is a potential data-processing flaw rather than an equation-level circular reduction: the profile is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and the final scoring formula does not reduce to the profile by construction. Under the stated rubric, that ambiguity is a correctness risk, not circularity.

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

The method introduces no new physical entities. The trainable adapter, contrastive losses, and profiling module are architectural components, not invented entities. The free parameters are hyperparameters; alpha and beta are the only ones fitted to validation data.

free parameters (6)

alpha (regularization weight) = searched in {0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1}
Tuned on validation; directly weights contrastive regularization loss in Eq. (8).
beta (profile alignment weight) = searched in {0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 10}
Tuned on validation; weights profile alignment loss in Eq. (8).
K (number of item clusters) = 10
Fixed by hand; controls granularity of the hierarchical LLM profile partitioning.
gamma (temperature in item contrastive regularization) = 1
Set by hand; the paper states it does not affect performance evidently.
tau (temperature in profile alignment) = 1
Set by hand; same rationale as gamma.
d (embedding dimension) = 128
Chosen for all models; the paper does not justify this size.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Frozen LLM embeddings (text-ada-embedding-002, embedding-3) provide semantically unified representations of items across domains.
Core premise for the unified representation module (Section 3.3); no validation is provided that these embeddings align with recommendation preferences.
domain assumption LLMs (gpt-3.5-turbo, GLM-4-Flash) produce concise and useful user preference summaries from item titles.
Used in hierarchical profiling (Section 3.4); the paper does not evaluate summary quality or faithfulness.
domain assumption PCA on LLM embeddings retains enough semantic information for local domain embeddings.
Used in Section 3.3.2 to initialize local embedding layers; no ablation of PCA dimension is reported.
domain assumption Contrastive regularization between co-occurred cross-domain items is a valid proxy for cross-domain preference alignment.
Defined in Section 3.3.3; it reintroduces co-occurrence statistics, which may partially restore the overlap dependence the method aims to remove.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridge the Domains: Large Language Models Enhanced Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DAS7N7V4

@misc{pith2026250418383,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridge the Domains: Large Language Models Enhanced Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DAS7N7V4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18383}
}

read the original abstract

Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation (CDSR) aims to extract the preference from the user's historical interactions across various domains. Despite some progress in CDSR, two problems set the barrier for further advancements, i.e., overlap dilemma and transition complexity. The former means existing CDSR methods severely rely on users who own interactions on all domains to learn cross-domain item relationships, compromising the practicability. The latter refers to the difficulties in learning the complex transition patterns from the mixed behavior sequences. With powerful representation and reasoning abilities, Large Language Models (LLMs) are promising to address these two problems by bridging the items and capturing the user's preferences from a semantic view. Therefore, we propose an LLMs Enhanced Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation model (LLM4CDSR). To obtain the semantic item relationships, we first propose an LLM-based unified representation module to represent items. Then, a trainable adapter with contrastive regularization is designed to adapt the CDSR task. Besides, a hierarchical LLMs profiling module is designed to summarize user cross-domain preferences. Finally, these two modules are integrated into the proposed tri-thread framework to derive recommendations. We have conducted extensive experiments on three public cross-domain datasets, validating the effectiveness of LLM4CDSR. We have released the code online.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18383 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The overview of the proposed LLM4CDSR. and the mixed interaction sequence of both domains, i.e., S˜ . For capturing the local preference specified for each domain and the global preference shared by both domains, we propose a Tri-thread Framework, introduced in Section 3.2. Among the framework, two threads encode the embedding sequences of each domain (E 𝐴 and E 𝐵), while the other is for the mixed interaction embed… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The performance comparison under various ratios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The results of hyper-parameter experiments on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

CoRCi: Cross-Reconstruction of Coherent Interests Modeling in Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation
cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

CoRCi reconstructs a mixed-domain user sequence from separate domain sequences via cross-attention and a domain-agnostic FocalNCE loss, outperforming prior cross-domain sequential recommenders.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Ido Amos, Jonathan Berant, and Ankit Gupta. 2023. Never Train from Scratch: Fair Comparison of Long-Sequence Models Requires Data-Driven Priors. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

work page 2023
[2]

Keqin Bao, Jizhi Zhang, Xinyu Lin, Yang Zhang, Wenjie Wang, and Fuli Feng
[3]

Keqin Bao, Jizhi Zhang, Wenjie Wang, Yang Zhang, Zhengyi Yang, Yancheng Luo, Chong Chen, Fuli Feng, and Qi Tian. 2023. A bi-step grounding paradigm for large language models in recommendation systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08434 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[4]

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

2023
[5]

Jiangxia Cao, Xin Cong, Jiawei Sheng, Tingwen Liu, and Bin Wang. 2022. Con- trastive cross-domain sequential recommendation. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management . 138–147

2022
[6]

