Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

SLIF-MR: Self-loop Iterative Fusion of Heterogeneous Auxiliary Information for Multimodal Recommendation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A recommender that rewires its graphs during training beats frozen-graph models on two benchmarks.

desk verdict New self-loop graph-refinement idea, but the equations don't actually implement it and the intra-modal loss sign is backwards, so the central claims are unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09998 v1 pith:T6ATNHR4 submitted 2025-07-14 cs.IR

Jie Guo , Jiahao Jiang , Ziyuan Guo , Bin Song , Yue Sun This is my paper
classification cs.IR
keywords multimodalrecommendationknowledgegraphself-loopiterativefusionitem-itemcorrelationsemanticconsistencylearningheterogeneousneuralnetworkrecommendersystem
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 multimodal and knowledge-graph recommenders lose accuracy by freezing their auxiliary graph structures during training, and that feeding item representations from the previous epoch back into those structures recovers the loss. The proposed model, SLIF-MR, builds an item-item correlation graph from unified item representations, injects it into the interaction graph, knowledge graph, and multimodal item feature graph as a self-loop, and aligns the three views with consistency losses. Reported Recall@20 rises from 0.1767 to 0.1891 on Amazon-Book and from 0.0834 to 0.0860 on Yelp2018, with corresponding gains on NDCG and Precision. If the claim holds, frozen auxiliary structures are a measurable cost in multimodal recommendation, not a harmless modelling choice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a self-loop item-item correlation graph: unified item representations from the previous epoch are used to compute pairwise cosine similarities, the resulting matrix is sparsified and normalized, and the graph is inserted into the interaction graph, knowledge graph, and item feature graph in the next epoch's forward pass. This is what turns the heterogeneous graphs from fixed inputs into structures that are revised as training proceeds. It is supported by an attention-based item-level fusion module that produces the unified representations and by inter-modal and intra-modal consistency losses that pull the three views into agreement while preserving within-modality structure.

What would settle it

Disable only the injection of the item-item graph into the interaction and knowledge graphs while keeping the item feature graph update; if Recall@20 remains at the full-model level, the claimed dynamic optimization of all three graphs is not what produces the gain. A direct code-level check is to inspect the adjacency matrices used by the equations that aggregate user neighbors and knowledge-graph triples and ask whether they contain any item-item edges.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the topology of a multimodal recommender's auxiliary graphs can be treated as a training-dependent variable. Concretely, SLIF-MR computes an item-item correlation graph from attention-weighted fused representations, prunes it with top-$N$ sparsification, normalizes it, and concatenates it back into all three graph structures each epoch, so the graphs co-evolve with the learned representations. The model also applies inter-modal and intra-modal consistency losses so heterogeneous item views are aligned in a shared vector space instead of drifting apart. The author's claim is that this self-loop feedback, rather than any single static graph construction, is what produces the consistent gains over frozen-graph baselines and the improved robustness to interaction, knowledge, and modality noise.

