On the Role of Weight Decay in Collaborative Filtering: A Popularity Perspective
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Collaborative filtering (CF) enables large-scale recommendation systems by encoding information from historical user-item interactions into dense ID-embedding tables. However, as embedding tables grow, closed-form solutions become impractical, often necessitating the use of mini-batch gradient descent for training. Despite extensive work on designing loss functions to train CF models, we argue that one core component of these pipelines is heavily overlooked: weight decay. Attaining high-performing models typically requires careful tuning of weight decay, regardless of loss, yet its necessity is not well understood. In this work, we question why weight decay is crucial in CF pipelines and how it impacts training. Through theoretical and empirical analysis, we surprisingly uncover that weight decay's primary function is to encode popularity information into the magnitudes of the embedding vectors. Moreover, we find that tuning weight decay acts as a coarse, non-linear knob to influence preference towards popular or unpopular items. Based on these findings, we propose PRISM (Popularity-awaRe Initialization Strategy for embedding Magnitudes), a straightforward yet effective solution to simplify the training of high-performing CF models. PRISM pre-encodes the popularity information typically learned through weight decay, eliminating its necessity. Our experiments show that PRISM improves performance by up to 4.77% and reduces training times by 38.48%, compared to state-of-the-art training strategies. Additionally, we parameterize PRISM to modulate the initialization strength, offering a cost-effective and meaningful strategy to mitigate popularity bias.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 May 2025.
Builds on
21 of 44 references.
References · 21
- 2020LightGCN: Simplifying and Powering Graph Convolution Network for Recommendationcited by 1,139
- 2017Neural Collaborative Filteringcited by 1,111
- 2016Wide & Deep Learning for Recommender Systemscited by 747
- 2019Neural Graph Collaborative Filteringcited by 661
- 2020DCN V2: Improved Deep & Cross Network and Practical Lessons for Web-scale Learning to Rank Systemscited by 327
- 2021A Survey of Graph Neural Networks for Recommender Systems: Challenges, Methods, and Directionscited by 144
- 2017Deep Learning based Recommender System: A Survey and New Perspectivescited by 136
- 2020Neural Collaborative Filtering vs. Matrix Factorization Revisitedcited by 123
- 2020Model-Agnostic Counterfactual Reasoning for Eliminating Popularity Bias in Recommender Systemcited by 94
- 2021AutoDebias: Learning to Debias for Recommendationcited by 68
- 2023A Survey on Popularity Bias in Recommender Systemscited by 43
- 2022On the Effectiveness of Sampled Softmax Loss for Item Recommendationcited by 39
9 more
- 2015Addressing Complex and Subjective Product-Related Queries with Customer Reviewscited by 29
- 2024How Do Recommendation Models Amplify Popularity Bias? An Analysis from the Spectral Perspectivecited by 21
- 2023Adap-τ: Adaptively Modulating Embedding Magnitude for Recommendationcited by 19
- 2022Investigating Accuracy-Novelty Performance for Graph-based Collaborative Filteringcited by 13
- 2023Going Beyond Local: Global Graph-Enhanced Personalized News Recommendationscited by 10
- 2023Towards Mitigating Dimensional Collapse of Representations in Collaborative Filteringcited by 10
- 2023Toward a Better Understanding of Loss Functions for Collaborative Filteringcited by 8
- 2024The Hidden Pitfalls of the Cosine Similarity Losscited by 7
- 2023Popularity Debiasing from Exposure to Interaction in Collaborative Filteringcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.
2 papers.