Yukuo Cen, Jianwei Zhang, Xu Zou, Chang Zhou, Hongxia Yang, and Jie Tang
[7]

Shu Chen, Zitao Xu, Weike Pan, Qiang Yang, and Zhong Ming. 2024. A Survey on Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04971 (2024)

arXiv 2024
[8]

Yuxin Chen, Junfei Tan, An Zhang, Zhengyi Yang, Leheng Sheng, Enzhi Zhang, Xiang Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. On Softmax Direct Preference Optimiza- tion for Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09215 (2024)

arXiv 2024

Show all 68 references

[9]

Zichuan Fu, Xiangyang Li, Chuhan Wu, Yichao Wang, Kuicai Dong, Xiangyu Zhao, Mengchen Zhao, Huifeng Guo, and Ruiming Tang. 2023. A unified frame- work for multi-domain ctr prediction via large language models. ACM Transac- tions on Information Systems (2023)

2023
[10]

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
[11]

Binzong Geng, Zhaoxin Huan, Xiaolu Zhang, Yong He, Liang Zhang, Fajie Yuan, Jun Zhou, and Linjian Mo. 2024. Breaking the length barrier: Llm-enhanced CTR prediction in long textual user behaviors. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and De...

2024
[12]

Balázs Hidasi, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Linas Baltrunas, and Domonkos Tikk
[13]

Jun Hu, Wenwen Xia, Xiaolu Zhang, Chilin Fu, Weichang Wu, Zhaoxin Huan, Ang Li, Zuoli Tang, and Jun Zhou. 2024. Enhancing sequential recommendation via llm-based semantic embedding learning. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024. 103–111

2024
[14]

Pengyue Jia, Yichao Wang, Shanru Lin, Xiaopeng Li, Xiangyu Zhao, Huifeng Guo, and Ruiming Tang. 2024. D3: A Methodological Exploration of Domain Division, Modeling, and Balance in Multi-Domain Recommendations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , ...

2024
[15]

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]

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

2019
[17]

Chengxi Li, Yejing Wang, Qidong Liu, Xiangyu Zhao, Wanyu Wang, Yiqi Wang, Lixin Zou, Wenqi Fan, and Qing Li. 2023. STRec: Sparse transformer for sequential recommendations. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on recommender systems. 101–111

2023
[18]

Xinhang Li, Zhaopeng Qiu, Xiangyu Zhao, Zihao Wang, Yong Zhang, Chunxiao Xing, and Xian Wu. 2022. Gromov-wasserstein guided representation learning for cross-domain recommendation. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management . ...

2022
[19]

Xiaopeng Li, Fan Yan, Xiangyu Zhao, Yichao Wang, Bo Chen, Huifeng Guo, and Ruiming Tang. 2023. Hamur: Hyper adapter for multi-domain recommendation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 1268–1277

2023
[20]

Jianghao Lin, Xinyi Dai, Yunjia Xi, Weiwen Liu, Bo Chen, Hao Zhang, Yong Liu, Chuhan Wu, Xiangyang Li, Chenxu Zhu, et al . 2023. How can recom- mender systems benefit from large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05817 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[21]

Dugang Liu, Shenxian Xian, Xiaolin Lin, Xiaolian Zhang, Hong Zhu, Yuan Fang, Zhen Chen, and Zhong Ming. 2024. A Practice-Friendly Two-Stage LLM-Enhanced Paradigm in Sequential Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00333 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[22]

Dugang Liu, Chaohua Yang, Xing Tang, Yejing Wang, Fuyuan Lyu, Weihong Luo, Xiuqiang He, Zhong Ming, and Xiangyu Zhao. 2024. MultiFS: Automated multi-scenario feature selection in deep recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search an...

2024
[23]

Qidong Liu, Jiaxi Hu, Yutian Xiao, Xiangyu Zhao, Jingtong Gao, Wanyu Wang, Qing Li, and Jiliang Tang. 2024. Multimodal recommender systems: A survey. Comput. Surveys 57, 2 (2024), 1–17

2024
[24]

Qidong Liu, Feng Tian, Qinghua Zheng, and Qianying Wang. 2023. Disentan- gling interest and conformity for eliminating popularity bias in session-based recommendation. Knowledge and Information Systems 65, 6 (2023), 2645–2664

2023
[25]

Qidong Liu, Xian Wu, Wanyu Wang, Yejing Wang, Yuanshao Zhu, Xiangyu Zhao, Feng Tian, and Yefeng Zheng. 2025. LLMEmb: Large Language Model Can Be a Good Embedding Generator for Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 39...

2025
[26]

Qidong Liu, Xian Wu, Yejing Wang, Zijian Zhang, Feng Tian, Yefeng Zheng, and Xiangyu Zhao. 2024. Llm-esr: Large language models enhancement for long- tailed sequential recommendation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), 26701–26727

2024
[27]

Qidong Liu, Xian Wu, Xiangyu Zhao, Yuanshao Zhu, Derong Xu, Feng Tian, and Yefeng Zheng. 2024. When moe meets llms: Parameter efficient fine-tuning for multi-task medical applications. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in ...

