Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 47 references

LightKG: Efficient Knowledge-Aware Recommendations with Simplified GNN Architecture

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A simplified GNN that encodes knowledge-graph relations as scalar pairs outperforms twelve knowledge-aware recommender systems on sparse and dense data while sharply reducing training time.

desk verdict Useful fast baseline and a broad attention-removal study, but the abstract's sparse-superiority claim is contradicted by the paper's own tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10347 v1 pith:EU5TRNGF submitted 2025-06-12 cs.IR cs.LG

Yanhui Li , Dongxia Wang , Zhu Sun , Haonan Zhang , Huizhong Guo This is my paper
classification cs.IRcs.LG
keywords knowledgegraph-awarerecommendersystemsgraphneuralnetworksself-supervisedlearningcontrastivedatasparsityscalarrelationencodingmodelcomplexityrecommendationefficiency
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 tries to establish that, for knowledge-graph-aware recommender systems, simpler is better under data sparsity. Through experiments on twelve existing systems, the authors find that GNN-based recommenders, even with self-supervised learning, lose their edge when interactions are sparse, and that models with higher complexity—especially those using attention mechanisms—tend to perform worse as sparsity increases. In response they propose LightKG, a GNN that encodes each relation as a pair of learned scalars rather than a dense embedding, aggregates neighbors linearly, and applies a cheap contrastive layer that directly spreads node embeddings apart on the original graph. The paper reports that LightKG beats all twelve baselines across four benchmark datasets, with an average accuracy gain of 5.8% over the best baseline and an 84.3% reduction in training time compared with self-supervised knowledge-aware recommenders.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the scalar-pair relation encoding used inside a linear aggregation framework. Instead of representing a relation by a vector or matrix, LightKG learns two scalars per relation—one for each direction—and multiplies them into the symmetric-normalized neighbor sum: $\boldsymbol{e}_k^{(l)} = \sum_{(k,r,t) \in \mathcal{N}_k} \frac{\alpha_{rtk}}{\sqrt{|\mathcal{N}_k|}\sqrt{|\mathcal{N}_t|}} \boldsymbol{e}_t^{(l-1)}$. The scalars act as implicit labels for node types, which keeps user and item embeddings distinct even under identical neighborhoods, and the whole update becomes equivalent to LightGCN when both scalars equal one. The second mechanism is the efficient contrastive layer, which minimizes weighted exponential similarities among users and among items at layer 0, with weights that down-weight already-similar pairs and high-degree nodes; this directly counteracts over-smoothing without subgraph generation or cross-view comparison, which the authors identify as the main cost of prior self-supervised approaches.

