Linear autoencoders (LAEs) have gained increasing popularity in recommender systems due to their simplicity and strong empirical performance. Most LAE models, including the Emphasized Denoising Linear Autoencoder (EDLAE) introduced by (Steck, 2020), use quadratic loss during training. However, the original EDLAE only provides closed-form solutions for the hyperparameter choice b=0, which limits its capacity. In this work, we generalize EDLAE objective into a Decoupled Expected Quadratic Loss (DEQL). We show that DEQL simplifies the process of deriving EDLAE solutions and reveals solutions in a broader hyperparameter range b>0, which were not derived in Steck's original paper. Additionally, we propose an efficient algorithm based on Miller's matrix inverse theorem to ensure the computational tractability for the b>0 case. Empirical results on benchmark datasets show that the b>0 solutions provided by DEQL outperform the b=0 EDLAE baseline, demonstrating that DEQL expands the solution space and enables the discovery of models with better testing performance.
Figures & tables
Datasets
Group 1
Group 2
Games
Beauty
Gowalla-1
ML20M
Netflix
MSD
Amazon-Books
Yelp2018
Gowalla
# items
896
4,394
13,681
20,108
17,769
41,140
91,599
38,048
40,981
# users
1,006
17,971
29,243
136,677
463,435
571,353
52,643
31,668
29,858
# interactions
15,276
75,472
677,956
9,990,682
56,880,037
33,633,450
2,984,108
1,561,406
1,027,370
density
1.69%
0.10%
0.17%
0.36%
0.69%
0.14%
0.06%
0.13%
0.08%
item-user ratio
0.89
0.24
0.47
0.15
0.04
0.07
1.74
1.20
1.37
Table 1: Details of Datasets
Model
Games
Beauty
Gowalla-1
ML20M
Netflix
MSD
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
DLAE
0.2771
0.1664
0.1329
0.0886
0.2143
0.1916
0.3924
0.3409
0.3620
0.3395
0.3290
0.3210
EASE
0.2733
0.1640
0.1323
0.0875
0.2230
0.1988
0.3905
0.3390
0.3618
0.3388
0.3332
0.3261
EDLAE
0.2851
0.1681
0.1324
0.0850
0.2268
0.2012
0.3925
0.3421
0.3656
0.3427
0.3336
0.3258
ELSA
0.2734
0.1658
0.1263
0.0763
0.2255
0.1960
0.3919
0.3386
0.3625
0.3372
0.3256
0.3144
DEQL(plain)
0.2524
0.1565
0.1093
0.0670
0.2149
0.1909
0.3844
0.3347
0.3606
0.3382
0.3329
0.3256
Table 2: Performance comparison between DEQL and other LAE-based models under the strong generalization setting. The best results are highlighted in bold.
Model
Amazon-Books
Yelp2018
Gowalla
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
Deep learning based models
PinSage
0.0282
0.0219
0.0471
0.0393
0.1380
0.1196
LightGCN
0.0411
0.0315
0.0649
0.0530
0.1830
0.1554
DGCF
0.0422
0.0324
0.0654
0.0534
0.1842
0.1561
SGL-ED
0.0478
0.0379
0.0675
0.0555
–
–
Table 3: Performance comparison between DEQL and deep learning–based and LAE-based models under the weak generalization setting.
Figure 1: Sensitivity on b/a ratio across different datasets
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 2: Comparison of the closed-form solution sets of DEQL and EDLAE. The white region represents the set of original EDLAE solution, and the green region represents the remaining solutions covered by DEQL. The orange circle marks solutions derived from a original EDLAE loss, whereas the cyan circle marks solutions obtained from the extended EDLAE loss (with hyperparameter choices b>a , which go beyond the original EDLAE constraints but still yield valid solutions).
Model
Games
Beauty
Gowalla
ML20M
Netflix
MSD
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
EDLAE
0.2674 ± 0.0144
0.1729 ± 0.0030
0.1526 ± 0.0194
0.0969 ± 0.0164
0.2266 ± 0.0019
0.2061 ± 0.0027
0.3971 ± 0.0031
0.3482 ± 0.0026
0.3657 ± 0.0012
0.3434 ± 0.0006
0.3317 ± 0.0006
0.3233 ± 0.0007
DEQL(L2+diag)
0.2669 ± 0.0188
0.1737 ± 0.0027
0.1517 ± 0.0225
0.1001 ± 0.0148
0.2270 ± 0.0026
0.2071 ± 0.0031
0.3972 ± 0.0036
0.3482 ± 0.0027
0.3657 ± 0.0013
0.3433 ± 0.0006
0.3344 ± 0.0005
0.3247 ± 0.0015
DEQL(L2)
0.2745 ± 0.0153
0.1738 ± 0.0067
0.1567 ± 0.0208
0.1023 ± 0.0164
0.2279 ± 0.0023
0.2076 ± 0.0029
0.3974 ± 0.0032
0.3484 ± 0.0026
0.3660 ± 0.0012
0.3437 ± 0.0006
0.3333 ± 0.0005
0.3251 ± 0.0007
Appendix
Table 4: Mean performance ( ± standard deviation) of DEQL(L2+zero-diag), DEQL(L2), and EDLAE.