Load-bearing premise

The central mechanism assumes that the item-item correlation graph built from previous-epoch item representations is actually wired into the user-item and knowledge-graph propagation steps; if those propagation sums never read the new edges, the self-loop only changes the item feature graph and the stated mechanism collapses to a different, smaller claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A frozen graph is a concrete loss: updating the item-item correlations each epoch lifts Recall@20 by roughly 0.012 on Amazon-Book relative to the strongest frozen-structure baseline.
  • The self-loop interval is a compute-accuracy knob: increasing the interval from 1 to 20 epochs on Amazon-Book lowers Recall@20 from 0.1891 to 0.1844, so frequent rewiring matters.
  • Robustness improves with the mechanism: under 20% interaction noise on Amazon-Book, SLIF-MR's Recall@20 drops 15.3% while the strongest baseline drops 19.6%.
  • The consistency losses are load-bearing in the ablation: removing them drops Recall@20 to 0.1817 on Amazon-Book and 0.0835 on Yelp2018, below the full model.
  • The framework is designed to extend to additional modalities such as audio and video beyond the two used in the experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper stops short of a convergence or stability analysis of the self-loop; a natural extension is to test whether the item-item graph reaches a fixed point, and whether an adaptive update schedule based on how much representations drift would retain most of the gain at lower cost.
  • Taken literally, the equations that insert the item-item graph into the interaction and knowledge graphs do not show those new edges entering the propagation sums, so the cleanest test of the mechanism is to ablate the injection into each graph separately.
  • The consistency losses are stop-gradient alignment terms; the paper does not compare them to simpler alignment objectives, so it is an open question whether the benefit comes from the specific two-term design or from any norm-preserving alignment applied to heterogeneous views.
  • The self-loop idea generalizes beyond recommendation: any system that fuses heterogeneous relational views could periodically rewire its own structures from aggregated representations, for example in session-based or cross-domain ranking.
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 SLIF-MR, a multimodal knowledge-graph recommendation framework whose central idea is a self-loop iterative fusion mechanism: item representations from the previous training epoch are used to build an item-item correlation graph G^n, which is then injected into the user-item interaction graph, the knowledge graph, and the multimodal item feature graph, so that all heterogeneous graph structures are dynamically optimized during training. The method also introduces inter- and intra-modal semantic consistency losses. Experiments on Amazon-Book and Yelp2018 report consistent improvements over a broad set of baselines, plus ablation, robustness, and complexity analyses. The main claim is that the self-loop graph enhancement and the consistency losses are responsible for the gains.

Significance. The idea of using feedback item representations to update heterogeneous graph structures is well motivated and, if actually realized, would be a useful contribution to multimodal and knowledge-graph recommendation. The paper includes a wide range of baselines, two datasets, ablations, and robustness experiments, and the reported numerical gains are nontrivial. However, the significance is currently contingent because the formal equations do not implement the claimed dynamic update in two of the three graphs, and the intra-modal consistency loss as written contradicts its stated purpose. The empirical results cannot be attributed to the advertised mechanism without correcting and re-validating these parts.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-B, Eqs. (7), (10), (18)] The claimed self-loop mechanism is not realized in the interaction graph and knowledge graph propagation. Eq. (18) defines A^n and G_k^n as graphs that include the new item-item correlation graph G^n, but Eq. (7) aggregates user and item representations only over interacted items N_u and interacting users N_i, with no term over item-item edges, and Eq. (10) aggregates only over KG triples (h,r,t) in N_h. As written, G^n cannot influence these two propagations; it can only affect the item feature graph through Eq. (9), because that is the only equation whose neighborhood N(i) can include item neighbors from S^n. This contradicts the central claim of dynamically optimizing all three heterogeneous graph structures and undermines the interpretation of the robustness experiment in Section IV-E, where the self-loop enhancement is credited with denoising the interaction graph. The authors must either revise the propagation equations to explicitly consume the injected item-item edges, or substantially weaken the claims about interaction-graph and knowledge-graph enhancement.
  2. [III-C.2, Eq. (21)] The intra-modal semantic consistency loss does not do what the text says. Expanding Eq. (21), each term equals -log(exp(-t ||f(x_i)-f(x_j)||^2)) = t ||f(x_i)-f(x_j)||^2, so the total loss is (t/|I|^2) times the sum of all pairwise squared distances. This loss is minimized by making all item representations identical, i.e., it encourages collapse of the representation space, not 'maintaining semantic consistency' or 'promoting a relatively uniform distribution of distances' as claimed in the text. The equation also includes the i=j terms, which contribute zero and do not affect the gradient. This is a load-bearing issue because the ablation 'w/o CL' and the conclusions about the consistency losses rely on this loss being correctly formulated.
  3. [III-B, Eq. (18)] The notation in Eq. (18) is ambiguous and dimensionally unclear. For the item feature graph, S^{n-1} and G^n are both |I|x|I| matrices, but the expression S^n = [S^{n-1}|.|G^n] is not defined as a standard matrix operation; if it denotes concatenation, the resulting matrix is not square and cannot be used as an adjacency matrix in Eq. (9). For the knowledge graph, G_k^n = [G_k^{n-1}|.|G^n] mixes triples with an item-item adjacency matrix, and Eq. (10) gives no rule for converting G^n into triples or for otherwise aggregating over its edges. The authors should specify precisely how the 'new structural information' is added to each graph, whether as additional edges, block-diagonal augmentation, or some other operation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III-C.1, Eq. (19)] The denominator in the inter-modal consistency loss has misplaced parentheses: the term should presumably be exp(sim(...,...)/tau) in both numerator and denominator, but the tau appears outside the exponential in the denominator. Please correct the formula.
  2. [III-C.2, Eq. (21)] The function f in Eq. (21) is never defined. If it is the identity or a learned projection, that should be stated.
  3. [IV-A.4] The model name is spelled 'SILF-MR' in the Parameter Settings section, while the rest of the paper uses 'SLIF-MR'. Please fix the typo.
  4. [IV-D, Fig. 6] The text describes the subfigure labels as 'varied k' and 'varied N' inconsistently; Figure 6(d) is labeled 'Varied k' in the caption but the discussion refers to the self-loop sparsification parameter N. Please align the notation.
  5. [IV-B.1, Table II] The statement that all improvements are significant with p-value <= 0.05 is not accompanied by any description of the significance test procedure, including the number of random seeds or the type of paired test. This should be documented.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the supervised BPR objective and held-out evaluation are external, and self-loop graph refinement is an auxiliary feedback mechanism rather than a fitted target.

