Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

KERAG_R: Knowledge-Enhanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Recommendation

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that adding one GAT-selected knowledge-graph triple per item to an instruction-tuned LLM's prompt beats ten strong recommendation baselines on three datasets.

desk verdict The KG component helps, but the headline 14.89% gain over RecRanker is confounded by the LightGCN hint that RecRanker doesn't get; the paper still deserves a serious referee after reframing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05863 v1 pith:UXTASY55 submitted 2025-07-08 cs.IR

Zeyuan Meng , Zixuan Yi , Iadh Ounis This is my paper
classification cs.IR
keywords retrieval-augmentedgenerationknowledgegraphlargelanguagemodelsrecommendersystemsattentionnetworkinstructiontuningtop-krecommendationtripleselection
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

The paper argues that large language models make better top-$k$ recommendations when they are given a small amount of carefully chosen relational knowledge about the items, because the models' own pretraining rarely contains enough domain-specific facts. To deliver that knowledge, the proposed KERAG_R first trains a graph attention network to score knowledge-graph triples connected to each item, then injects the single highest-scoring triple per interacted item into the instruction prompt, and finally fine-tunes Llama-3.1 with LoRA on these knowledge-enhanced prompts. On MovieLens-1M, MovieLens-10M, and Amazon-Book, the method outperforms ten existing recommendation models, with the largest margin over the strongest baseline, RecRanker, reaching 14.89% in NDCG@3 on Amazon-Book. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's core claim to be that a tiny, well-selected slice of a knowledge graph is enough to supply the domain knowledge LLMs lack, and that how the knowledge is formatted matters as much as whether it is present.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the GAT-based triple selector: a graph attention network pretrained with a contrastive loss produces item and entity embeddings, and the score $S_{ij}=\alpha_{ij}(h'_i \cdot e_j)$ combines the attention weight with the dot-product similarity to pick the top-$Q$ triples. This mechanism is what turns the knowledge graph into a short, prompt-sized piece of relational knowledge, and the w/o-selection ablation shows that random triples do not match its performance.

What would settle it

Run the same knowledge-enhanced instruction-tuning pipeline for the three datasets but replace the GAT-selected top-1 triples with the same number of randomly sampled triples from the same knowledge graph; if HR@5 and NDCG@5 stay statistically indistinguishable from KERAG_R, the selection mechanism is not load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LLM-based top-$k$ recommenders can be improved by retrieval-augmenting their prompts with knowledge-graph triples selected by a pretrained graph attention network. Without such external relational knowledge, the paper argues, the LLM relies on incomplete pretraining and can produce wrong or hallucinated recommendations, while dumping all available triples into the prompt introduces noise and can exceed the context window. KERAG_R addresses both failure modes: the GAT produces item and entity embeddings, a dot-product similarity weighted by GAT attention scores selects the top-$Q$ entities per item, and one such triple per user-interacted item is placed into the prompt alongside the user's liked and disliked items and a LightGCN ranking hint. After LoRA instruction tuning on these prompts, the model reports consistent, statistically significant gains over all ten baselines on all three datasets. The ablations attribute the gain to the GraphRAG component, the selection method, the instruction tuning, and the Llama-3 backbone, and the triple-format prompt beats the sentence-format prompt in every comparison.