Null Hypothesis
Games
Beauty
Gowalla
ML20M
Netflix
MSD
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
R@20
N@20
DEQL(L2) ≤ DEQL(L2+diag)
Rej (p=0.0411)
Acc (p=0.4884)
Acc (p=0.1486)
Rej (p=0.0353)
Rej (p=0.0134)
Rej (p=0.0164)
Acc (p=0.1924)
Acc (p=0.0523)
Rej (p=0.0171)
Rej (p=0.0001)
Acc (p=0.9938)
Acc (p=0.2165)
DEQL(L2) ≤ EDLAE
Rej (p=0.0137)
Acc (p=0.4008)
Acc (p=0.0729)
Rej (p=0.0013)
Rej (p=0.0083)
Rej (p=0.0001)
Rej (p=0.0033)
Rej (p=0.0400)
Rej (p=0.0401)
Rej (p=0.0001)
Rej (p=0.0000)
Rej (p=0.0000)
Appendix
Table 5: Pairwise t-tests results at significance level of α=0.05 . The null hypothesis A≤B means that method A performs no better than method B . Each cell reports the decision to reject (Rej) or accept (Acc) the null hypothesis and the corresponding p-value. If p-value <α , the null hypothesis is rejected (i.e., the evidence supports that A performs better than B ).
Figure 3: Diagonal Value Distribution Across different datasets
Model
Time (min)
Memory (GB)
Memory Type
LightGCN
30
1
GPU
SimpleX (GNN)
130
1
GPU
SSM (MF)
13
1
GPU
SSM (GNN)
13
1
GPU
DLAE
2
70
CPU
EASE
2
60
CPU
Appendix
Table 6: Approximate Training time and memory usage on Yelp2018. Deep based models mainly consume GPU memory, while others rely on CPU memory.
Sparse autoencoders have become a standard tool for uncovering interpretable latent representations in neural networks. Yet salient concepts often span manifolds that current linear methods cannot capture without post hoc analysis. This paper uses quadratic latents to close this gap: we implement these with bilinear autoencoders, which decompose activations into low-rank quadratic forms, compose linearly in weight space, and admit input-independent geometric analysis. This qualitative difference in what concepts quadratic latents can detect challenges the standard linear representation hypothesis. Our experiments and visualisations show that multi-dimensional geometries are highly prevalent and that composite latents capture them well, systematically improving reconstruction error in language models. Furthermore, we show that autoencoders with varying geometric priors recover the same input subspace despite their dictionary entries being distinct. Practically, these models serve as an unsupervised tool for manifold discovery, which we demonstrate through an interactive online visualizer for Qwen 3.5. This is a step toward nonlinear but mathematically tractable latent representations whose composition is expressive and interpretable by design.
Thomas Dooms, Ward Gauderis, Geraint Wiggins +1
University of Antwerp · Vrije Universiteit Brussel · University of Antwerp, sqIRL
Generative recommendation (GR) relies on large-beam decoding to generate hundreds of candidate items, creating a new scaling challenge for recurrent linear attention. Existing linear attention serving systems either materialize a full recurrent state for every beam or repeatedly replay shared history, incurring substantial memory and traffic overhead. To address this, we present OneLA, a linear-attention decoding framework that exploits the shared prompt and short divergent suffixes of GR workloads. Specifically, OneLA represents all beam states using a single shared prompt-derived state and compact, append-only records of their divergent transitions. Using this representation, OneLA computes only the state information required at each decoding step, without reconstructing a full recurrent state for every beam. Furthermore, OneLA uses a lightweight ancestry index to track the transition records that make up each beam's history, allowing beams to be updated without moving or copying existing records. A fused GPU kernel further reuses the shared state across beams. Our analysis shows that OneLA achieves 1.54-2.46x end-to-end decode speedups while substantially reducing recurrent-state memory use and data movement.
Xiangrui Yang, Cheng Peng, Yunfeng Zhao +9
Kuaishou Technology China · Peking University China
Recently, a wide range of recommendation algorithms inspired by deep learning techniques have emerged as the performance leaders on several standard recommendation benchmarks. While these algorithms were built on different DL techniques (e.g., dropouts, autoencoder), they have similar performance and even similar cost functions. This paper studies whether the models' comparable performance are sheer coincidence, or they can be unified under a single framework. We find that all linear performance leaders effectively add only a nuclear-norm based regularizer, or a Frobenius-norm based regularizer. The former ones possess a (surprising) rigid structure that limits the models' predictive power but their solutions are low rank and have closed form. The latter ones are more expressive and more efficient for recommendation but their solutions are either full-rank or require executing hard-to-tune numeric procedures such as ADMM. Along this line of finding, we further propose two low-rank, closed-form solutions, derived from carefully generalizing Frobenius-norm based regularizers. The new solutions get the best of both nuclear-norm and Frobenius-norm world.
Dong Li, Zhenming Liu, Ruoming Jin +4
Kent State University, USA · College of William and Mary, USA · iLambda, USA