PreprintCited by 2Recommender Systems and TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research

Personalized Negative Reservoir for Incremental Learning in Recommender Systems

Open access
Valkanas, Antonios, Wang, Yuening, Zhang, Yingxue, Coates, Mark·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Recommender systems have become an integral part of online platforms. Every day the volume of training data is expanding and the number of user interactions is constantly increasing. The exploration of larger and more expressive models has become a necessary pursuit to improve user experience. However, this progression carries with it an increased computational burden. In commercial settings, once a recommendation system model has been trained and deployed it typically needs to be updated frequently as new client data arrive. Cumulatively, the mounting volume of data is guaranteed to eventually make full batch retraining of the model from scratch computationally infeasible. Naively fine-tuning solely on the new data runs into the well-documented problem of catastrophic forgetting. Despite the fact that negative sampling is a crucial part of training with implicit feedback, no specialized technique exists that is tailored to the incremental learning framework. In this work, we propose a personalized negative reservoir strategy, which is used to obtain negative samples for the standard triplet loss of graph-based recommendation systems. Our technique balances alleviation of forgetting with plasticity by encouraging the model to remember stable user preferences and selectively forget when user interests change. We derive the mathematical formulation of a negative sampler to populate and update the reservoir. We integrate our design in three SOTA and commonly used incremental recommendation models. We show that these concrete realizations of our negative reservoir framework achieve state-of-the-art results for standard benchmarks using multiple top-k evaluation metrics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2403.03993

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Storage costs can be further optimized by selectively retaining only a subset of training samples, such as through reservoir sampling.

    “Storage costs can be further optimized by selectively retaining only a subset of training samples, such as through reservoir sampling technique (Valkanas et al., 2024), where new data is added over time while older data is removed.”

    From Decoding in Latent Spaces for Efficient Inference in LLM-based Recommendation (2025) · cites this paper as Valkanas et al., 2024

    Section 6.2 (page unavailable) describes reservoir replay methods that retain a subset of historical interactions and train with new data; Section 2.1 likewise describes replaying a reservoir of old data alongside new data. The paper does not establish that this reduces storage costs or that older stored data are removed as new data arrive. Its proposed reservoir is specifically for negative samples, not a general strategy for retaining training samples. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

10 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Xiangnan He, Kuan Deng, Xiang Wang, Yan Li, Yongdong Zhang, and Meng Wang. Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation. In Proc. ACM Int. Conf. Research and Development in Info. Retrieval (SIGIR), pp. 639-648, Online, July 2020a.
  2. Xiangnan He, Kuan Deng, Xiang Wang, Yan Li, Yongdong Zhang, and Meng Wang. Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation. pp. 639-648, Online, Jul. 2020b. Published in Transactions on Machine Learning Research (02/2025)
  3. Rianne van den Berg, Thomas N. Kipf, and Max Welling. Graph convolutional matrix completion. In ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining -Deep Learning Day Workshop, London, United Kingdom, Aug. 2018.
  4. Jun Wang, Lantao Yu, Weinan Zhang, Yu Gong, Yinghui Xu, Benyou Wang, Peng Zhang, and Dell Zhang. Irgan: A minimax game for unifying generative and discriminative information retrieval models. In Proc. Int. ACM Conf. Research and Dev. Info. Retrieval (SIGIR), pp. 515-524, Tokyo, Japan, Aug. 2017.
  5. Yishi Xu, Yingxue Zhang, Wei Guo, Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, and Mark Coates. Graphsail: Graph struc- ture aware incremental learning for recommender systems. In Proc. ACM Int. Conf. Info. & Knowledge Management (CIKM), pp. 2861-2868, Online, Oct. 2020.
  6. Naimeng Yao, Qing Liu, Xiang Li, Yi Yang, and Quan Bai. Entity similarity-based negative sampling for knowledge graph embedding. In Pacific Rim Int. Conf. Artificial Intell., pp. 73-87. Springer, 2022.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Valkanas, A., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., & Coates, M.
Affiliations
McGill University (CA)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392619043
Cited by
1
References
56
Citations by year
2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Keywords
incremental learning, recommender systems, catastrophic forgetting, negative sampling, triplet loss, graph-based recommendation, implicit feedback, online model updating

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review