Load-bearing premise

The entire improvement rests on the pretrained graph model's scores selecting knowledge-graph facts that actually help the language model rank, and the paper never measures that selection quality directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, any LLM-based recommender can be improved by retrieving a small number of knowledge-graph triples per item without changing the backbone model.
  • The superiority of one triple over two or three suggests prompt construction can be optimized for minimality rather than maximum information.
  • Triple formatting such as 'Cameron - director_film - The Terminator' should be preferred over natural-language sentences in knowledge-enhanced recommendation prompts.
  • Because the GAT module adds only 0.68 million trainable parameters, the gain is nearly free relative to the 8-billion-parameter LLM's cost, making the approach practical under tight GPU budgets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to check whether the selection method's benefit comes from content or from structured formatting: replacing GAT-selected triples with random but grammatically valid triples would isolate the selection signal from the instruction-tuning effect.
  • The one-triple optimum may be an artifact of the 2,048-token context window; with longer contexts or larger models, more triples might help, so the cardinality finding should not be read as a universal law.
  • The same design likely transfers to other structured item metadata beyond knowledge graphs, such as attribute tables or taxonomy paths, since the mechanism is generic text injection with retrieval-based selection.
  • The paper's ablations leave retrieval quality unmeasured; a direct evaluation of whether the top-1 triple is semantically relevant for a held-out set of items would tell whether the GAT is truly selecting knowledge or merely regularizing the prompt.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes KERAG_R, a knowledge-enhanced retrieval-augmented generation framework for top-k recommendation. A GAT is pre-trained on a knowledge graph and used to select the top-Q triples for each user-interacted item; these triples are inserted into instruction prompts alongside a LightGCN-derived ranking hint, and Llama-3.1-8B is tuned with LoRA on 1,000 instructions per dataset. The authors report experiments on ML-1M, ML-10M, and Amazon-Book against ten baselines, two prompt variants (triple-based and sentence-based KG information), and ablations that remove GraphRAG, instruction tuning, triple selection, and the newer Llama backbone. The central claim is that KERAG_R significantly outperforms all ten baselines, including RecRanker, by up to 14.89% on Amazon-Book.

Significance. The direction is relevant: adding relational KG structure to LLM-based ranking via a lightweight GraphRAG component is a plausible and useful contribution, and the paper includes informative ablations (triple vs. sentence format, selected vs. random triples, Q sensitivity), an efficiency analysis, and claimed reproducible preprocessing scripts. If the main comparison were properly controlled, the finding that GAT-selected triples outperform randomly selected triples would be a solid empirical contribution. However, the headline superiority over RecRanker is currently confounded by the added LightGCN hint, and the main hyperparameter Q is selected after inspecting evaluation results. These issues must be addressed before the central performance claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.4.2, Table 1, Sec. 4.2, Table 4] The claimed improvement over RecRanker is confounded. The KERAG_R prompts in Table 1 include 'Hint 1: Another recommender model suggests <ranking list>', where the ranking list comes from LightGCN, whereas the 'Original' RecRanker prompt shown in the same table contains no such hint. The w/o-graphrag ablation removes only the KG triples (Hint 2) while retaining the LightGCN hint, and Table 4 shows that w/o-graphrag already beats RecRanker on all twelve dataset-metric cells, e.g., ML-1M HR@3 0.0277 vs. 0.0270 and Amazon-Book NDCG@3 0.0203 vs. 0.0188. Therefore the abstract's 'up to 14.89%' improvement over RecRanker cannot be attributed to the KG/GraphRAG component; it may be largely explained by the extra LightGCN hint. The authors should add a control condition that gives RecRanker (or the w/o-graphrag setting) the same LightGCN hint and report the marginal gain of the KG triples relative to that control.
