Adaptive Weighted Loss for Sequential Recommendations on Sparse Domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of single-model sequential recommendation architectures, while scalable, is often limited when catering to “power users” in sparse or niche domains. Our previous research, PinnerFormerLite, addressed this by using a fixed weighted loss to prioritize specific domains. However, this approach can be sub-optimal, as a single, uniform weight may not be sufficient for domains with very few interactions, where the training signal is easily diluted by the vast, generic dataset. This paper proposes a novel, data-driven approach: a Dynamic Weighted Loss function with comprehensive theoretical foundations and extensive empirical validation. We introduce an adaptive algorithm that adjusts the loss weight for each domain based on its sparsity in the training data, assigning a higher weight to sparser domains and a lower weight to denser ones. This ensures that even rare user interests contribute a meaningful gradient signal, preventing them from being overshadowed. We provide rigorous theoretical analysis including convergence proofs, complexity analysis, and bounds analysis to establish the stability and efficiency of our approach. Our comprehensive empirical validation across four diverse datasets (MovieLens, Amazon Electronics, Yelp Business, LastFM Music) with state-of-the-art baselines (SIGMA, CALRec, SparseEnNet) demonstrates that this dynamic weighting system significantly outperforms all comparison methods, particularly for sparse domains, achieving substantial lifts in key metrics like Recall@10 and NDCG@10 while maintaining performance on denser domains and introducing minimal computational overhead.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".