Contrastive Learning (CL) has achieved impressive performance in self-supervised learning tasks, showing superior generalization ability. Inspired by the success, adopting CL into collaborative filtering (CF) is prevailing in semi-supervised topK recommendations. The basic idea is to routinely conduct heuristic-based data augmentation and apply contrastive losses (e.g., InfoNCE) on the augmented views. Yet, some CF-tailored challenges make this adoption suboptimal, such as the issue of out-of-distribution, the risk of false negatives, and the nature of top-K evaluation. They necessitate the CL-based CF scheme to focus more on mining hard negatives and distinguishing false negatives from the vast unlabeled user-item interactions, for informative contrast signals. Worse still, there is limited understanding of contrastive loss in CF methods, especially w.r.t.

Contrastive Learning (CL) has achieved impressive performance in self-supervised learning tasks, showing superior generalization ability. Inspired by the success, adopting CL into collaborative filtering (CF) is prevailing in semi-supervised topK recommendations. The basic idea is to routinely conduct heuristic-based data augmentation and apply contrastive losses (e.g., InfoNCE) on the augmented views. Yet, some CF-tailored challenges make this adoption suboptimal, such as the issue of out-of-distribution, the risk of false negatives, and the nature of top-K evaluation. They necessitate the CL-based CF scheme to focus more on mining hard negatives and distinguishing false negatives from the vast unlabeled user-item interactions, for informative contrast signals.