  2. [Sec. 4.4, Fig. 2] The number of retrieved KG triples Q is effectively selected on the evaluation data. In RQ3 the authors vary Q in {0,1,2,3}, observe that Q=1 gives the best results on all three datasets, and then use Q=1 in the main comparisons, but no validation split is used for this choice. This is test-set-based hyperparameter selection and can inflate the reported gains. The authors should either select Q on a validation portion of each dataset before computing test metrics, or report the main results for several Q values and clearly state that the chosen Q is not independent of the test labels. In addition, Figure 2 does not state what the y-axis 'Improvement (%)' is relative to; this baseline must be defined.
  3. [Sec. 3.3.2, Sec. 4.3 (w/o-selection ablation)] The paper provides no direct evidence that the GAT-based triple selection retrieves triples that are actually relevant for the LLM's ranking decisions. The only supporting result is the w/o-selection ablation, which replaces top-Q selection with random selection and shows worse performance (Table 4). This leaves open the possibility that the benefit comes not from semantic relevance but from selecting triples of frequent entities or from the dot-product scoring mechanism alone. The authors should report retrieval-quality evidence, such as precision or recall of selected triples against held-out interaction-related entities, and add a baseline that retrieves by entity popularity or by dot-product similarity without the GAT attention weights.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4.1.2] The text says the preprocessing scripts are available in an anonymous repository linked in the abstract, but no repository URL appears in the abstract or the paper body; please include the link.
  2. [Sec. 3.5] There is a duplicated word in 'enable the LLM to to incorporate structured knowledge'; please correct this typo.
  3. [Sec. 4.1.4] In the BERT4Rec description, 'BERT4Rec is the first to use deep bidirectional self-attention' is attached to SASRec's paragraph; separate the entries clearly.
  4. [Sec. 4.2] The Holm-Bonferroni corrected paired t-test is mentioned, but no test details are given, such as the number of test users, the test statistic, or standard deviations; adding an appendix with these details would strengthen the significance claims.
  5. [Sec. 4.1.4] LLMRec, a closely related LLM-plus-graph recommendation model, is discussed in Related Work but omitted from the comparisons with a reproducibility justification; this limitation should be acknowledged explicitly in the main comparison section, and a qualitative or replication-based comparison would be valuable if feasible.
  6. [Sec. 4.3 (w/o-instruction)] For the w/o-instruction ablation, clarify whether the zero-shot Llama-3 prompt still contains the LightGCN hint and the KG triples, since this affects the interpretation of what component is actually removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: KERAG_R's central claims are empirical comparisons on held-out interactions, and its KG retrieval/instruction-tuning steps are not definitionally tied to the reported recommendation metrics.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: GAT embeddings are pre-trained with a contrastive loss over KG triples (Eqs. 1-3); the top-Q triples are selected by dot-product similarity (Eqs. 4-5); these triples, along with a LightGCN ranking hint, are inserted into the instruction prompt; and the LLM is tuned with a standard cross-entropy instruction-tuning loss (Eq. 6) to produce a top-k list. The final recommendations are evaluated against held-out most-recent interactions under a leave-one-out protocol, so the reported gains on HR/NDCG are external performance comparisons rather than reconstructions of the training inputs. No equation defines the reported metric in terms of the fitted GAT or LoRA parameters, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The choice of Q=1 in RQ3 is a hyperparameter selection after observing a sweep, not a fitted quantity masquerading as a prediction. The fact that the w/o-graphrag variant already outperforms RecRanker by adding only the LightGCN hint is a legitimate attribution/comparison concern, but it is not a circular reduction: the KG component is still evaluated against held-out interactions. The paper's self-citations ([43], [68]-[75]) appear in the related-work survey and are not load-bearing for the proposed architecture or for any stated performance claim. Therefore no circularity step is present, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on the quality of KG item-entity alignment, the GAT-based triple selection, and the choice of a single triple per item. No new entities, forces, or constants are introduced; the method is a pipeline of known components. The main free parameter is Q, which is chosen from the same benchmark data used for evaluation.