What would settle it

Run the same twelve baselines and LightKG on a dataset whose sparsity is natural rather than manufactured—for example, keeping only users with one to five interactions or items in the long tail—and compare Recall@10; if a more complex model such as KGRec or an attention-based model overtakes LightKG under that protocol, the claim that simpler models win under genuine sparsity is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that simplified GNN-based knowledge-aware recommender systems are not only faster but actually more accurate, particularly when user-item interactions are sparse. Empirically, the authors report that removing attention mechanisms from six state-of-the-art models usually leaves accuracy unchanged or slightly increases it, with larger gains at higher sparsity, and that the Pearson correlation between model complexity and Recall@10 is strongly negative in sparse settings (-0.9374 on Last.FM). LightKG embodies this principle: relations become scalar pairs, aggregation is linear and symmetric-normalized, and contrastive learning minimizes the weighted exponential similarity between user embeddings and between item embeddings at layer 0, so no subgraphs are generated. Because the relation scalars act as node-type labels, the model can separate users, items, and entities even when all embeddings start identical. The authors claim this design yields the best Recall@10 and MRR@10 on three of four dense benchmarks, the best results across sparsity levels, and lower time complexity than prior GNN-based knowledge-aware recommenders.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that randomly deleting interactions from a full dataset produces sparse scenarios that behave like real sparse user-item data, so conclusions about model complexity and LightKG's advantage transfer to genuinely sparse deployments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the result implies that the attention mechanisms and dense relation embeddings used by many knowledge-aware recommenders can be removed without losing accuracy—and with gains under sparsity.
  • A lightweight GNN like LightKG can serve as the accuracy baseline that future knowledge-aware recommenders must beat, since it also runs far faster than self-supervised competitors.
  • The contrastive layer's design suggests that uniformity regularization on the original graph is sufficient to obtain self-supervised benefits, making subgraph-based contrastive methods unnecessary in this setting.
  • Because LightKG remains accurate when the knowledge graph is removed, it inherits LightGCN's strength on interaction data and treats KG links as a bonus rather than a requirement.
  • The reported margins—1.4% to 11.7% over the best baseline depending on dataset—indicate the accuracy gap grows as interactions get sparser.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be replacing the random-downsampling sparsity protocol with naturally sparse or cold-start splits; if real sparsity has a different long-tail structure, the advantage of LightKG over embedding-based baselines like CFKG might narrow.
  • The scalar-pair idea could transfer outside recommendation: any heterogeneous graph task with scarce labels and many relation types might benefit from replacing relation embeddings with two learned scalars, at the cost of fine-grained semantic discrimination.
  • The paper's own analysis admits the scalar encoding loses fine-grained distinctions, so a hybrid that keeps scalars globally and learns residual attention only for dense subgraphs could combine both strengths.
  • Because the optimal contrastive strengths for users and items differ across datasets, an automated per-node-type schedule for these coefficients could yield further gains without manual tuning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LightKG, a knowledge-graph-aware recommender system whose GNN layer encodes directed relations as scalar pairs and uses linear aggregation, together with a contrastive layer that directly minimizes node similarity on the original graph rather than generating and comparing subgraphs. The authors motivate the design with exploratory experiments on twelve existing KGRSs at varying interaction-sparsity levels, reporting that GNN-based methods lose their dense-scenario advantage under sparse interactions, that model complexity correlates negatively with sparse-scenario accuracy, and that removing attention mechanisms often slightly improves accuracy. They then evaluate LightKG on four benchmarks against thirteen baselines, reporting superior accuracy in dense settings, shorter training times than SSL-based KGRSs, and competitive or superior accuracy among GNN-based methods in the sparsity simulations.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the paper would be a valuable result: a deliberately simplified scalar-relation GNN with a uniform contrastive layer matching or beating complex attention-based KGRSs, while cutting training time, would challenge the current trend toward increasingly complex GNN-based recommenders. The dense-scenario experiments are carefully run with five repeats and paired t-tests (Section 5.1.3, Table 6), and the authors make their code publicly available. The complexity analysis in Section 4.4 is a genuine parameter-count and time-complexity reduction relative to existing GNN-based KGRSs. However, the paper's headline claim of superiority in both sparse and dense scenarios is not supported by its own reported numbers: in the sparsest settings, the embedding-based CFKG outperforms LightKG, a point the authors themselves concede in Section 5.2.2. The significance therefore rests on a narrower, still interesting claim—LightKG is the best GNN-based KGRS in the sparse simulations and the best overall in dense scenarios—but the abstract and contributions must be revised to state that accurately.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5.2.2, Tables 10-13] The abstract claims that 'LightKG outperforms 12 competitive KGRSs in both sparse and dense scenarios' and 'surpasses the best baselines by an average of 5.8% in recommendation accuracy.' This is contradicted by the paper's own results. In the sparsest settings, CFKG beats LightKG on both Recall@10 and MRR@10: Last.FM 10% Recall@10 0.0983 vs 0.0861, MRR@10 0.0304 vs 0.0267; ML-1M 5% Recall@10 0.0603 vs 0.0587, MRR@10 0.1047 vs 0.1032; Last.FM 20% Recall@10 0.1082 vs 0.1012 (Tables 10-13). Section 5.2.2 explicitly states 'LightKG falls behind CFKG' in sparse scenarios. The supported claim is narrower: LightKG beats all GNN-based KGRSs in the sparse simulations and all baselines in the dense setting. The abstract and the 'Improve' columns in Tables 2, 10, 12, and 14 must be revised, because they compute improvement only over the best GNN-based baseline (GNN_max) and thereby mask that the overall best sparse baseline is non-GNN.