full rationale

SLIF-MR's central claim is that iteratively re-estimating an item-item correlation graph from learned embeddings and injecting it into the heterogeneous graphs improves recommendation. This is not circular: the item-item graph G^n in Eqs. (16)-(17) is constructed from model representations, but those representations are ultimately optimized against the external BPR ranking loss in Eq. (23) on observed user-item interactions, and all reported numbers are on held-out test interactions. The graph is an auxiliary structure, not a prediction target, so no quantity is equivalent to its own input by construction. The inter-modal consistency losses in Eq. (19) use the fused representation as a stop-gradient benchmark; this is self-distillation, not definitional circularity, because the benchmark is a convex combination of the same representations only as a regularizer and does not by itself force the reported accuracy. The self-citations in the paper, notably TMFUN [20] and SPACE [7], are used as prior-work motivation and as baselines; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the method's effectiveness, and removing them would not collapse the derivation. The skeptical observation that the injected item-item block in Eq. (18) may not be consumed by the convolutions in Eq. (7) and Eq. (10) is a substantive implementation/correctness concern, but it is a gap in the mechanism rather than a circular reduction, so it does not raise the circularity score. Overall, the empirical case is externally benchmarked, and the derivation chain is not self-referential in the prohibited sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two unstated technical assumptions: that the augmented adjacency matrices in Eq. (18) are compatible with the GCN rules in Eqs. (7) and (10), which is not demonstrated and appears false, and that the intra-modal loss in Eq. (21) behaves as described. In fact, as written it minimizes pairwise distances, opposite to the stated uniformity goal.