free parameters (1)
  • Q (number of KG triples per interacted item) = 1
    Selected from Figure 2 after observing that one triple gives peak HR/NDCG on all three datasets; selection is based on the evaluation data and is a main driver of prompt length and noise.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Items are mapped to Freebase entities via title matching, and the resulting KG triples are correct and useful for the recommendation task.
    All retrieved triples and subsequent prompts depend on this mapping (Section 4.1.1). Errors here would inject noisy or wrong relational knowledge into the LLM.
  • domain assumption Pretrained GAT embeddings and dot-product attention scores (Eqs. 1-4) identify triples that improve the LLM's ranking.
    This is the core retrieval assumption; the w/o-selection ablation shows random triple selection is much worse, so the selection must actually find useful triples.
  • domain assumption 1,000 sampled user instructions are sufficient to instruction-tune an 8B LLM for top-k ranking on the three datasets.
    The entire fine-tuning stage uses only 1,000 prompts per dataset, following RecRanker (Section 4.1.2); this limits how much the LLM can adapt and is a core experimental choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of KERAG_R: Knowledge-Enhanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Recommendation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UXTASY55

@misc{pith2026250705863,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: KERAG_R: Knowledge-Enhanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Recommendation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UXTASY55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05863}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong potential in recommender systems due to their contextual learning and generalisation capabilities. Existing LLM-based recommendation approaches typically formulate the recommendation task using specialised prompts designed to leverage their contextual abilities, and aligning their outputs closely with human preferences to yield an improved recommendation performance. However, the use of LLMs for recommendation tasks is limited by the absence of domain-specific knowledge. This lack of relevant relational knowledge about the items to be recommended in the LLM's pre-training corpus can lead to inaccuracies or hallucinations, resulting in incorrect or misleading recommendations. Moreover, directly using information from the knowledge graph introduces redundant and noisy information, which can affect the LLM's reasoning process or exceed its input context length, thereby reducing the performance of LLM-based recommendations. To address the lack of domain-specific knowledge, we propose a novel model called Knowledge-Enhanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Recommendation (KERAG_R). Specifically, we leverage a graph retrieval-augmented generation (GraphRAG) component to integrate additional information from a knowledge graph (KG) into instructions, enabling the LLM to collaboratively exploit recommendation signals from both text-based user interactions and the knowledge graph to better estimate the users' preferences in a recommendation context. In particular, we perform graph RAG by pre-training a graph attention network (GAT) to select the most relevant triple for the target users for the used LLM, thereby enhancing the LLM while reducing redundant and noisy information. Our extensive experiments on three public datasets show that our proposed KERAG_R model significantly outperforms ten existing state-of-the-art recommendation methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05863 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The architecture of our proposed KERAG_R model with three parts: (a) Graph retrieval-augmented generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance of our KERAG_R model with respect to different numbers of triples. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

  1. Autonomous Information Seeking: A Roadmap for Agentic Recommender Systems

    cs.IR 2026-07 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    Agentic recommender systems are organized by agent role (assisted, as-recommender, as-simulator) crossed with autonomy levels L2–L5, yielding a roadmap of architectures, evaluation limits, and open challenges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Floren- cia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Maryam Amirizaniani, Elias Martin, Maryna Sivachenko, Afra Mashhadi, and Chirag Shah. 2024. Can LLMs Reason Like Humans? Assessing Theory of Mind Reasoning in LLMs for Open-Ended Questions. In Proc. of CIKM

    2024

  3. [3]

    Keqin Bao, Jizhi Zhang, Yang Zhang, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, and Xiangnan He

  4. [4]

    Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor

  5. [5]

    Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Ruther- ford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bog- dan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In Proc. of ICML

    2022

  6. [6]

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

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

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

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, and Jonathan Larson. 2024. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. 2024. A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models. In Proc. of KDD

    2024

  2. [10]

    Jinyuan Fang, Zaiqiao Meng, and Craig Macdonald. 2024. TRACE the Evidence: Constructing Knowledge-Grounded Reasoning Chains for Retrieval-Augmented Generation. In Proc. of ACL (Findings)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Qingkai Fang, Shoutao Guo, Yan Zhou, Zhengrui Ma, Shaolei Zhang, and Yang Feng. 2024. Llama-omni: Seamless speech interaction with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06666 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, and Haofen Wang. 2023. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Shijie Geng, Shuchang Liu, Zuohui Fu, Yingqiang Ge, and Yongfeng Zhang

  6. [14]

    Zhabiz Gharibshah and Xingquan Zhu. 2021. User response prediction in online advertising. Computing Surveys (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Xavier Glorot and Yoshua Bengio. 2010. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In Proc. of PMLR (JMLR Workshop)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Qingyu Guo, Fuzhen Zhuang, Chuan Qin, Hengshu Zhu, Xing Xie, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. 2020. A survey on knowledge graph-based recommender systems. Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang

  10. [18]

    Raia Hadsell, Sumit Chopra, and Yann LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In Proc. of CVPR

    2006

  11. [19]

    F Maxwell Harper and Joseph A Konstan. 2015. The movielens datasets: History and context. Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (2015), 1–19

    2015

  12. [20]

    John A Hartigan and Manchek A Wong. 1979. Algorithm AS 136: A k-means clustering algorithm. Journal of the royal statistical society. series c (applied statistics) 28, 1 (1979), 100–108

    1979

  13. [21]

    Xiangnan He, Kuan Deng, Xiang Wang, Yan Li, Yongdong Zhang, and Meng Wang. 2021. Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation. In Proc. of SIGIR

    2021

  14. [22]