  2. [Section 5.1.3 and Section 5.2.2] The dense-scenario results in Table 6 are accompanied by paired t-tests with p<0.01, but the sparse-scenario tables (Tables 10-15) and Figure 1 report only point estimates, without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests. This is particularly problematic for claims such as the 102.40% improvement over GNN_max at Last.FM 10% (Table 10), which is cited as evidence that LightKG's advantage grows with sparsity. Since all experiments were repeated five times (Section 5.1.3), the same error-bar and significance information should be reported for every sparsity level, so that the reader can judge whether the differences are within run-to-run variance.
  3. [Section 3.2, Tables 3 and 16] The Pearson correlation coefficients between complexity ranking and Recall@10 are reported without significance levels. With only eight GNN-based models in the ranking, the ML-1M coefficient of -0.6682 is not statistically significant at the 0.05 level (n=8, two-tailed critical value approx. 0.707), and the appendix's AMZ-B coefficient is only -0.1145. The text claims a 'strongly negative Pearson correlation' and uses it as a motivation for the entire design. The authors should report p-values or confidence intervals, use a rank-based correlation with significance testing, and temper the conclusion on the datasets where the correlation is weak or non-significant.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Section 5.2.2] The sparsity experiments simulate sparse interactions by randomly downsampling the training interactions at ratios of 80%, 40%, 20%, 10%, and 5%. The paper assumes this protocol reproduces the structure of genuinely sparse interaction data well enough to draw conclusions about 'sparse scenarios.' Real sparsity often involves long-tail item distributions, cold-start users, or popularity biases, which random downsampling may not preserve. Since the motivational finding (GNN-based KGRSs lose their advantage under sparsity) and the design of LightKG are both grounded in this protocol, the authors should either validate the protocol with a more realistic sparsity simulation (for example, holding out low-degree users or sampling with a popularity-based bias) or explicitly state this limitation in the conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'sparity' should be 'sparsity'.
  2. [Table 1] The last row of Table 1 is labeled 'SLightKG' but should be 'LightKG'.
  3. [Table 10] The LightKG Recall@10 at 40% on Last.FM is listed as '0.21202', which appears to be a typo for '0.2120' or '0.21202' with inconsistent precision; please correct the precision.
  4. [Table 15] The MCCLK MRR@10 at 20% on AMZ-B is listed as '0.5050', which is implausibly high compared to neighboring values and likely should be '0.0505'; please verify.
  5. [Section 5.3.1] The paper honestly acknowledges in Section 5.3.1 that LightKG has 'limited capability to discern fine-grained relational nuances' and that this is reflected in its suboptimal MRR on BX. This is a useful limitation and should be referenced in the conclusion, where the current text claims unconditional superiority in accuracy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity in the derivation; minor self-citations are not load-bearing, and the sparse-claim overreach is an evidentiary issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The central claims of LightKG rest on held-out evaluation, not on a fitted-input-called-prediction loop or on a self-referential definition. The recommendation loss (Eq. 13-14) combines BPR with contrastive regularizers on layer-0 embeddings; the reported metrics (Recall@10, MRR@10) are computed on test splits, and hyperparameters including beta_u and beta_i are tuned on validation sets (Section 5.1.3). Thus the accuracy results are not forced by construction. The motivational observations (GNN-based KGRSs decline under sparse sampling, complexity correlates negatively with sparse Recall, attention removal slightly helps) are empirical claims supported by the paper's own Tables 2-4 and appendix tables; they do not define the loss or the test outcome. The paper does cite the authors' own prior work [39] for evaluation metrics, for the KG-removal experimental setting, and for corroborating observations such as 'The same phenomenons have also been observed in [39]' (Section 5.2.3). These citations are not load-bearing: the KG-exploitation conclusion is supported by the paper's own Tab. 7, and the central accuracy comparison is independent of [39]. One non-circularity concern is that the abstract's unconditional claim that LightKG 'outperforms 12 competitive KGRSs in both sparse and dense scenarios' is contradicted by the paper's own sparse tables (e.g., Tab. 10: Last.FM 10% Recall@10 LightKG 0.0861 vs CFKG 0.0983; Tab. 12: ML-1M 5% Recall@10 LightKG 0.0587 vs CFKG 0.0603), and Section 5.2.2 concedes 'LightKG falls behind CFKG' in sparse scenarios. This is an evidence-versus-claim mismatch rather than a circular derivation, so it is a correctness matter, not a circularity matter. Overall, no derivation step reduces to its own input, and the minor self-citations do not carry the argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or graph entities. The scalar relation weights are parameterizations of existing relations, not distinct entities. The main extra ingredients are the contrastive loss weights beta_u and beta_i, which are tuned hyperparameters rather than invented entities.

free parameters (3)
  • Relation scalar pair alpha_rtk = learned per relation direction (not reported)
    Each relation direction is encoded by a single scalar weight, trained via backpropagation (Section 4.1). These are model parameters fitted to the training data and are central to relation encoding.
  • Contrastive weights beta_u and beta_i = tuned per dataset, e.g., 1e-5 (user) and 1e-7 (item) on ML-1M
    Selected via Bayesian optimization over {1e-4,...,1e-9}; optimal values differ significantly by dataset and node type (Section 5.2.4, Fig. 4).
  • L2 regularization coefficient lambda = not specified
    Appears in Eq. 14; no search range is reported, and it is likely left at the RecBole default value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Random downsampling of interaction records produces valid sparse-scenario testbeds
    Used to create sparsity levels in Section 3.1 and in the RQ2 experiments (Section 5.2.2).
  • domain assumption Per-layer asymptotic time complexity ranking is a valid proxy for model complexity and learning difficulty
    Table 3 and the motivation's core finding rely on this to connect complexity to sparse accuracy.
  • domain assumption Scalar-pair relation encoding preserves enough KG semantic information for recommendation
    Central to the model design; acknowledged as limited in Section 5.3.1 with the Titanic example.
  • domain assumption Aggregating neighborhood information in a collaborative knowledge graph improves recommendation
    Standard GNN-based KGRS premise, used throughout Section 4.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LightKG: Efficient Knowledge-Aware Recommendations with Simplified GNN Architecture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EU5TRNGF

