mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Cardinality-Decomposed Loss: Matching Training Objectives to Relation Structure in Heterogeneous Recommendation Graphs

arXiv 2607.20737 ↗First posted 22 Jul 2026cs.LG cs.IRcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Graph Neural Networks trained on heterogenous bipartite graphs form a common basis in recommendation systems. These graphs often express relations that vary in cardinality, for example, user-item preferences are one-to-many and user-attribute features are one-to-one. Traditionally, a unique loss function is applied for all of the network components which is often Bayesian Personalized Ranking (BPR). While BPR works well for the recommendation task, we find that it causes attribute embeddings to collapse to near-random geometry -- a silent failure that leaves standard ranking metrics largely unaffected and therefore invisible to conventional evaluation. This in turn pollutes user node embeddings, which are shaped by both edge types simultaneously, hurting downstream tasks like personalization, segmentation, etc. Here we propose a Cardinality-Decomposed Loss (CDL) that combines both Cross Entropy (CE) and BPR to enable the model to collectively optimize for relations across cardinalities. We confirm this CE-BPR conflict by showing the two losses compete in the shared encoder's parameter space. We evaluate CDL on five datasets spanning two structural configurations -- one-to-one attributes on user nodes (MovieLens-1M, Last.fm-360K, PayPal Audience Factory, BookCrossing) and on item nodes (Yelp) -- and find that CDL consistently improves discriminability in attribute embeddings. We also show that ranking (NDCG) improves when attributes carry meaningful preference signal, but conflicts with it when the correlation is weak. We use a lambda parameter to navigate this trade-off, and a lambda-sweep reveals that dataset behavior is governed by two graph properties -- semantic alignment and topology leakage. Semantic alignment measures whether the attribute predicts preferences, while topology leakage measures whether the graph's connectivity already encodes it.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jul 2026.

Builds on

14 of 17 references.

References · 14

  1. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
  2. 2017Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphscited by 6,284
  3. 2017Modeling Relational Data with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 1,684
  4. 2020Understanding Contrastive Representation Learning through Alignment and Uniformity on the Hyperspherecited by 1,393
  5. 2020LightGCN: Simplifying and Powering Graph Convolution Network for Recommendationcited by 1,134
  6. 2018Graph Convolutional Neural Networks for Web-Scale Recommender Systemscited by 1,133
  7. 2017GradNorm: Gradient Normalization for Adaptive Loss Balancing in Deep Multitask Networkscited by 816
  8. 2019How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddingscited by 770
  9. 2019Heterogeneous Graph Attention Networkcited by 732
  10. 2019Neural Graph Collaborative Filteringcited by 660
  11. 2021Conflict-Averse Gradient Descent for Multi-task Learningcited by 441
  12. 2018RippleNet: Propagating User Preferences on the Knowledge Graph for Recommender Systemscited by 136
2 more
  1. 2019Knowledge Graph Convolutional Networks for Recommender Systemscited by 121
  2. 2024Behavior-Contextualized Item Preference Modeling for Multi-Behavior Recommendationcited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.