2024
[28]

Qidong Liu, Xian Wu, Xiangyu Zhao, Yuanshao Zhu, Zijian Zhang, Feng Tian, and Yefeng Zheng. 2024. Large language model distilling medication recommendation model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02803 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[29]

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

2023
[30]

Qidong Liu, Xiangyu Zhao, Yuhao Wang, Yejing Wang, Zijian Zhang, Yuqi Sun, Xiang Li, Maolin Wang, Pengyue Jia, Chong Chen, et al. 2024. Large language model enhanced recommender systems: Taxonomy, trend, application and future. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13432 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[31]

Ziwei Liu, Qidong Liu, Yejing Wang, Wanyu Wang, Pengyue Jia, Maolin Wang, Zitao Liu, Yi Chang, and Xiangyu Zhao. 2025. SIGMA: Selective Gated Mamba for Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 39. 12264–12272

2025
[32]

Ziru Liu, Jiejie Tian, Qingpeng Cai, Xiangyu Zhao, Jingtong Gao, Shuchang Liu, Dayou Chen, Tonghao He, Dong Zheng, Peng Jiang, et al. 2023. Multi-task recommendations with reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2023. 1273–1282

2023
[33]

Zewen Long, Liang Wang, Shu Wu, and Qiang Liu. 2024. GOT4Rec: Graph of Thoughts for Sequential Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14922 (2024)

2024
[34]

Haokai Ma, Ruobing Xie, Lei Meng, Xin Chen, Xu Zhang, Leyu Lin, and Jie Zhou. 2024. Triple sequence learning for cross-domain recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 42, 4 (2024), 1–29

2024
[35]

2019.𝜋-net: A parallel information-sharing network for shared-account cross- domain sequential recommendations

Muyang Ma, Pengjie Ren, Yujie Lin, Zhumin Chen, Jun Ma, and Maarten de Rijke. 2019.𝜋-net: A parallel information-sharing network for shared-account cross- domain sequential recommendations. In Proceedings of the 42nd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and developme...

2019
[36]

Shi Na, Liu Xumin, and Guan Yong. 2010. Research on k-means clustering algorithm: An improved k-means clustering algorithm. In2010 Third International Symposium on intelligent information technology and security informatics . Ieee, 63–67

2010
[37]

Chung Park, Taesan Kim, Hyungjun Yoon, Junui Hong, Yelim Yu, Mincheol Cho, Minsung Choi, and Jaegul Choo. 2024. Pacer and Runner: Cooperative Learning Framework between Single-and Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Confer...

2024
[38]

Karl Pearson. 1901. LIII. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin philosophical magazine and journal of science 2, 11 (1901), 559–572

1901
[39]

Ruihong Qiu, Zi Huang, Hongzhi Yin, and Zijian Wang. 2022. Contrastive learning for representation degeneration problem in sequential recommendation. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining. 813–823

2022
[40]

Xubin Ren, Wei Wei, Lianghao Xia, Lixin Su, Suqi Cheng, Junfeng Wang, Dawei Yin, and Chao Huang. 2024. Representation learning with large language models for recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 . 3464– 3475

2024
[41]

Tingjia Shen, Hao Wang, Jiaqing Zhang, Sirui Zhao, Liangyue Li, Zulong Chen, Defu Lian, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Exploring User Retrieval Integration towards Large Language Models for Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03085 (2024). Bridge the Doma...

2024 arXiv
[42]

Fei Sun, Jun Liu, Jian Wu, Changhua Pei, Xiao Lin, Wenwu Ou, and Peng Jiang
[43]

Yuqi Sun, Qidong Liu, Haiping Zhu, and Feng Tian. 2025. LLMSeR: Enhancing Sequential Recommendation via LLM-based Data Augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12547 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[44]

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
[45]

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

2017
[46]

Qi Wang, Jindong Li, Shiqi Wang, Qianli Xing, Runliang Niu, He Kong, Rui Li, Guodong Long, Yi Chang, and Chengqi Zhang. 2024. Towards next- generation llm-based recommender systems: A survey and beyond.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.19744 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[47]

Xinhua Wang, Houping Yue, Zizheng Wang, Liancheng Xu, and Jinyu Zhang
[48]

Yejing Wang, Zhaocheng Du, Xiangyu Zhao, Bo Chen, Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, and Zhenhua Dong. 2023. Single-shot feature selection for multi-task recommendations. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval...