@misc{pith2026250610347,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LightKG: Efficient Knowledge-Aware Recommendations with Simplified GNN Architecture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EU5TRNGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10347}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have become the dominant approach for Knowledge Graph-aware Recommender Systems (KGRSs) due to their proven effectiveness. Building upon GNN-based KGRSs, Self-Supervised Learning (SSL) has been incorporated to address the sparity issue, leading to longer training time. However, through extensive experiments, we reveal that: (1)compared to other KGRSs, the existing GNN-based KGRSs fail to keep their superior performance under sparse interactions even with SSL. (2) More complex models tend to perform worse in sparse interaction scenarios and complex mechanisms, like attention mechanism, can be detrimental as they often increase learning difficulty. Inspired by these findings, we propose LightKG, a simple yet powerful GNN-based KGRS to address sparsity issues. LightKG includes a simplified GNN layer that encodes directed relations as scalar pairs rather than dense embeddings and employs a linear aggregation framework, greatly reducing the complexity of GNNs. Additionally, LightKG incorporates an efficient contrastive layer to implement SSL. It directly minimizes the node similarity in original graph, avoiding the time-consuming subgraph generation and comparison required in previous SSL methods. Experiments on four benchmark datasets show that LightKG outperforms 12 competitive KGRSs in both sparse and dense scenarios while significantly reducing training time. Specifically, it surpasses the best baselines by an average of 5.8\% in recommendation accuracy and saves 84.3\% of training time compared to KGRSs with SSL. Our code is available at https://github.com/1371149/LightKG.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10347 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance of KGRSs across varying sparsity levels. Similar trends can be noted on other datasets in our study. Due [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of our proposed LightKG. However, existing contrastive learning methods, such as those used in MCCLK and KGRec, are time-consuming since they need to generate subgraphs and make comparisons between them. To address it, we aim to simplify the contrastive learning with a specific focus on the over-smoothing issue. Inspired by [26], we propose to gain more distinctive node embeddings by directly min￾imizin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The impacts of contrastive layer. 15. (1) With the integration of the KG, LightKG shows a significant improvement in Recall, indicating its effective utilization of the KG to improve recommendation accuracy. This demonstrates that, despite the seemingly simplistic approach of encoding relations as scalar pairs, it effectively captures the semantic information of the KG while reducing model complexity. (2) Many model… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The impacts of 𝛽𝑢 and 𝛽𝑖 . This indicates that the distributions of different node types may vary considerably, further validating the rationale behind LightKG’s node labeling, as demonstrated earlier. 5.3 Further Exploration of LightKG 5.3.1 Semantic Modeling Capabili…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Giacomo Balloccu, Ludovico Boratto, Gianni Fenu, and Mirko Marras. 2023. Rein- forcement recommendation reasoning through knowledge graphs for explanation path quality.Knowledge-Based Systems260 (2023), 110098

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Yuanchen Bei, Weizhi Chen, Hao Chen, Sheng Zhou, Carl Yang, Jiapei Fan, Longtao Huang, and Jiajun Bu. 2024. Correlation-Aware Graph Convolutional Networks for Multi-Label Node Classification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17350 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Xiaocong Chen, Siyu Wang, Julian McAuley, Dietmar Jannach, and Lina Yao

    work page

  4. [4]

    Zhendong Chu, Hongning Wang, Yun Xiao, Bo Long, and Lingfei Wu. 2023. Meta policy learning for cold-start conversational recommendation. InProceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 222–230

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Saman Forouzandeh, Kamal Berahmand, Razieh Sheikhpour, and Yuefeng Li. 2023. A new method for recommendation based on embedding spectral clustering in heterogeneous networks (RESCHet).Expert Systems with Applications231 (2023), 120699

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Johannes Gasteiger, Aleksandar Bojchevski, and Stephan Günnemann. 2018. Predict then propagate: Graph neural networks meet personalized pagerank. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.05997(2018)

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Xiangnan He, Kuan Deng, Xiang Wang, Yan Li, Yongdong Zhang, and Meng Wang. 2020. Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation. InProceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 639–648

    2020

  8. [8]

    Binbin Hu, Chuan Shi, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Philip S Yu. 2018. Leveraging meta- path based context for top-n recommendation with a neural co-attention model. InProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 1531–1540

    work page 2018

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Yangqin Jiang, Yuhao Yang, Lianghao Xia, and Chao Huang. 2024. Diffkg: Knowl- edge graph diffusion model for recommendation. InProceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 313–321

    2024

  2. [10]

    Dongze Li, Hanbing Qu, and Jiaqiang Wang. 2023. A survey on knowledge graph-based recommender systems. In2023 China Automation Congress (CAC). IEEE, 2925–2930

    2023

  3. [11]

    Haotian Li, Yong Wang, Songheng Zhang, Yangqiu Song, and Huamin Qu. 2021. KG4Vis: A knowledge graph-based approach for visualization recommendation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics28, 1 (2021), 195–205

