Paper detail

Correct and Weight: A Simple Yet Effective Loss for Implicit Feedback Recommendation

Learning from implicit feedback has become the standard paradigm for modern recommender systems. However, this setting is fraught with the persistent challenge of false negatives, where unobserved user-item interactions are not necessarily indicative of negative preference. To address this issue, this paper introduces a novel and principled loss function, named Corrected and Weighted (CW) loss, that systematically corrects for the impact of false negatives within the training objective. Our approach integrates two key techniques. First, inspired by Positive-Unlabeled learning, we debias the negative sampling process by re-calibrating the assumed negative distribution. By theoretically approximating the true negative distribution (p-) using the observable general data distribution (p) and the positive interaction distribution (p^+), our method provides a more accurate estimate of the likelihood that a sampled unlabeled item is truly negative. Second, we introduce a dynamic re-weighting mechanism that modulates the importance of each negative instance based on the model's current prediction. This scheme encourages the model to enforce a larger ranking margin between positive items and confidently predicted (i.e., easy) negative items, while simultaneously down-weighting the penalty on uncertain negatives that have a higher probability of being false negatives. A key advantage of our approach is its elegance and efficiency; it requires no complex modifications to the data sampling process or significant computational overhead, making it readily applicable to a wide array of existing recommendation models. Extensive experiments conducted on four large-scale, sparse benchmark datasets demonstrate the superiority of our proposed loss. The results show that our method consistently and significantly outperforms a suite of state-of-the-art loss functions across multiple ranking-oriented metrics.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.