    Xiaoxin He, Yijun Tian, Yifei Sun, Nitesh V Chawla, Thomas Laurent, Yann LeCun, Xavier Bresson, and Bryan Hooi. 2024. G-retriever: Retrieval-augmented generation for textual graph understanding and question answering. In Proc. of NeurIPS

    2024

  15. [23]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In Proc. of ICLR

    2022

  16. [24]

    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 Proc. of WWW

    2024

  17. [25]

    Yuntong Hu, Zhihan Lei, Zheng Zhang, Bo Pan, Chen Ling, and Liang Zhao. 2024. GRAG: Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16506 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Yucheng Hu and Yuxing Lu. 2024. Rag and rau: A survey on retrieval-augmented language model in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19543 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Tinglin Huang, Yuxiao Dong, Ming Ding, Zhen Yang, Wenzheng Feng, Xinyu Wang, and Jie Tang. 2021. Mixgcf: An improved training method for graph neural network-based recommender systems. In Proc. KDD

    2021

  20. [28]

    Ziwei Ji, Zihan Liu, Nayeon Lee, Tiezheng Yu, Bryan Wilie, Min Zeng, and Pascale Fung. 2023. RHO: Reducing Hallucination in Open-domain Dialogues with Knowledge Grounding. In Proc. of ACL (Findings)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2018. Self-attentive sequential recom- mendation. In Proc. of ICDM

    2018

  22. [30]

    Wang-Cheng Kang, Jianmo Ni, Nikhil Mehta, Maheswaran Sathiamoorthy, Lichan Hong, Ed Chi, and Derek Zhiyuan Cheng. 2023. Do llms understand user prefer- ences? evaluating llms on user rating prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06474 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Diederik P Kingma. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proc. of ICLR

    2014

  24. [32]

    Yehuda Koren, Robert Bell, and Chris Volinsky. 2009. Matrix factorization tech- niques for recommender systems. Computer (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. In Proc. of SOSP

    2023

  26. [34]

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al

  27. [35]

    Lei Li, Yongfeng Zhang, Dugang Liu, and Li Chen. 2023. Large language models for generative recommendation: A survey and visionary discussions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01157 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Nelson F Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. 2024. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Shang Liu, Zhenzhong Chen, Hongyi Liu, and Xinghai Hu. 2019. User-video co-attention network for personalized micro-video recommendation. In Proc. of WWW

    2019

  30. [38]

    Qijun Luo, Hengxu Yu, and Xiao Li. 2024. BAdam: A memory efficient full parameter optimization method for large language models. In Proc. of NeurIPS

    2024

  31. [39]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. In Proc. of NeurIPS. 9459–9474

  32. [40]

    Sichun Luo, Chen Ma, Yuanzhang Xiao, and Linqi Song. 2023. Improving long-tail item recommendation with graph augmentation. In Proc. of CIKM

    2023

  33. [41]

    Sichun Luo, Jiansheng Wang, Aojun Zhou, Li Ma, and Linqi Song. 2024. Large Language Models Augmented Rating Prediction in Recommender System. In Proc. of ICASSP

    2024

  34. [42]

    Costas Mavromatis and George Karypis. 2024. GNN-RAG: Graph Neural Retrieval for Large Language Model Reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20139 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zeyuan Meng, Iadh Ounis, Craig Macdonald, and Zixuan Yi. 2024. Knowledge Graph Cross-View Contrastive Learning for Recommendation. In European Con- ference on Information Retrieval . Springer, 3–18

    2024

  36. [44]

    Sichun Luo, Bowei He, Haohan Zhao, Wei Shao, Yanlin Qi, Yinya Huang, Ao- jun Zhou, Yuxuan Yao, Zongpeng Li, Yuanzhang Xiao, et al. 2023. Recranker: Instruction tuning large language model as ranker for top-k recommendation. Transactions on Information Systems (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

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

    2020

  39. [47]

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

  40. [48]