2023
[49]

Yuhao Wang, Ha Tsz Lam, Yi Wong, Ziru Liu, Xiangyu Zhao, Yichao Wang, Bo Chen, Huifeng Guo, and Ruiming Tang. 2023. Multi-task deep recommender systems: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03525 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[50]

Yuhao Wang, Yichao Wang, Zichuan Fu, Xiangyang Li, Wanyu Wang, Yuyang Ye, Xiangyu Zhao, Huifeng Guo, and Ruiming Tang. 2024. Llm4msr: An llm- enhanced paradigm for multi-scenario recommendation. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowled...

2024
[51]

Yuhao Wang, Xiangyu Zhao, Bo Chen, Qidong Liu, Huifeng Guo, Huanshuo Liu, Yichao Wang, Rui Zhang, and Ruiming Tang. 2023. PLATE: A prompt-enhanced paradigm for multi-scenario recommendations. In Proceedings of the 46th In- ternational ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Devel...

2023
[52]

Likang Wu, Zhi Zheng, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hao Wang, Hongchao Gu, Tingjia Shen, Chuan Qin, Chen Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Qi Liu, et al . 2024. A survey on large language models for recommendation. World Wide Web 27, 5 (2024), 60

2024
[53]

Shiwen Wu, Fei Sun, Wentao Zhang, Xu Xie, and Bin Cui. 2022. Graph neural networks in recommender systems: a survey. Comput. Surveys 55, 5 (2022), 1–37

2022
[54]

Derong Xu, Ziheng Zhang, Zhenxi Lin, Xian Wu, Zhihong Zhu, Tong Xu, Xiangyu Zhao, Yefeng Zheng, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Multi-perspective improvement of knowledge graph completion with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01972 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[55]

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 on Web Conference 2024. 3173–3184

2024
[56]

Zitao Xu, Weike Pan, and Zhong Ming. 2023. A multi-view graph contrastive learning framework for cross-domain sequential recommendation. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 491–501

2023
[57]

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
[58]

Zijian Zhang, Shuchang Liu, Jiaao Yu, Qingpeng Cai, Xiangyu Zhao, Chunxu Zhang, Ziru Liu, Qidong Liu, Hongwei Zhao, Lantao Hu, et al . 2024. M3oe: Multi-domain multi-task mixture-of experts recommendation framework. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference...

2024
[59]

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
[60]

Xiangyu Zhao, Maolin Wang, Xinjian Zhao, Jiansheng Li, Shucheng Zhou, Dawei Yin, Qing Li, Jiliang Tang, and Ruocheng Guo. 2023. Embedding in recommender systems: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.18608 (2023)

2023
[61]

Xiangyu Zhao, Long Xia, Liang Zhang, Zhuoye Ding, Dawei Yin, and Jiliang Tang. 2018. Deep reinforcement learning for page-wise recommendations. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on recommender systems . 95–103

2018
[62]

Xiangyu Zhao, Liang Zhang, Zhuoye Ding, Long Xia, Jiliang Tang, and Dawei Yin
[2016]

In The International Conference on Learning Representations

Session-based recommendations with recurrent neural networks. In The International Conference on Learning Representations
[2018]

In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining

Recommendations with negative feedback via pairwise deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 1040–1048
[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
[2020]

In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining

Controllable multi-interest framework for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 2942–2951
[2023]

In 2023 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW)

Unbiased and Robust: External Attention-enhanced Graph Contrastive Learning for Cross-domain Sequential Recommendation. In 2023 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) . IEEE, 1526–1534

2023
[2024]

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

Large language models for recommendation: Past, present, and future. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 2993–2996

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Ido Amos, Jonathan Berant, and Ankit Gupta. 2023. Never Train from Scratch: Fair Comparison of Long-Sequence Models Requires Data-Driven Priors. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Keqin Bao, Jizhi Zhang, Xinyu Lin, Yang Zhang, Wenjie Wang, and Fuli Feng

[3] [3]

Keqin Bao, Jizhi Zhang, Wenjie Wang, Yang Zhang, Zhengyi Yang, Yancheng Luo, Chong Chen, Fuli Feng, and Qi Tian. 2023. A bi-step grounding paradigm for large language models in recommendation systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08434 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

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

2023

[5] [5]

Jiangxia Cao, Xin Cong, Jiawei Sheng, Tingwen Liu, and Bin Wang. 2022. Con- trastive cross-domain sequential recommendation. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management . 138–147

2022

[6] [6]

Yukuo Cen, Jianwei Zhang, Xu Zou, Chang Zhou, Hongxia Yang, and Jie Tang

[7] [7]

Shu Chen, Zitao Xu, Weike Pan, Qiang Yang, and Zhong Ming. 2024. A Survey on Cross-Domain Sequential Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04971 (2024)

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

Yuxin Chen, Junfei Tan, An Zhang, Zhengyi Yang, Leheng Sheng, Enzhi Zhang, Xiang Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. On Softmax Direct Preference Optimiza- tion for Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09215 (2024)

arXiv 2024