    2021

  4. [12]

    Qimai Li, Xiao-Ming Wu, Han Liu, Xiaotong Zhang, and Zhichao Guan. 2019. Label efficient semi-supervised learning via graph filtering. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 9582–9591

    2019

  5. [13]

    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. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 1199–1208

    2022

  6. [14]

    Yuankai Luo, Lei Shi, and Xiao-Ming Wu. 2024. Classic GNNs are Strong Baselines: Reassessing GNNs for Node Classification.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems(2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Sung-Jun Park, Dong-Kyu Chae, Hong-Kyun Bae, Sumin Park, and Sang-Wook Kim. 2022. Reinforcement learning over sentiment-augmented knowledge graphs towards accurate and explainable recommendation. InProceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Min...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Steffen Rendle, Christoph Freudenthaler, Zeno Gantner, and Lars Schmidt-Thieme

  9. [17]

    Lei Shi, Jiapeng Yang, Pengtao Lv, Lu Yuan, Feifei Kou, Jia Luo, and Mingying Xu

  10. [18]

    Wentao Shi, Xiangnan He, Yang Zhang, Chongming Gao, Xinyue Li, Jizhi Zhang, Qifan Wang, and Fuli Feng. 2024. Enhancing Long-Term Recommendation with Bi- level Learnable Large Language Model Planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00843 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Zhu Sun, Hui Fang, Jie Yang, Xinghua Qu, Hongyang Liu, Di Yu, Yew-Soon Ong, and Jie Zhang. 2022. Daisyrec 2.0: Benchmarking recommendation for rigorous evaluation.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45, 7 (2022), 8206–8226

    2022

  12. [20]

    InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    Self-derived Knowledge Graph Contrastive Learning for Recommendation. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 7571– 7580

  13. [21]

    Riku Togashi, Mayu Otani, and Shin’ichi Satoh. 2021. Alleviating cold-start problems in recommendation through pseudo-labelling over knowledge graph. InProceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 931–939

    2021

  14. [22]

    Hongwei Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Jialin Wang, Miao Zhao, Wenjie Li, Xing Xie, and Minyi Guo. 2018. Ripplenet: Propagating user preferences on the knowledge graph for recommender systems. InProceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management...

    2018

  15. [23]

    Zhu Sun, Hongyang Liu, Xinghua Qu, Kaidong Feng, Yan Wang, and Yew Soon Ong. 2024. Large language models for intent-driven session recommendations. InProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 324–334

    2024

  16. [24]

    Hongwei Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Miao Zhao, Wenjie Li, Xing Xie, and Minyi Guo. 2019. Multi-task feature learning for knowledge graph enhanced recom- mendation. InThe World Wide Web Conference. 2000–2010

    2019

  17. [25]

    Hongwei Wang, Miao Zhao, Xing Xie, Wenjie Li, and Minyi Guo. 2019. Knowledge graph convolutional networks for recommender systems. InThe World Wide Web Conference. 3307–3313

    2019

  18. [26]

    Hongwei Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Mengdi Zhang, Jure Leskovec, Miao Zhao, Wenjie Li, and Zhongyuan Wang. 2019. Knowledge-aware graph neural networks with label smoothness regularization for recommender systems. InProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowle...

