Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2404.08660

How Does Message Passing Improve Collaborative Filtering?

Abstract

Collaborative filtering (CF) has exhibited prominent results for recommender systems and been broadly utilized for real-world applications. A branch of research enhances CF methods by message passing used in graph neural networks, due to its strong capabilities of extracting knowledge from graph-structured data, like user-item bipartite graphs that naturally exist in CF. They assume that message passing helps CF methods in a manner akin to its benefits for graph-based learning tasks in general. However, even though message passing empirically improves CF, whether or not this assumption is correct still needs verification. To address this gap, we formally investigate why message passing helps CF from multiple perspectives and show that many assumptions made by previous works are not entirely accurate. With our curated ablation studies and theoretical analyses, we discover that (1) message passing improves the CF performance primarily by additional representations passed from neighbors during the forward pass instead of additional gradient updates to neighbor representations during the model back-propagation and (ii) message passing usually helps low-degree nodes more than high-degree nodes. Utilizing these novel findings, we present Test-time Aggregation for CF, namely TAG-CF, a test-time augmentation framework that only conducts message passing once at inference time. The key novelty of TAG-CF is that it effectively utilizes graph knowledge while circumventing most of notorious computational overheads of message passing. Besides, TAG-CF is extremely versatile can be used as a plug-and-play module to enhance representations trained by different CF supervision signals. Evaluated on six datasets, TAG-CF consistently improves the recommendation performance of CF methods without graph by up to 39.2% on cold users and 31.7% on all users, with little to no extra computational overheads.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mingxuan Ju, William Shiao, Zhichun Guo, Yanfang Ye, Yozen Liu, Neil Shah, Tong Zhao. 2024-10-28. How Does Message Passing Improve Collaborative Filtering?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.08660

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

WebArxiv: A Reproducible Benchmark for Evaluating Multimodal Web Agents on arXiv Tasks

Foundation models now enable autonomous agents to interact with real-world websites, but existing benchmarks emphasize general-purpose browsing, underrepresent research-oriented environments and scholarly discovery workflows, and often depend on live sites whose changing content and structure undermine reproducibility. arXiv provides a realistic, reproducible, hierarchically structured, information-centric testbed without privacy-sensitive interactions. We introduce WebArxiv, a static-snapshot benchmark comprising 510 time-invariant tasks, each with a unique deterministic ground truth. Its diverse, realistic scholarly tasks go beyond simple information lookup and rule following to emphasize multi-constraint paper retrieval, fine-grained content extraction, and cross-paper comparison. Evaluations of a range of foundation-model-based web agents show that WebArxiv remains challenging. Behavioral analysis reveals that agents over-rely on fixed interaction histories, causing incomplete or repetitive reasoning. We therefore equip agents with a lightweight dynamic-memory mechanism for adaptive retrieval and reasoning over relevant context. The benchmark and code are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/74E4423BVNW/README.md.

cs.IR

GreekBarRetrieval: A Benchmark for Greek Statutory Retrieval

Statutory retrieval is necessary for citation-grounded legal question answering, but remains underexplored for Greek. We introduce GreekBarRetrieval, a public retrieval benchmark derived from, and complementing GreekBarBench, which did not include retrieval. The new benchmark comprises 283 bar-exam questions, each accompanied by the facts of the case it refers to, and 6,308 candidate statutory articles to retrieve from. Questions and facts are stated in everyday language, but need to be mapped to the formal terminology of statutes and their abstract legal concepts. A further complication is that not all of the case facts are relevant to each question of a case. Experimenting with three BM25 variants and nine dense retrievers, we find that vanilla dense retrieval far outperforms vanilla sparse retrieval in Recall@100. However, LLM-based query reformulation helps BM25 close that gap, while also improving dense retrieval. With a ten-round ReAct-like LLM reformulation loop that we introduce, BM25 improves further in Recall@100 and obtains the best nDCG and MAP scores of all tested retrievers. Query reformulation also outperforms pseudo-relevance feedback, sparse-dense fusion, and English translation.

cs.IR

Parameterized Dense-Sparse Fusion for Hybrid Retrieval: Tuning a Rank-Score Mix on BEIR SciFact with Qdrant

We study a parameterized hybrid ranker that fuses a dense embedding list and a sparse lexical list. The method has a small, explicit parameter vector: a dense prior $α\in [0,1]$, a score-versus-rank mix $λ\in [0,1]$, an RRF smoothing parameter $κ> 0$, optional list-geometry coefficients that move $α$ per query, and a router margin $τ$ that can turn sparse search off. We grid-search those ranges on SciFact train (809 queries) and freeze the chosen values on SciFact test (300). The tuned rank-score mix ($α= 0.8$, $λ= 0.75$, $κ= 20$) reaches 0.753 nDCG@10 and 0.889 recall@10, outperforming dense BGE (0.742 / 0.871) and equal-weight RRF (0.707 nDCG@10) on that test split. A list-conditioned $α$ adds +0.0006 nDCG; a sparse-off router is rejected by the same train split (any $τ$ that skipped approximately 50% of queries lost nDCG). These coefficients are dataset-specific. Equal RRF with the same models does not beat dense on a nine-zip BEIR macro-average (0.479 vs. 0.519 nDCG@10). Repeating the same train-then-freeze sweep independently on all 20 indexed units beats equal RRF on 20/20 and dense on 16/20 (unit-mean nDCG@10 0.467 vs. 0.462 dense vs. 0.420 RRF). Other corpora should reuse the ranges, not a copy of the SciFact point.

cs.IR