    Fu Shang, Fanyi Zhao, Mingxuan Zhang, Jun Sun, and Jiatu Shi. 2024. Personal- ized recommendation systems powered by large language models: Integrating semantic understanding and user preferences. International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering and Management (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Boci Peng, Yun Zhu, Yongchao Liu, Xiaohe Bo, Haizhou Shi, Chuntao Hong, Yan Zhang, and Siliang Tang. 2024. Graph retrieval-augmented generation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08921 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Damien Sileo, Wout Vossen, and Robbe Raymaekers. 2022. Zero-shot recommen- dation as language modeling. In Proc. of ECIR

    2022

  43. [51]

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

  44. [52]

    Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Shuaiqiang Wang, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Is ChatGPT good at search? investi- gating large language models as re-ranking agents. In Proc. of ACL

    2023

  45. [53]

    Jiabin Tang, Yuhao Yang, Wei Wei, Lei Shi, Lixin Su, Suqi Cheng, Dawei Yin, and Chao Huang. 2024. Graphgpt: Graph instruction tuning for large language models. In Proc. of SIGIR

    2024

  46. [54]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yas- mine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhos- ale, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Kyuyong Shin, Hanock Kwak, Kyung-Min Kim, Minkyu Kim, Young-Jin Park, Jisu Jeong, and Seungjae Jung. 2021. One4all user representation for recommender systems in e-commerce. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.00573 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Jianling Wang, Raphael Louca, Diane Hu, Caitlin Cellier, James Caverlee, and Liangjie Hong. 2020. Time to shop for valentine’s day: Shopping occasions and sequential recommendation in e-commerce. In Proc. of WSDM

    2020

  49. [57]

    Lei Wang and Ee-Peng Lim. 2023. Zero-shot next-item recommendation using large pretrained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03153 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Xiang Wang, Xiangnan He, Yixin Cao, Meng Liu, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2019. Kgat: Knowledge graph attention network for recommendation. In Proc. of KDD

    2019

  51. [59]

    Yu Wang, Zhiwei Liu, Ziwei Fan, Lichao Sun, and Philip S Yu. 2021. Dskreg: Differentiable sampling on knowledge graph for recommendation with relational gnn. In Proc. of CIKM

    2021

  52. [60]

    Wei Wei, Xubin Ren, Jiabin Tang, Qinyong Wang, Lixin Su, Suqi Cheng, Junfeng Wang, Dawei Yin, and Chao Huang. 2024. Llmrec: Large language models with graph augmentation for recommendation. In Proc. of WSDM

    2024

  53. [61]

    Junda Wu, Cheng-Chun Chang, Tong Yu, Zhankui He, Jianing Wang, Yupeng Hou, and Julian McAuley. 2024. Coral: collaborative retrieval-augmented large language models improve long-tail recommendation. In Proc. of KDD

    2024

  54. [62]

    Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2017. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Xu Xie, Fei Sun, Zhaoyang Liu, Shiwen Wu, Jinyang Gao, Jiandong Zhang, Bolin Ding, and Bin Cui. 2022. Contrastive learning for sequential recommendation. In Proc. of ICDE

    2022

  56. [64]

    Shuyuan Xu, Wenyue Hua, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2024. Openp5: An open-source platform for developing, training, and evaluating llm-based recommender sys- tems. In Proc. of SIGIR

    2024

  57. [65]

    Zhentao Xu, Mark Jerome Cruz, Matthew Guevara, Tie Wang, Manasi Deshpande, Xiaofeng Wang, and Zheng Li. 2024. Retrieval-augmented generation with knowledge graphs for customer service question answering. In Proc. of SIGIR

    2024

  58. [66]

    Fan Yang, Zheng Chen, Ziyan Jiang, Eunah Cho, Xiaojiang Huang, and Yanbin Lu. 2023. Palr: Personalization aware llms for recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07622 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Ji Yang, Xinyang Yi, Derek Zhiyuan Cheng, Lichan Hong, Yang Li, Simon Xiaom- ing Wang, Taibai Xu, and Ed H Chi. 2020. Mixed negative sampling for learning two-tower neural networks in recommendations. In Prof. of WWW

    2020

  60. [68]

    Zixuan Yi, Zijun Long, Iadh Ounis, Craig Macdonald, and Richard Mccreadie. 2023. Large multi-modal encoders for recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20343 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Fen Xia, Tie-Yan Liu, Jue Wang, Wensheng Zhang, and Hang Li. 2008. Listwise approach to learning to rank: theory and algorithm. In Proc. of ICML