    2019

  19. [27]

    Xiang Wang, Xiangnan He, Yixin Cao, Meng Liu, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2019. Kgat: Knowledge graph attention network for recommendation. InProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 950–958

    2019

  20. [28]

    Xiang Wang, Xiangnan He, Meng Wang, Fuli Feng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2019. Neural graph collaborative filtering. InProceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Vonference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 165–174

    2019

  21. [29]

    Tongzhou Wang and Phillip Isola. 2020. Understanding contrastive representation learning through alignment and uniformity on the hypersphere. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 9929–9939

    2020

  22. [30]

    Ziyan Wang, Yingpeng Du, Zhu Sun, Haoyan Chua, Kaidong Feng, Wenya Wang, and Jie Zhang. 2025. Re2llm: Reflective reinforcement large language model for session-based recommendation. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 39. 12827–12835

    2025

  23. [31]

    Minwei Wen, Hongyan Mei, Wei Wang, Xiaorong Xue, and Xing Zhang. 2024. Multi-task recommendation based on dynamic knowledge graph.Applied Intelli- gence(2024), 1–19

    2024

  24. [32]

    Xiang Wang, Tinglin Huang, Dingxian Wang, Yancheng Yuan, Zhenguang Liu, Xiangnan He, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Learning intents behind interactions with knowledge graph for recommendation. InProceedings of the Web Conference

    2021

  25. [33]

    Le Wu, Junwei Li, Peijie Sun, Richang Hong, Yong Ge, and Meng Wang. 2020. Diffnet++: A neural influence and interest diffusion network for social recom- mendation.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering34, 10 (2020), 4753–4766

    2020

  26. [34]

    Zhizhong Wu. 2024. An efficient recommendation model based on knowledge graph attention-assisted network (kgatax).arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15315(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Felix Wu, Amauri Souza, Tianyi Zhang, Christopher Fifty, Tao Yu, and Kilian Weinberger. 2019. Simplifying graph convolutional networks. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 6861–6871

    2019

  28. [36]

    Yuhao Yang, Chao Huang, Lianghao Xia, and Chenliang Li. 2022. Knowledge graph contrastive learning for recommendation. InProceedings of the 45th In- ternational ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1434–1443

    2022

  29. [37]

    Yuning You, Tianlong Chen, Yongduo Sui, Ting Chen, Zhangyang Wang, and Yang Shen. 2020. Graph contrastive learning with augmentations.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33 (2020), 5812–5823

    2020

  30. [38]

    Yuhao Yang, Chao Huang, Lianghao Xia, and Chunzhen Huang. 2023. Knowledge graph self-supervised rationalization for recommendation. InProceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 3046– 3056

    2023

  31. [39]

    Haonan Zhang, Dongxia Wang, Zhu Sun, Yanhui Li, Youcheng Sun, Huizhi Liang, and Wenhai Wang. 2024. Does Knowledge Graph Really Matter for Recommender Systems?ACM Transactions on Information Systems(2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Y Zhang, Q Ai, X Chen, and P Wang. 2018. Learning over knowledge-base embeddings for recommendation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.06540(2018)

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Fuzheng Zhang, Nicholas Jing Yuan, Defu Lian, Xing Xie, and Wei-Ying Ma

  34. [42]

    Jie Zhou, Ganqu Cui, Shengding Hu, Zhengyan Zhang, Cheng Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Lifeng Wang, Changcheng Li, and Maosong Sun. 2020. Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications.AI Open1 (2020), 57–81

    2020

  35. [43]

    Ding Zou, Wei Wei, Xian-Ling Mao, Ziyang Wang, Minghui Qiu, Feida Zhu, and Xin Cao. 2022. Multi-level cross-view contrastive learning for knowledge- aware recommender system. InProceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Informatio...

    2022

  36. [45]

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Yupeng Hou, Xingyu Pan, Chen Yang, Zeyu Zhang, Zihan Lin, Jingsen Zhang, Shuqing Bian, Jiakai Tang, Wenqi Sun, et al. 2022. RecBole 2.0: towards a more up-to-date recommendation library. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Kn...

    2022

  37. [2012]

    BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback.Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence(2012)

    2012

  38. [2016]

    In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

    Collaborative knowledge base embedding for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 353–362

  39. [2024]

    On the opportunities and challenges of offline reinforcement learning for recommender systems.ACM Transactions on Information Systems42, 6 (2024), 1–26

    2024

Pith tools

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