free parameters (5)
  • top-K for item feature graph sparsification
    Chosen by hand; controls the density of the item feature graph in Eq. (3), which is an input to the whole model.
  • top-N for self-loop graph sparsification
    Chosen by hand; controls the number of edges in the constructed item-item correlation graph in Eq. (17), central to the self-loop mechanism.
  • temperature tau for inter-modal loss
    Chosen by hand; scales the contrastive alignment in Eq. (19), affecting the strength of semantic consistency learning.
  • temperature t for intra-modal loss
    Chosen by hand; appears in Eq. (21), the loss whose sign and behavior are inconsistent with the text.
  • loss weights beta and gamma
    Tuned via grid search over the ranges given in Section IV-A4; these weights balance the two consistency losses against the BPR loss in Eq. (24).
assumptions (3)
  • standard math GCN message passing and symmetric normalization are valid for the constructed graphs.
    The method relies on standard graph convolution as in LightGCN and KGAT; this is a widely accepted background technique.
  • domain assumption The 10-core filtering, 80/10/10 data split, and full-sorting evaluation protocol are appropriate for comparing recommenders.
    The datasets are preprocessed following prior work, e.g., [17], [21], and the evaluation protocol is borrowed from the same line of research.
  • ad hoc to paper The augmented adjacency matrices in Eq. (18) are compatible with the propagation equations in Eq. (7) and Eq. (10), such that the added item-item edges influence the learned representations.
    This is an unstated assumption that is central to the self-loop mechanism, but the equations as written do not demonstrate compatibility; the propagation rules ignore the new edges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SLIF-MR: Self-loop Iterative Fusion of Heterogeneous Auxiliary Information for Multimodal Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T6ATNHR4

@misc{pith2026250709998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SLIF-MR: Self-loop Iterative Fusion of Heterogeneous Auxiliary Information for Multimodal Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T6ATNHR4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09998}
}
read the original abstract

Knowledge graphs (KGs) and multimodal item information, which respectively capture relational and attribute features, play a crucial role in improving recommender system accuracy. Recent studies have attempted to integrate them via multimodal knowledge graphs (MKGs) to further enhance recommendation performance. However, existing methods typically freeze the MKG structure during training, which limits the full integration of structural information from heterogeneous graphs (e.g., KG and user-item interaction graph), and results in sub-optimal performance. To address this challenge, we propose a novel framework, termed Self-loop Iterative Fusion of Heterogeneous Auxiliary Information for Multimodal Recommendation (SLIF-MR), which leverages item representations from previous training epoch as feedback signals to dynamically optimize the heterogeneous graph structures composed of KG, multimodal item feature graph, and user-item interaction graph. Through this iterative fusion mechanism, both user and item representations are refined, thus improving the final recommendation performance. Specifically, based on the feedback item representations, SLIF-MR constructs an item-item correlation graph, then integrated into the establishment process of heterogeneous graphs as additional new structural information in a self-loop manner. Consequently, the internal structures of heterogeneous graphs are updated with the feedback item representations during training. Moreover, a semantic consistency learning strategy is proposed to align heterogeneous item representations across modalities. The experimental results show that SLIF-MR significantly outperforms existing methods, particularly in terms of accuracy and robustness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09998 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of deficiencies in KG and multimodal data for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework of the proposed SLIF-MR model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. AILF: attention-based item-level fusion. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Self-loop heterogeneous graphs enhancement. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model performance using different aggregation methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hyper-parameter sensitivity analysis on Amazon-Book. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Performance comparison of model robustness. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Learning fine-grained user interests for micro-video recommendation,

    Y. Shang, C. Gao, J. Chen, D. Jin, M. Wang, and Y. Li, “Learning fine-grained user interests for micro-video recommendation,” inProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2023, pp. 433–442

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    An industrial framework for personalized serendipitous recommen- dation in e-commerce,

    Z. Wang, Y. Zou, A. Dai, L. Hou, N. Qiao, L. Zou, M. Ma, Z. Ding, and S. Xu, “An industrial framework for personalized serendipitous recommen- dation in e-commerce,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 2023, pp. 1015–1018

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Neural graph collaborative filtering,

    X. Wang, X. He, M. Wang, F. Feng, and T.-S. Chua, “Neural graph collaborative filtering,” in Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2019, pp. 165–174

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    LightGCN: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation,

    X. He, K. Deng, X. Wang, Y. Li, Y. Zhang, and M. Wang, “LightGCN: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2020, pp. 639–648

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Inter-and intra- domain potential user preferences for cross-domain recommendation,

    J. Liu, L. Sun, W. Nie, Y. Su, Y. Zhang, and A. Liu, “Inter-and intra- domain potential user preferences for cross-domain recommendation,”IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Multimodal graph contrastive learning for multimedia-based recommendation,

