journal article·2025-11-20Open access

biLorentzFM: Hyperbolic Multi-Objective Deep Learning for Reciprocal Recommendation

Kübra Karacan Uyar, Yücel Batu Salman

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 22

Abstract

Reciprocal recommendation requires satisfying preferences on both sides of a match, which differs from standard one-sided settings and often involves hierarchical structure (e.g., skills, seniority, education). We present biLorentzFM, which is a multi-objective framework that integrates hyperbolic geometry into factorization machine architectures using Lorentz embeddings with learnable curvature and manifold-aware optimization. The approach addresses whether a geometric structure aligned with hierarchical relationships can improve reciprocal matching without requiring major architectural changes. On a large-scale recruitment dataset from Kariyer.Net (1,150,302 interactions, 229,805 candidates), the model achieves candidate and company AUCs of 0.9964 and 0.9913 respectively, representing 6.6% and 6.0% improvements over the strongest Euclidean baseline while maintaining practical inference latency (2.1 ms per batch). Cross-validation analysis confirms robustness (5-fold: 0.9813 ± 0.0002; 3-seed: 0.9964 ± 0.0012) with very large effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 2.89–3.08). Although the per-epoch training time increases by 23.5% due to manifold operations, faster convergence (12 vs. 18 epochs) reduces the total training time by 17.8%. Cross-domain evaluation on Speed Dating data demonstrates generalization beyond explicit hierarchies with a 2.8% AUC improvement despite lacking structured taxonomies. Learned curvature parameters differ by entity type, providing interpretable indicators of hierarchical structure strength. Ablation studies isolate contributions from geometric structure (6.6%), learnable curvature (4.7%), multi-objective learning (2.1%), and explicit feature interactions (0.6%). A systematic comparison reveals that Lorentz embeddings outperform Poincaré ball implementations by 4.4% AUC under identical conditions, which is attributed to numerical stability advantages. The results indicate that pairing standard recommendation architectures with geometry reflecting hierarchical relationships can provide consistent improvements for reciprocal matching, while limitations including cold-start performance, computational overhead at an extreme scale, and static hierarchy assumptions suggest directions for future work on adaptive curvature, fairness constraints, and dynamic taxonomies.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced Graph Neural Networks · Recommender Systems and Techniques · Face recognition and analysis

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Kariyer.Net R&D Center, Department of Technology and Innovation, Istanbul 34768, Turkey

Department of Software Engineering, Bahçeşehir University, Istanbul 34420, Turkey

Funding

Kariyer.net R&D Center

References (44)