    2008

  62. [70]

    Zixuan Yi and Iadh Ounis. 2024. A unified graph transformer for overcom- ing isolations in multi-modal recommendation. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 518–527

    2024

  63. [71]

    Zixuan Yi and Iadh Ounis. 2025. A multi-modal recipe for improved multi-domain recommendation. In European Conference on Information Retrieval . Springer, 421– 436

    2025

  64. [72]

    Zixuan Yi, Iadh Ounis, and Craig Macdonald. 2023. Contrastive graph prompt- tuning for cross-domain recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 42, 2 (2023), 1–28

    2023

  65. [73]

    Zixuan Yi, Iadh Ounis, and Craig Macdonald. 2023. Graph contrastive learning with positional representation for recommendation. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 288–303

    2023

  66. [74]

    Zixuan Yi, Xi Wang, and Iadh Ounis. 2024. A directional diffusion graph trans- former for recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03326 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Zixuan Yi, Xi Wang, Iadh Ounis, and Craig Macdonald. 2022. Multi-modal graph contrastive learning for micro-video recommendation. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1807–1811

    2022

  68. [76]

    Zixuan Yi, Zijun Long, Iadh Ounis, Craig Macdonald, and Richard Mccreadie

  69. [77]

    Junjie Zhang, Ruobing Xie, Yupeng Hou, Xin Zhao, Leyu Lin, and Ji-Rong Wen

  70. [78]

    Shengyu Zhang, Linfeng Dong, Xiaoya Li, Sen Zhang, Xiaofei Sun, Shuhe Wang, Jiwei Li, Runyi Hu, Tianwei Zhang, Fei Wu, et al. 2023. Instruction tuning for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10792 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    Yuhui Zhang, Hao Ding, Zeren Shui, Yifei Ma, James Zou, Anoop Deoras, and Hao Wang. 2021. Language models as recommender systems: Evaluations and limitations. Amazon Science Blog (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    Zhilu Zhang and Mert Sabuncu. 2018. Generalized cross entropy loss for training deep neural networks with noisy labels. In Proc. of NeurIPS

    2018

  73. [81]

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Gaole He, Kunlin Yang, Hongjian Dou, Jin Huang, Siqi Ouyang, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2019. Kb4rec: A data set for linking knowledge bases with recommender systems. Data Intelligence (2019)

    2019

  74. [82]

    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

  75. [83]

    Zihuai Zhao, Wenqi Fan, Jiatong Li, Yunqing Liu, Xiaowei Mei, Yiqi Wang, Zhen Wen, Fei Wang, Xiangyu Zhao, Jiliang Tang, et al. 2024. Recommender systems in the era of large language models.Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2024)

    2024

  76. [84]

    Fuzheng Zhang, Nicholas Jing Yuan, Defu Lian, Xing Xie, and Wei-Ying Ma. 2016. Collaborative knowledge base embedding for recommender systems. In Proc. of KDD

    2016

  77. [86]

    Transactions on Information Systems (2023)

    Recommendation as instruction following: A large language model em- powered recommendation approach. Transactions on Information Systems (2023)

    2023

  78. [2008]

    Freebase: a collaboratively created graph database for structuring human knowledge. In Proc. of SIGMOD

  79. [2012]

    BPR: Bayesian personalized ranking from implicit feedback. In Proc. of UAI

  80. [2019]

    BERT4Rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder repre- sentations from transformer. In Proc. of CIKM. x ’XX, July 03–05, 2024, Glasgow, UK Meng et al

    2024

  81. [2020]

    Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In Proc. of ICML. 3929– 3938

  82. [2022]

    Recommendation as language processing: A unified pretrain, personalized prompt & predict paradigm (p5). In Proc. of RecSys

  83. [2023]

    Tallrec: An effective and efficient tuning framework to align large language model with recommendation. In Proc. of RecSys

  84. [2025]

    ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems 3, 4 (2025), 1–25

    Enhancing recommender systems: Deep modality alignment with large multi-modal encoders. ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems 3, 4 (2025), 1–25

    2025

Pith tools

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