    K. Liu, F. Xue, D. Guo, P. Sun, S. Qian, and R. Hong, “Multimodal graph contrastive learning for multimedia-based recommendation,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 25, pp. 9343–9355, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Space: Self- supervised dual preference enhancing network for multimodal recommen- dation,

    J. Guo, L. Wen, Y. Zhou, B. Song, Y. Chi, and F. R. Yu, “Space: Self- supervised dual preference enhancing network for multimodal recommen- dation,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    A survey on recommender systems using graph neural network,

    V. Anand and A. K. Maurya, “A survey on recommender systems using graph neural network,”ACM Transactions on Information Systems , vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1–49, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    EditKG: Editing knowledge graph for recommendation,

    G. Tang, X. Gan, J. Wang, B. Lu, L. Wu, L. Fu, and C. Zhou, “EditKG: Editing knowledge graph for recommendation,” inProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2024, pp. 112–122

    2024

  2. [10]

    Relation pruning and discriminative sampling over knowledge graph for long-tail recommendation,

    Z. Zhang, A. Wang, Y. Zhang, Y. Ren, W. Li, B. Wang, and M. Inuiguchi, “Relation pruning and discriminative sampling over knowledge graph for long-tail recommendation,” Information Sciences , p. 120871, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Knowledge distillation dealing with sample-wise long-tail problem,

    T. Yu, X. Zhao, Y. An, M. Tang, and J. Wang, “Knowledge distillation dealing with sample-wise long-tail problem,” in Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision , 2024, pp. 2354–2370

    2024

  4. [12]

    Do we really need to drop items with missing modalities in multimodal recom- mendation?

    D. Malitesta, E. Rossi, C. Pomo, T. Di Noia, and F. D. Malliaros, “Do we really need to drop items with missing modalities in multimodal recom- mendation?” in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , 2024, pp. 3943–3948

    2024

  5. [13]

    Improving multi-modal recommender systems by denoising and aligning multi-modal content and user feedback,

    G. Xv, X. Li, R. Xie, C. Lin, C. Liu, F. Xia, Z. Kang, and L. Lin, “Improving multi-modal recommender systems by denoising and aligning multi-modal content and user feedback,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2024, pp. 3...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Multimodal recommender systems: A survey,

    Q. Liu, J. Hu, Y. Xiao, X. Zhao, J. Gao, W. Wang, Q. Li, and J. Tang, “Multimodal recommender systems: A survey,” ACM Computing Surveys , vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 1–17, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Multi-modal knowledge graphs for recommender systems,

    R. Sun, X. Cao, Y. Zhao, J. Wan, K. Zhou, F. Zhang, Z. Wang, and K. Zheng, “Multi-modal knowledge graphs for recommender systems,” inProceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2020, pp. 1405–1414

    2020

  8. [16]

    Automatic hypergraph generation for enhancing recommendation with sparse optimization,

    Z. Lin, Q. Yan, W. Liu, S. Wang, M. Wang, Y. Tan, and C. Yang, “Automatic hypergraph generation for enhancing recommendation with sparse optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , vol. 26, pp. 5680– 5693, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    KGAT: Knowledge graph attention network for recommendation,

    X. Wang, X. He, Y. Cao, M. Liu, and T.-S. Chua, “KGAT: Knowledge graph attention network for recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2019, pp. 950–958

    2019

  10. [18]

    UltraGCN: Ultra simplification of graph convolutional networks for recommendation,

    K. Mao, J. Zhu, X. Xiao, B. Lu, Z. Wang, and X. He, “UltraGCN: Ultra simplification of graph convolutional networks for recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management , 2021, pp. 1253–1262

    2021

  11. [19]

    A tale of two graphs: Freezing and denoising graph structures for multimodal recommendation,

    X. Zhou and Z. Shen, “A tale of two graphs: Freezing and denoising graph structures for multimodal recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2023, pp. 935–943

    2023

  12. [20]