Show source-provided references
1. Recommender systems10.1145/245108.245121 ↗
2. Li, T., and Li, X. (November, January 29). MEET: A generalized framework for reciprocal recommender systems. Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’12), Maui, HI, USA.
3. Grand View Research (2024, January 15). Online Recruitment Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Type, by Application, by Region and Segment Forecasts, 2023–2030. Available online: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/online-recruitment-market.
4. Sarkar, R. (2011, January 21–23). Low distortion Delaunay embedding of trees in hyperbolic plane. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Graph Drawing, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.10.1007/978-3-642-25878-7_34 ↗
5. Guo, H., Tang, R., Ye, Y., Li, Z., and He, X. (2017, January 19–25). DeepFM: A factorization-machine based neural network for CTR prediction. Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2017), Melbourne, Australia.10.24963/ijcai.2017/239 ↗
6. biDeepFM: A multi-objective deep factorization machine for reciprocal recommendation
7. Nickel, M., and Kiela, D. (2018, January 10–15). Learning continuous hierarchies in the Lorentz model of hyperbolic geometry. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2018), Stockholm, Sweden.
8. Vinh, T.D., Tay, Y., Zhang, S., Cong, G., and Li, X.L. (2020, January 3–7). HyperML: A boosting metric learning approach in hyperbolic space for recommender systems. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM ’20), Houston, TX, USA.
9. Sun, J., Cheng, Z., Zuberi, S., Perez, F., and Volkovs, M. (2021, January 19–23). HGCF: Hyperbolic graph convolution networks for collaborative filtering. Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (WWW ’21), Ljubljana, Slovenia, Virtual.10.1145/3442381.3450101 ↗
10. Pizzato, L., Rej, T., Chung, T., Koprinska, I., and Kay, J. (2010, January 26–30). RECON: A reciprocal recommender for online dating. Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys ’10), Barcelona, Spain.10.1145/1864708.1864787 ↗
11. Malinowski, J., Keim, T., Wendt, O., and Weitzel, T. (2006, January 4–7). Matching people and jobs: A bilateral recommendation approach. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ’06), Kauai, HI, USA.10.1109/HICSS.2006.266 ↗
12. Zero-shot recommendation AI models for efficient job–candidate matching in recruitment process10.3390/app14062601 ↗
13. Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., and Levy, K. (2020, January 27–30). Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’20), Barcelona, Spain.10.1145/3351095.3372828 ↗
14. Zhou, Y., Chen, L., and Wang, H. (2023). A study of reciprocal job recommendation for college graduates integrating semantic keyword matching and social networking. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app132212305 ↗
15. Madanchian, M. (2024). From recruitment to retention: AI tools for human resource decision-making. Appl. Sci., 14.10.3390/app142411750 ↗
16. Nickel, M., and Kiela, D. (2017). Poincaré embeddings for learning hierarchical representations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (NeurIPS 2017), Curran Associates, Inc.
17. Zhang, Y., Wang, X., Shi, C., Liu, N., and Song, G. (2021, January 19–23). Lorentzian graph convolutional networks. Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (WWW ’21), Ljubljana, Slovenia, Virtual.10.1145/3442381.3449872 ↗
18. Yang, M., Li, Z., Zhou, M., Liu, J., and King, I. (2022, January 14–18). HICF: Hyperbolic informative collaborative filtering. Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (KDD ’22), Washington, DC, USA.10.1145/3534678.3539475 ↗
19. Yang, M., Zhou, M., Zhao, M., Liu, J., Li, Z., and Ding, L. (2022). DHCF: Disentangled hyperbolic collaborative filtering. arXiv.10.1145/3534678.3539475 ↗
20. Chami, I., Ying, Z., Ré, C., and Leskovec, J. (2019). Hyperbolic graph convolutional neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (NeurIPS 2019), Curran Associates, Inc.
21. Ganea, O., Bécigneul, G., and Hofmann, T. (2018). Hyperbolic neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (NeurIPS 2018), Curran Associates, Inc.
22. Rendle, S. (2010, January 13–17). Factorization machines. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2010), Sydney, Australia.10.1109/ICDM.2010.127 ↗
23. He, X., and Chua, T.S. (2017, January 7–11). Neural factorization machines for sparse predictive analytics. Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’17), Tokyo, Japan.10.1145/3077136.3080777 ↗
24. Xiao, J., Ye, H., He, X., Zhang, H., Wu, F., and Chua, T.S. (2017, January 19–25). Attentional factorization machines: Learning the weight of feature interactions via attention networks. Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2017), Melbourne, Australia.10.24963/ijcai.2017/435 ↗
25. Wang, R., Fu, B., Fu, G., and Wang, M. (2017). Deep & cross network for ad click predictions. Proceedings of the ADKDD ’17, ACM. Article 12.10.1145/3124749.3124754 ↗
26. Song, W., Shi, C., Xiao, Z., Duan, Z., Xu, Y., Zhang, M., and Tang, J. (2019, January 3–7). AutoInt: Automatic feature interaction learning via self-attentive neural networks. Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’19), Beijing, China.10.1145/3357384.3357925 ↗
27. Ma, J., Zhao, Z., Yi, X., Chen, J., Hong, L., and Chi, E.H. (2018, January 19–23). Modeling task relationships in multi-task learning with multi-gate mixture-of-experts. Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (KDD ’18), London, UK.10.1145/3219819.3220007 ↗
28. Kingma, D.P., and Ba, J. (2015, January 7–9). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. Proceedings of the ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA.
29. Bécigneul, G., and Ganea, O. (2019, January 6–9). Riemannian adaptive optimization methods. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2019), New Orleans, LA, USA.
30. Stochastic gradient descent on Riemannian manifolds10.1109/TAC.2013.2254619 ↗
31. Kochurov, M., Kozlukov, S., Malinin, A., Ryabinin, M., and Burnaev, E. (2020). Geoopt: Riemannian optimization in PyTorch. arXiv.
32. Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.673 ↗
33. Qu, Y., Cai, H., Ren, K., Zhang, W., Yu, Y., Wen, Y., and Wang, J. (2016, January 12–15). Product-based neural networks for user response prediction. Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2016), Barcelona, Spain.10.1109/ICDM.2016.0151 ↗
34. Liu, B., Tang, R., Chen, Y., Yu, J., Guo, H., and Zhang, Y. (2019, January 13–17). Feature Generation by Convolutional Neural Network for Click-Through Rate Prediction. Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference (WWW ’19), San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/3308558.3313497 ↗
35. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [2nd ed.].
36. Caruana, R., Niculescu-Mizil, A., Crew, G., and Ksikes, A. (2004, January 4–8). Ensemble selection from libraries of models. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2004), Banff, AB, Canada.10.1145/1015330.1015432 ↗
37. Shwartz-Ziv, R., and Tishby, N. (2017). Opening the black box of deep neural networks via information. arXiv.
38. Hyperbolic geometry of complex networks10.1103/PhysRevE.82.036106 ↗
39. Sener, O., and Koltun, V. (2018). Multi-task learning as multi-objective optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (NeurIPS 2018), Curran Associates, Inc.
40. Park, J., Cho, J., Chang, H.J., and Choi, J.Y. (2021, January 20–25). Unsupervised hyperbolic representation learning via message passing auto-encoders. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2021), Nashville, TN, USA.10.1109/CVPR46437.2021.00547 ↗
41. Dynamic graph CNN for learning on point clouds
42. Puncturing the pipeline: Do technology companies alienate women in recruiting sessions?10.1177/0306312718756766 ↗
43. Bose, A., and Hamilton, W. (2019, January 9–15). Compositional fairness constraints for graph embeddings. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2019), Long Beach, CA, USA.
44. Gu, A., Sala, F., Gunel, B., and Ré, C. (2019, January 6–9). Learning mixed-curvature representations in product spaces. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2019), New Orleans, LA, USA.