mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

On the Effectiveness of Sampled Softmax Loss for Item Recommendation

arXiv 2201.02327 ↗First posted 7 Jan 2022cs.IRcited by 39

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The learning objective plays a fundamental role to build a recommender system. Most methods routinely adopt either pointwise or pairwise loss to train the model parameters, while rarely pay attention to softmax loss due to its computational complexity when scaling up to large datasets or intractability for streaming data. The sampled softmax (SSM) loss emerges as an efficient substitute for softmax loss. Its special case, InfoNCE loss, has been widely used in self-supervised learning and exhibited remarkable performance for contrastive learning. Nonetheless, limited recommendation work uses the SSM loss as the learning objective. Worse still, none of them explores its properties thoroughly and answers ``Does SSM loss suit for item recommendation?'' and ``What are the conceptual advantages of SSM loss, as compared with the prevalent losses?'', to the best of our knowledge. In this work, we aim to offer a better understanding of SSM for item recommendation. Specifically, we first theoretically reveal three model-agnostic advantages: (1) mitigating popularity bias; (2) mining hard negative samples; and (3) maximizing the ranking metric. However, based on our empirical studies, we recognize that the default choice of cosine similarity function in SSM limits its ability in learning the magnitudes of representation vectors. As such, the combinations of SSM with the models that also fall short in adjusting magnitudes may result in poor representations. One step further, we provide mathematical proof that message passing schemes in graph convolution networks can adjust representation magnitude according to node degree, which naturally compensates for the shortcoming of SSM. Extensive experiments on four benchmark datasets justify our analyses, demonstrating the superiority of SSM for item recommendation. Our implementations are available in both TensorFlow and PyTorch.

Key facts. Cited by 39 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 7 Jan 2022.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 10; 2024: 12; 2025: 8; 2026: 8.

39 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023Generate What You Prefer: Reshaping Sequential Recommendation via Guided Diffusioncited by 72
  2. 2023GIF: A General Graph Unlearning Strategy via Influence Functioncited by 59
  3. 2023gSASRec: Reducing Overconfidence in Sequential Recommendation Trained with Negative Samplingcited by 29
  4. 2024Unified Parameter-Efficient Unlearning for LLMscited by 24
  5. 2024How Do Recommendation Models Amplify Popularity Bias? An Analysis from the Spectral Perspectivecited by 21
  6. 2023Adap-τ: Adaptively Modulating Embedding Magnitude for Recommendationcited by 19
  7. 2024Language Representations Can be What Recommenders Need: Findings and Potentialscited by 18
  8. 2024Neighborhood-Enhanced Supervised Contrastive Learning for Collaborative Filteringcited by 10
  9. 2023Que2Engage: Embedding-based Retrieval for Relevant and Engaging Products at Facebook Marketplacecited by 9
  10. 2023Scaling Session-Based Transformer Recommendations using Optimized Negative Sampling and Loss Functionscited by 9
  11. 2024PSL: Rethinking and Improving Softmax Loss from Pairwise Perspective for Recommendationcited by 9
  12. 2025Breaking the Top-K Barrier: Advancing Top-K Ranking Metrics Optimization in Recommender Systemscited by 9
27 more
  1. 2023Toward a Better Understanding of Loss Functions for Collaborative Filteringcited by 8
  2. 2022Continuous-Time User Preference Modelling for Temporal Sets Predictioncited by 7
  3. 2024Scaling Sequential Recommendation Models with Transformerscited by 7
  4. 2023BSL: Understanding and Improving Softmax Loss for Recommendationcited by 5
  5. 2023Test Time Embedding Normalization for Popularity Bias Mitigationcited by 4
  6. 2024Pareto Front Approximation for Multi-Objective Session-Based Recommender Systemscited by 3
  7. 2025eSASRec: Enhancing Transformer-based Recommendations in a Modular Fashioncited by 3
  8. 2024Invariant Graph Learning Meets Information Bottleneck for Out-of-Distribution Generalizationcited by 2
  9. 2025Learning Cascade Ranking as One Networkcited by 2
  10. 2025On the Role of Weight Decay in Collaborative Filtering: A Popularity Perspectivecited by 2
  11. 2025Advancing Loss Functions in Recommender Systems: A Comparative Study with a R'enyi Divergence-Based Solutioncited by 2
  12. 2024Understanding and Scaling Collaborative Filtering Optimization from the Perspective of Matrix Rankcited by 1
  13. 2025Rejuvenating Cross-Entropy Loss in Knowledge Distillation for Recommender Systemscited by 1
  14. 2026Autoregressive Ranking: Bridging the Gap Between Dual and Cross Encoderscited by 1
  15. 2026BEAR: Towards Beam-Search-Aware Optimization for Recommendation with Large Language Modelscited by 1
  16. 2023UIPC-MF: User-Item Prototype Connection Matrix Factorization for Explainable Collaborative Filteringcited by 0
  17. 2024Multi-Margin Cosine Loss: Proposal and Application in Recommender Systemscited by 0
  18. 2024Negative Feedback for Music Personalizationcited by 0
  19. 2024Exploiting Preferences in Loss Functions for Sequential Recommendation via Weak Transitivitycited by 0
  20. 2025NDCG-Consistent Softmax Approximation with Accelerated Convergencecited by 0
  21. 2025On Negative-aware Preference Optimization for Recommendationcited by 0
  22. 2026Correct and Weight: A Simple Yet Effective Loss for Implicit Feedback Recommendationcited by 0
  23. 2026Generalizing Linear Autoencoder Recommenders with Decoupled Expected Quadratic Losscited by 0
  24. 2026OneShot: Index-in-Ranking with Neural Scoring for Large-Scale Retrievalcited by 0
  25. 2026Batch Size or Negatives? A Selection Rule for Memory-Constrained Recommender Trainingcited by 0
  26. 2026RecPFN: Prior-Fitted Networks for In-Context-Based Recommendationscited by 0
  27. 2026Keeping the Index Open: The Recommendation-Side Cost of Shared Search and Recommendationcited by 0