    Attention-guided multi-step fusion: A hierarchical fusion network for multimodal recommendation,

    Y. Zhou, J. Guo, H. Sun, B. Song, and F. R. Yu, “Attention-guided multi-step fusion: A hierarchical fusion network for multimodal recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2023, pp. 1816–1820

    2023

  13. [21]

    Mining latent structures for multimedia recommendation,

    J. Zhang, Y. Zhu, Q. Liu, S. Wu, S. Wang, and L. Wang, “Mining latent structures for multimedia recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2021, pp. 3872–3880

    2021

  14. [22]

    Who to align with: Feedback-oriented multi-modal alignment in recommendation systems,

    Y. Li, Q. Zhao, C. Lin, J. Su, and Z. Zhang, “Who to align with: Feedback-oriented multi-modal alignment in recommendation systems,” in Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2024, pp. 667–676

    2024

  15. [23]

    Kb4rec: A data set for linking knowledge bases with recommender systems,

    W. X. Zhao, G. He, K. Yang, H. Dou, J. Huang, S. Ouyang, and J.-R. Wen, “Kb4rec: A data set for linking knowledge bases with recommender systems,” Data Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 121–136, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert- networks,

    N. Reimers, “Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert- networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084 , 2019

    1908 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  18. [26]

    Learning hybrid behavior patterns for multimedia recommendation,

    Z. Mu, Y. Zhuang, J. Tan, J. Xiao, and S. Tang, “Learning hybrid behavior patterns for multimedia recommendation,” inProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2022, pp. 376–384

    2022

  19. [27]

    BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback,

    S. Rendle, C. Freudenthaler, Z. Gantner, and L. Schmidt-Thieme, “BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.2618, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bootstrap latent representations for multi-modal recommendation,

    X. Zhou, H. Zhou, Y. Liu, Z. Zeng, C. Miao, P. Wang, Y. You, and F. Jiang, “Bootstrap latent representations for multi-modal recommendation,” in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 , 2023, pp. 845–854

    2023

  21. [29]

    DiffMM: Multi- modal diffusion model for recommendation,

    Y. Jiang, L. Xia, W. Wei, D. Luo, K. Lin, and C. Huang, “DiffMM: Multi- modal diffusion model for recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2024, pp. 7591–7599

    2024

  22. [30]

    Knowledge graph contrastive learning for recommendation,

    Y. Yang, C. Huang, L. Xia, and C. Li, “Knowledge graph contrastive learning for recommendation,” inProceedings of the 45th international ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2022, pp. 1434–1443

    2022

  23. [31]

    Learning intents behind interactions with knowledge graph for recommendation,

    X. Wang, T. Huang, D. Wang, Y. Yuan, Z. Liu, X. He, and T.-S. Chua, “Learning intents behind interactions with knowledge graph for recommendation,” in Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 , 2021, pp. 878–887

    2021

  24. [32]

    Knowledge- adaptive contrastive learning for recommendation,

    H. Wang, Y. Xu, C. Yang, C. Shi, X. Li, N. Guo, and Z. Liu, “Knowledge- adaptive contrastive learning for recommendation,” in Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , 2023, pp. 535–543

    2023

  25. [33]

    Knowledge graph self-supervised rationalization for recommendation,

    Y. Yang, C. Huang, L. Xia, and C. Huang, “Knowledge graph self-supervised rationalization for recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 2023, pp. 3046–3056

    2023

  26. [34]

    Knowledge-refined denoising network for robust recommendation,

    X. Zhu, Y. Du, Y. Mao, L. Chen, Y. Hu, and Y. Gao, “Knowledge-refined denoising network for robust recommendation,” inProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2023, pp. 362–371

    2023

  27. [35]

    DiffKG: Knowledge graph diffusion model for recommendation,

    Y. Jiang, Y. Yang, L. Xia, and C. Huang, “DiffKG: Knowledge graph diffusion model for recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 17th ACM international conference on web search and data mining , 2024, pp. 313– 321

    2024

Pith tools

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