Beyond Similarity: Heterogeneous Graph Learning for Multi-Objective Food Substitution in Charitable Food Agencies
Organizations: Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC, USA · Department of Industrial and Production Engineering Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology Dhaka, Bangladesh
Abstract
Charitable food agencies play an important role in alleviating food insecurity by distributing donated food to people in need. However, they rely on ad hoc in-kind donations and often face shortages of specific foods, so they offer substitutes. A good food substitution requires matching household preferences, nutritional needs, and item similarity. Agencies have limited direct records of consumption behavior due to resource constraints, making it challenging to make an appropriate substitution decision that meets multiple criteria. In this study, we propose a heterogeneous graph neural network (HeteroGNN), a source-grounded recommendation framework for food substitution in charitable food agencies. We first build a unified relational graph from large-scale public data sources, combining household behavior on food consumption and food nutrient information in the United States (US) context. We treat the substitution recommendation as a multi-objective ranking problem with three targets, including behavior affinity, health suitability, and substitution similarity. We train and validate the proposed framework under standard graph relationship and adverse cold-start settings by removing relational edges from the graph. Our results show that the proposed framework leverages relational information beyond node features in predicting consumption behavior. Additionally, the proposed framework remains robust with sparsity when the model receives incomplete information about behavior and nutrient features. Finally, we show the weak correlation among different objectives, thereby justifying the multi-objective framing as a replacement for an aggregated decision. The proposed framework can help downstream charitable agency decision-makers make contextspecific substitution recommendations with limited information available.
Figures & tables
| Quantity | Count |
| People | 26,250 |
| Household/respondent contexts | 16,759 |
| Demographic household groups | 42 |
| Foods with nutrient evidence | 9,903 |
| Food–nutrient records | 102,441 |
| Consumption lines | 188,148 |
| Objective | Supervision | Interpretation |
| Behavior affinity | Observed group–food relation vs. sampled unobserved relation | The probability that the food is familiar or behaviorally plausible for the household group. |
| Health suitability | Profile-weighted food-health score | Nutrient-density suitability for the health-profile mix associated with the group. |
| Substitution similarity | Directional mapped catalog-pair score | The degree to which a candidate can play the same role as the requested item. |
| Composite ranking | Weighted combination over the three predictions | Inspectable decision support rather than a single uninterpretable score. |
| Node type | Feature name | Description | Encoding type |
| Household group | Member count | Number of respondent contexts in the group | Discrete |
| Household group | Mean household size | Average household size within the group | Discrete |
| Household group | Mean income-to-poverty ratio | Average income-to-poverty ratio within the group | Continuous |
| Household group | SNAP share | Share of group members participating in SNAP | Continuous proportion |
| Household group | Poverty band | Discretized income-to-poverty category | One-hot binary |
| Household group | Household-size band | Discretized household-size category | One-hot binary |
| Hyperparameter | Value |
| Node embedding dimension | 64 |
| Message-passing layers | 2 |
| Activation function | ReLU |
| Aggregation function | Sum |
| Dropout | 0.218 |
| Optimizer | AdamW |
| Metric | HeteroGNN | MLP | BPR | LightGCN | |
| Behavior affinity | ROC-AUC | 0.9480 | 0.9009 | 0.9144 | 0.9369 |
| PR-AUC | 0.9027 | 0.7809 | 0.8467 | 0.8838 | |
| Precision@5 | 0.9952 | 0.8000 | 0.9667 | 0.9667 | |
| Recall@5 | 0.0262 | 0.0186 | 0.0244 | 0.0240 | |
| NDCG@5 | 0.9965 | 0.8039 | 0.9724 | 0.9699 | |
| Health suitability | MAE | 0.0182 | 0.0128 | 0.0756 | 0.0765 |
| Metric | HeteroGNN | MLP | BPR | LightGCN | |||||
| CS-F | CS-G | CS-F | CS-G | CS-F | CS-G | CS-F | CS-G | ||
| Behavior affinity | ROC-AUC | 0.8381 | 0.6070 | 0.8973 | 0.8971 | 0.4959 | 0.3883 | 0.4887 | 0.5323 |
| PR-AUC | 0.6932 | 0.4367 | 0.7739 | 0.7618 | 0.3347 | 0.2749 | 0.3511 | 0.3910 | |
| Precision@5 | 0.5143 | 0.2500 | 0.7857 | 0.8750 | 0.3333 | 0.1500 | 0.2238 | 0.3750 | |
| Recall@5 | 0.0108 | 0.0008 | 0.0179 | 0.0024 | 0.0057 | 0.0006 | 0.0039 | 0.0009 | |
| NDCG@5 | 0.4656 | 0.2500 | 0.8012 | 0.8453 | 0.3390 | 0.1517 | 0.2405 | 0.3750 | |
| Attribute | Level | ROC-AUC |
| Poverty band | Above 2 poverty | 0.470 |
| Below poverty | 0.781 | |
| 1–2 poverty | 0.667 | |
| SNAP band | Non-SNAP | 0.590 |
| SNAP | 0.619 | |
| Household size | Large | 0.640 |
| Behavior Sparsity | Nutrient Sparsity | |||||||
| Behavior ROC AUC | Health MAE | Behavior ROC AUC | Health MAE | |||||
| Removed | GNN | MLP | GNN | MLP | GNN | MLP | GNN | MLP |
| 0% | 0.9444 | 0.8890 | 0.0285 | 0.0262 | 0.9444 | 0.8890 | 0.0285 | 0.0262 |
| 10% | 0.9474 | 0.8889 | 0.0283 | 0.0263 | 0.9433 | 0.8895 | 0.0329 | 0.0254 |
| 30% | 0.9442 | 0.8889 | 0.0290 | 0.0265 | 0.9388 | 0.8890 | 0.0327 | 0.0285 |
| 50% | 0.9378 | 0.8889 | 0.0292 | 0.0265 | 0.9469 | 0.8876 | 0.0379 | 0.0481 |
| Pearson | Spearman | |||||
| Behavior | Health | Similarity | Behavior | Health | Similarity | |
| Behavior affinity | 1.000 | 0.067 | 0.090 | 1.000 | 0.521 | 0.311 |
| Health suitability | 0.067 | 1.000 | 0.070 | 0.521 | 1.000 | 0.421 |
| Substitution similarity | 0.090 | 0.070 | 1.000 | 0.311 | 0.421 | 1.000 |
Recommender Systems
Recommender systems predict and rank items for people using interaction histories, content, context, and feedback.
See all 516 papers