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.