Papers › A Review-aware Graph Contrastive Learning Framework for Recommendation
A Review-aware Graph Contrastive Learning Framework for Recommendation
Jie Shuai, Kun Zhang, Le Wu, Peijie Sun, Richang Hong, Meng Wang, Yong Li
Most modern recommender systems predict users preferences with two components: user and item embedding learning, followed by the user-item interaction modeling. By utilizing the auxiliary review information accompanied with user ratings, many of the existing review-based recommendation models enriched user/item embedding learning ability with historical reviews or better modeled user-item interactions with the help of available user-item target reviews. Though significant progress has been made, we argue that current solutions for review-based recommendation suffer from two drawbacks. First, as review-based recommendation can be naturally formed as a user-item bipartite graph with edge features from corresponding user-item reviews, how to better exploit this unique graph structure for recommendation? Second, while most current models suffer from limited user behaviors, can we exploit the unique self-supervised signals in the review-aware graph to guide two recommendation components better? To this end, in this paper, we propose a novel Review-aware Graph Contrastive Learning (RGCL) framework for review-based recommendation. Specifically, we first construct a review-aware user-item graph with feature-enhanced edges from reviews, where each edge feature is composed of both the user-item rating and the corresponding review semantics. This graph with feature-enhanced edges can help attentively learn each neighbor node weight for user and item representation learning. After that, we design two additional contrastive learning tasks (i.e., Node Discrimination and Edge Discrimination) to provide self-supervised signals for the two components in recommendation process. Finally, extensive experiments over five benchmark datasets demonstrate the superiority of our proposed RGCL compared to the state-of-the-art baselines.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2204.12063")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 3 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: official repository: 3 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
3 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from JarenceSJ/ReviewGraph. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
22cafd40e3ca9aa7 · report
19717d3157b87441 · report
45d83d30c99ddd44 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections