Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

In this study, we propose a novel framework called Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) to tackle this challenge.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

[Advantages]
- Modeling users and user behaviors are essential, especially for web-based applications. The problem dealt with in this paper will be a promising application of representation learning based on neural networks.
- The structure of the proposed method is reasonable, especially for e-commerce applications.

[Drawbacks]
- I could not understand the novelty of the proposed method. The bag-of-features representation seems to be standard in several research fields such as computer vision, natural language processing, and data mining. The "multi-anchor module" seems to be almost the same as the multi-head attention module that is famous in the transformer. The time aggregation module does not contain a special trick. According to the introduction of this paper, the novelty of the proposed method is the ability for modeling life-long behaviors. However, I could not find any special techniques for handling life-long sequences. Please clearly state the technical novelty of the proposed method.
- The proposed method for modeling user behaviors dismisses both microscopic and macroscopic time-series characteristics, which would be significant for tracing user interest. More specifically, bag-of-interest representations remove microscopic characteristics, and the time aggregation module erases macroscopic features. If the authors believe that I have some misunderstanding, please justify it.
- When obtaining stable user representations, the knowledge of life-long learning will be required, since (1) users might have several completely different interests in their minds, (2) each interest lasts only a short term, especially in e-commerce applications, and (3) interests containing old behavior sequences might come back suddenly. This implies that almost all the information containing behavior sequences should be kept in user representations and this problem is exactly in the context of life-long learning. Please perform bibliographic surveys for life-long learning, describe the critical problem for the previous work, and present the novelty and advantage(s)  of the proposed method against the previous work.
- The downstream tasks in the experimental evaluations seem to be too easy and not suitable for evaluating the ability to handle long behavior sequences.

The evidence to be evaluated is:In this work, we are committed to learning universal user representation through truly lifelong user behavior sequences with arbitrary length. For this purpose, we propose a framework named Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) which consists of two cascaded sub-models: Bag of Interests (BoI) and Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN).

However, there are two main disadvantages: 1) it is not friendly to the downstream tasks since the dimension of representation is too high, and 2) it is too crude to aggregate the information in the whole lifelong time without considering variations over time. Therefore, we propose to get a BoI feature sequence by applying the BoI model at each time period of the whole lifelong time. Then, a Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN) is designed to learn compressed user representations from the sequence of BoI features. The lifelong time \(\mathbf{T}\) is divided into \(N\) parts at a fixed time interval, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\) denotes the \(i\)-th time period. In our experiments, the time interval is usually set to be monthly seasonally/yearly granularity. In this way, a sequence of BoI features \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) can be obtained, where \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) denotes the BoI feature corresponding to the \(i\)-th time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). After that, SMEN is used to map \(\mathbf{B}\) to low-dimensional user representations.

Details of the model will be described in the following subsections.

To capture diverse aspects of user preferences, a novel multi-anchor module is proposed.

We compared the proposed LURM model against a rich set of user representation learning methods, including TF-IDF, Doc2Vec, TextCNN, HAN, PTUM and SUMN.

Note that LURM, SUMN and PUTM were all not fine-tuned for downstream tasks in our experiments.

The first one uses the high-dimensional output of BoI module as input in the downstream tasks, while the second uses the output of LURM. It can be seen that LURM consistently outperforms other unsupervised methods, e.g., about 3.23%/1.49% average improvements than SUMN and 4.41%/2.09% average improvements than PUTM in terms of AUC and ACC respectively.

When using the same input, LURM(short) achieved better results than other methods on both user profiling prediction tasks and category preference identification tasks.

From Table 2 and Table 3, we have observed that LURM has achieved better performance compared to other self-supervised and supervised methods. Its success can be attributed to lifelong user behavior modeling and lossless dimensionality reduction of SMEN.

In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors with any length. With the ability to model lifelong user behaviors, our method shows promising results on different downstream tasks and datasets. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline Method & Books of Literature & Games of Sports & Outdoor-hunting & Musical Instrument \\ \hline TextCNN & 73.847/2.83 & 61.00/69.92 & 66.06/72.76 & 68.28/71.81 \\ HAN & 79.12/77.49 & 66.62/70.01 & 71.19/73.42 & 70.01/72.12 \\ \hline TF-IDF & 78.62/77.21 & 65.69/68.69 & 71.90/72.19 & 69.16/68.62 \\ Doc2Vec & 71.21/68.26 & 66.75/66.85 & 71.58/66.36 & 70.29/67.37 \\ \hline PTUM & 78.66/77.91 & 66.06/68.97 & 70.34/73.01 & 69.50/72.92 \\ SUMN & 79.57/77.73 & 66.83/70.63 & 72.27/73.44 & 70.61/73.43 \\ \hline BoI & 76.29/75.75 & 59.34/67.58 & 67.80/71.28 & 66.36/69.88 \\ LURM & **82.55/79.13** & **68.02/72.43** & **77.59/75.19** & **74.04/74.43** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline Method & Age & Baby Age & Clothing & Shoe & Coffee \\ \hline TextCNN & 86.40/61.02 & 72.19/66.01 & 76.64/76.13 & 84.33/80.24 & 80.49/79.46 \\ TF-IDF & 87.73/61.75 & 73.08/67.26 & 77.61/78.01 & 85.04/81.15 & 81.75/80.78 \\ SUMN & 85.35/60.61 & 74.20/67.63 & 73.86/74.16 & 83.47/79.63 & 79.89/79.42 \\ \hline BoI(short) & 89.57/63.99 & 82.23/70.22 & 78.93/78.85 & 85.53/81.68 & 82.61/81.41 \\ LURM(short) & 88.48/61.99 & 82.71/69.29 & 78.37/78.57 & 85.15/81.18 & 81.94/80.78 \\ BoI & **96.48**/**80.19** & 93.29/83.57 & **80.83**/**79.33** & **86.69**/**82.16** & **83.78**/**81.74** \\ LURM & 96.09/78.43 & **94.59**/**84.91** & 80.37/79.10 & 86.30/81.65 & 83.11/81.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Figure 1: Illustration of our Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) for user understanding. LURM consists of two sub-model: (a) Bag of Interests (BoI) is used to aggregate user behavior data at ‘interest’ granularity, and is composed of an item embedding module and a large scale clustering module. We apply the BoI model on lifelong behavior data to generate multi-scale BoI feature sequences, (b) Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN) is used to learn compressed user representations from BoI features sequences, and is composed of a multi-anchor module, a time aggregation module, a multi-scale aggregation module and a contrastive learning module.

Input: Figure 3: Comparison of LURM with inputs of different lengths on several downstream tasks. The two figures show the results in terms of AUC and ACC respectively.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
Based on my evaluation, the claim "we propose a novel framework called LURM" appears overstated when considering both the evidence and review comments. While LURM shows good performance improvements in experiments, the reviewer points out that its core components (bag-of-features, multi-head attention) are standard techniques, with no clearly articulated technical novelty for handling lifelong sequences. The evidence fails to demonstrate truly novel methodological contributions, instead describing an integration of existing approaches. The framework's performance gains, while positive, don't justify claiming novelty without addressing these fundamental concerns about technical originality.

<score>4</score>

Justification:
1. Reviewer explicitly states "I could not understand the novelty of the proposed method" and notes key components are standard techniques:
- Bag-of-features representation is "standard in several research fields"
- Multi-anchor module appears "almost the same as multi-head attention"
- Time aggregation has "no special trick"

2. Evidence supports this assessment:
- Paper describes combining existing techniques (BoI, multi-anchor attention, time aggregation) rather than fundamentally novel approaches
- While experimental results show improvements (3.23%/1.49% over SUMN), these don't demonstrate methodological novelty
- No clear response to reviewer's concern about lack of special techniques for handling lifelong sequences

3. The claim should have been more measured, acknowledging the framework as an integration/application of existing techniques rather than claiming novelty.


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

* In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors of any length.

The evidence to be evaluated is:Unfortunately, these methods can only process user behavior sequences with a length of hundreds, and cannot leverage the rich information brought by lifelong user behaviors. Previous works have shown that considering long-term historical behavior sequences for user modeling can significantly improve the performance of different tasks

In this work, we are committed to learning universal user representation through truly lifelong user behavior sequences with arbitrary length. For this purpose, we propose a framework named Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) which consists of two cascaded sub-models: Bag of Interests (BoI) and Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN).

In order to model extremely long lifelong user behavior sequence, we propose to aggregate the content of items under user purchases, clicks, or other behaviors at a certain granularity.

Therefore, we propose a model called Bag of Interests (BoI) to aggregate user behavior data at 'interest' granularity.

Therefore, we propose to get a BoI feature sequence by applying the BoI model at each time period of the whole lifelong time. Then, a Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN) is designed to learn compressed user representations from the sequence of BoI features. The lifelong time \(\mathbf{T}\) is divided into \(N\) parts at a fixed time interval, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\) denotes the \(i\)-th time period. In our experiments, the time interval is usually set to be monthly seasonally/yearly granularity. In this way, a sequence of BoI features \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) can be obtained, where \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) denotes the BoI feature corresponding to the \(i\)-th time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). After that, SMEN is used to map \(\mathbf{B}\) to low-dimensional user representations.

To capture diverse aspects of user preferences, a novel multi-anchor module is proposed. Specifically, suppose there are \(M\) anchors, and each of them indicates a certain preference of users. Let \(\mathbf{b}\) be a BoI feature, the module converts \(\mathbf{b}\) to \(M\) low-dimensional representations as shown in Fig. 2.

In this way, we can learn different aspects of user preferences. Specially, experiments prove that SMEN can achieve almost lossless dimensionality reduction mainly due to the multi-anchor module. Through the multi-anchor module, a sequence of representation groups \(\mathbf{\mathcal{R}}=\{\mathbf{R_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{R_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{R_{t_{N}}}\}\) for each user is obtained, where \(\mathbf{R_{t_{i}}}=\{\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{1}},\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{2}},...,\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{M}}\}\) is a representation group generated by multi-anchor module corresponding to the BoI feature \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) in time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). In the time aggregation module, each sequence \(\mathbf{R^{i}}=\{\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{i}},\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{i}},...,\mathbf{r_{t_{N}}^{i}}\}\) is aggregated separately to yield a new representation \(\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{H}\). Thus the variable-size representation sequence \(\mathbf{\mathcal{R}}\) can be transformed into \(M\) fixed-size representations \(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r }^{M}}\big{\}}\).

It's worth noting that if the time interval is too small, the input sequence of SMEN, i.e. \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) will become extremely long, which contains extensive details but causes modeling difficulties due to catastrophic forgetting.

To address this trade-off, multi-scale aggregation module is designed. The module captures diverse patterns from user behavior by aggregating several representations generated at different granularities. Generally, user behavior in this work is aggregated monthly and yearly, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}=\big{\{}\mathbf{t_{1}^{\prime}},\bm {t_{2}^{\prime}},...,\mathbf{t_{N^{\prime}}^{\prime}}\big{\}}\) (e.g., if the length of time period is 5 years, \(\mathbf{N}\) is 60 for monthly granularity, and \(\mathbf{N^{\prime}}\) is 5 for yearly granularity). Thus two sequences of BoI feature \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{B^{\prime}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{b_{t_{1}^{\prime}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}^{\prime}}},...,\bm {b_{t_{N^{\prime}}^{\prime}}}\big{\}}\) at different scales correspondingly are obtained. Then, two groups of representations \(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r }^{M}}\big{\}}\) and \(\mathbf{\tilde{R^{\prime}}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r^{\prime}}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r^{ \prime}}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r^{\prime}}^{M}}\big{\}}\) are obtained after the multi-anchor module and time aggregation module with parameter sharing.

The first one uses the high-dimensional output of BoI module as input in the downstream tasks, while the second uses the output of LURM. It can be seen that LURM consistently outperforms other unsupervised methods, e.g., about 3.23%/1.49% average improvements than SUMN and 4.41%/2.09% average improvements than PUTM in terms of AUC and ACC respectively.

In particular, it can be observed that LURM has a significant improvement over BoI.

When using longer input, we can obtain more improvements, e.g., about 15.55%/17.55% average improvement on user profiling prediction tasks, and 4.19%/2.91% average improvement on category preference identification tasks compared with SUMN. From Table 2 and Table 3, we have observed that LURM has achieved better performance compared to other self-supervised and supervised methods.

Fig. 3 shows the performance of LURM on several downstream tasks of industrial dataset when using inputs of different lengths. It can be seen that the richer the behavior, the better the performance on user profiling prediction tasks. Compared to using only behaviors of two months, an average improvement of 9.75%/16.03% can be achieved when using behaviors of 5 years on these tasks.

In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors with any length. With the ability to model lifelong user behaviors, our method shows promising results on different downstream tasks and datasets. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline Method & Books of Literature & Games of Sports & Outdoor-hunting & Musical Instrument \\ \hline TextCNN & 73.847/2.83 & 61.00/69.92 & 66.06/72.76 & 68.28/71.81 \\ HAN & 79.12/77.49 & 66.62/70.01 & 71.19/73.42 & 70.01/72.12 \\ \hline TF-IDF & 78.62/77.21 & 65.69/68.69 & 71.90/72.19 & 69.16/68.62 \\ Doc2Vec & 71.21/68.26 & 66.75/66.85 & 71.58/66.36 & 70.29/67.37 \\ \hline PTUM & 78.66/77.91 & 66.06/68.97 & 70.34/73.01 & 69.50/72.92 \\ SUMN & 79.57/77.73 & 66.83/70.63 & 72.27/73.44 & 70.61/73.43 \\ \hline BoI & 76.29/75.75 & 59.34/67.58 & 67.80/71.28 & 66.36/69.88 \\ LURM & **82.55/79.13** & **68.02/72.43** & **77.59/75.19** & **74.04/74.43** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline Method & Age & Baby Age & Clothing & Shoe & Coffee \\ \hline TextCNN & 86.40/61.02 & 72.19/66.01 & 76.64/76.13 & 84.33/80.24 & 80.49/79.46 \\ TF-IDF & 87.73/61.75 & 73.08/67.26 & 77.61/78.01 & 85.04/81.15 & 81.75/80.78 \\ SUMN & 85.35/60.61 & 74.20/67.63 & 73.86/74.16 & 83.47/79.63 & 79.89/79.42 \\ \hline BoI(short) & 89.57/63.99 & 82.23/70.22 & 78.93/78.85 & 85.53/81.68 & 82.61/81.41 \\ LURM(short) & 88.48/61.99 & 82.71/69.29 & 78.37/78.57 & 85.15/81.18 & 81.94/80.78 \\ BoI & **96.48**/**80.19** & 93.29/83.57 & **80.83**/**79.33** & **86.69**/**82.16** & **83.78**/**81.74** \\ LURM & 96.09/78.43 & **94.59**/**84.91** & 80.37/79.10 & 86.30/81.65 & 83.11/81.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Figure 1: Illustration of our Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) for user understanding. LURM consists of two sub-model: (a) Bag of Interests (BoI) is used to aggregate user behavior data at ‘interest’ granularity, and is composed of an item embedding module and a large scale clustering module. We apply the BoI model on lifelong behavior data to generate multi-scale BoI feature sequences, (b) Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN) is used to learn compressed user representations from BoI features sequences, and is composed of a multi-anchor module, a time aggregation module, a multi-scale aggregation module and a contrastive learning module.

Input: Figure 3: Comparison of LURM with inputs of different lengths on several downstream tasks. The two figures show the results in terms of AUC and ACC respectively.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
Let me assess the claim: "In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors of any length."

The evidence provides extensive technical details about the LURM framework, including its two main components (BoI and SMEN), how it handles different time granularities, and experimental results showing performance improvements. The framework does demonstrate capability to process longer behavior sequences (up to 5 years) at different time scales (monthly/yearly). However, the claim of handling "any length" is somewhat overstated since there are practical limitations mentioned, such as "catastrophic forgetting" with extremely long sequences and the need for time interval trade-offs.

<score>2</score>

Justification:
1. The framework is indeed novel and well-documented with clear architectural components
2. It successfully handles "lifelong" behaviors as demonstrated by 5-year experimental results
3. The claim of "any length" is slightly overstated since:
   - Evidence mentions modeling difficulties with very small time intervals
   - There are practical constraints around catastrophic forgetting
   - The experiments only demonstrate up to 5 years, not truly "any length"
4. However, the overstatement is relatively minor since the framework does show flexibility in handling variable lengths through its multi-scale design


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

* In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors of any length.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Strengths:

--Previous work cannot model universal user representation based on lifelong sequences of user behavior since registration and challenging to make full use of highly long user behavior sequences accumulated in Internet service platforms.

-- This work proposes a universal Lifelong User Representation Model to encode user behaviors in any period with a sparse vector with super-high dimension and map these user features to user representations with almost lossless dimensionality reduction. In this way, the model could easily learn different aspects of user preferences in extremely long sequences and generalize to other downstream tasks.

Weaknesses:

-- The structure of related works is not clear enough. At the end of universal user modeling, this work focuses on the conclusion that previous work dedicated to learning universal user representations cannot leverage information from lifelong user behaviors instead of their generalization ability. The same problem also appeared at the end of lifelong user modeling.

-- In a multi-scale aggregation module, this work captures diverse patterns from user behavior by aggregating several representations generated at different time granularities. However, this method could only use information intra-corresponding representation of every time granularity and cannot explore the information inter different time granularities.

-- The explanation of the considerable gap between BoI and LURM on the two datasets is unconvincing. On the industrial dataset, the performance of BOI is better than LURM, which proved that the design of SMEN cannot bring benefits for BOI.

-- In different downstream tasks, the benefits on category preference identification tasks are tiny, even using behaviors of 5 years on this task. There is no explanation about this phenomenon, and it proves BOI cannot learn much preference information about user behaviors on different categories.

-- This work did not design experiments about multi-scale aggregation modules to prove the effectiveness of process representations of different time granularities.

-- There are some format problems in the paper, such as no period at the end of the first paragraph of the introduction.

The evidence to be evaluated is:Unfortunately, these methods can only process user behavior sequences with a length of hundreds, and cannot leverage the rich information brought by lifelong user behaviors. Previous works have shown that considering long-term historical behavior sequences for user modeling can significantly improve the performance of different tasks

In this work, we are committed to learning universal user representation through truly lifelong user behavior sequences with arbitrary length. For this purpose, we propose a framework named Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) which consists of two cascaded sub-models: Bag of Interests (BoI) and Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN).

In order to model extremely long lifelong user behavior sequence, we propose to aggregate the content of items under user purchases, clicks, or other behaviors at a certain granularity.

Therefore, we propose a model called Bag of Interests (BoI) to aggregate user behavior data at 'interest' granularity.

Therefore, we propose to get a BoI feature sequence by applying the BoI model at each time period of the whole lifelong time. Then, a Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN) is designed to learn compressed user representations from the sequence of BoI features. The lifelong time \(\mathbf{T}\) is divided into \(N\) parts at a fixed time interval, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\) denotes the \(i\)-th time period. In our experiments, the time interval is usually set to be monthly seasonally/yearly granularity. In this way, a sequence of BoI features \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) can be obtained, where \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) denotes the BoI feature corresponding to the \(i\)-th time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). After that, SMEN is used to map \(\mathbf{B}\) to low-dimensional user representations.

To capture diverse aspects of user preferences, a novel multi-anchor module is proposed. Specifically, suppose there are \(M\) anchors, and each of them indicates a certain preference of users. Let \(\mathbf{b}\) be a BoI feature, the module converts \(\mathbf{b}\) to \(M\) low-dimensional representations as shown in Fig. 2.

In this way, we can learn different aspects of user preferences. Specially, experiments prove that SMEN can achieve almost lossless dimensionality reduction mainly due to the multi-anchor module. Through the multi-anchor module, a sequence of representation groups \(\mathbf{\mathcal{R}}=\{\mathbf{R_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{R_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{R_{t_{N}}}\}\) for each user is obtained, where \(\mathbf{R_{t_{i}}}=\{\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{1}},\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{2}},...,\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{M}}\}\) is a representation group generated by multi-anchor module corresponding to the BoI feature \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) in time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). In the time aggregation module, each sequence \(\mathbf{R^{i}}=\{\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{i}},\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{i}},...,\mathbf{r_{t_{N}}^{i}}\}\) is aggregated separately to yield a new representation \(\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{H}\). Thus the variable-size representation sequence \(\mathbf{\mathcal{R}}\) can be transformed into \(M\) fixed-size representations \(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r }^{M}}\big{\}}\).

It's worth noting that if the time interval is too small, the input sequence of SMEN, i.e. \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) will become extremely long, which contains extensive details but causes modeling difficulties due to catastrophic forgetting.

To address this trade-off, multi-scale aggregation module is designed. The module captures diverse patterns from user behavior by aggregating several representations generated at different granularities. Generally, user behavior in this work is aggregated monthly and yearly, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}=\big{\{}\mathbf{t_{1}^{\prime}},\bm {t_{2}^{\prime}},...,\mathbf{t_{N^{\prime}}^{\prime}}\big{\}}\) (e.g., if the length of time period is 5 years, \(\mathbf{N}\) is 60 for monthly granularity, and \(\mathbf{N^{\prime}}\) is 5 for yearly granularity). Thus two sequences of BoI feature \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{B^{\prime}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{b_{t_{1}^{\prime}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}^{\prime}}},...,\bm {b_{t_{N^{\prime}}^{\prime}}}\big{\}}\) at different scales correspondingly are obtained. Then, two groups of representations \(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r }^{M}}\big{\}}\) and \(\mathbf{\tilde{R^{\prime}}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r^{\prime}}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r^{ \prime}}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r^{\prime}}^{M}}\big{\}}\) are obtained after the multi-anchor module and time aggregation module with parameter sharing.

The first one uses the high-dimensional output of BoI module as input in the downstream tasks, while the second uses the output of LURM. It can be seen that LURM consistently outperforms other unsupervised methods, e.g., about 3.23%/1.49% average improvements than SUMN and 4.41%/2.09% average improvements than PUTM in terms of AUC and ACC respectively.

In particular, it can be observed that LURM has a significant improvement over BoI.

When using longer input, we can obtain more improvements, e.g., about 15.55%/17.55% average improvement on user profiling prediction tasks, and 4.19%/2.91% average improvement on category preference identification tasks compared with SUMN. From Table 2 and Table 3, we have observed that LURM has achieved better performance compared to other self-supervised and supervised methods.

Fig. 3 shows the performance of LURM on several downstream tasks of industrial dataset when using inputs of different lengths. It can be seen that the richer the behavior, the better the performance on user profiling prediction tasks. Compared to using only behaviors of two months, an average improvement of 9.75%/16.03% can be achieved when using behaviors of 5 years on these tasks.

In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors with any length. With the ability to model lifelong user behaviors, our method shows promising results on different downstream tasks and datasets. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline Method & Books of Literature & Games of Sports & Outdoor-hunting & Musical Instrument \\ \hline TextCNN & 73.847/2.83 & 61.00/69.92 & 66.06/72.76 & 68.28/71.81 \\ HAN & 79.12/77.49 & 66.62/70.01 & 71.19/73.42 & 70.01/72.12 \\ \hline TF-IDF & 78.62/77.21 & 65.69/68.69 & 71.90/72.19 & 69.16/68.62 \\ Doc2Vec & 71.21/68.26 & 66.75/66.85 & 71.58/66.36 & 70.29/67.37 \\ \hline PTUM & 78.66/77.91 & 66.06/68.97 & 70.34/73.01 & 69.50/72.92 \\ SUMN & 79.57/77.73 & 66.83/70.63 & 72.27/73.44 & 70.61/73.43 \\ \hline BoI & 76.29/75.75 & 59.34/67.58 & 67.80/71.28 & 66.36/69.88 \\ LURM & **82.55/79.13** & **68.02/72.43** & **77.59/75.19** & **74.04/74.43** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline Method & Age & Baby Age & Clothing & Shoe & Coffee \\ \hline TextCNN & 86.40/61.02 & 72.19/66.01 & 76.64/76.13 & 84.33/80.24 & 80.49/79.46 \\ TF-IDF & 87.73/61.75 & 73.08/67.26 & 77.61/78.01 & 85.04/81.15 & 81.75/80.78 \\ SUMN & 85.35/60.61 & 74.20/67.63 & 73.86/74.16 & 83.47/79.63 & 79.89/79.42 \\ \hline BoI(short) & 89.57/63.99 & 82.23/70.22 & 78.93/78.85 & 85.53/81.68 & 82.61/81.41 \\ LURM(short) & 88.48/61.99 & 82.71/69.29 & 78.37/78.57 & 85.15/81.18 & 81.94/80.78 \\ BoI & **96.48**/**80.19** & 93.29/83.57 & **80.83**/**79.33** & **86.69**/**82.16** & **83.78**/**81.74** \\ LURM & 96.09/78.43 & **94.59**/**84.91** & 80.37/79.10 & 86.30/81.65 & 83.11/81.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Figure 1: Illustration of our Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) for user understanding. LURM consists of two sub-model: (a) Bag of Interests (BoI) is used to aggregate user behavior data at ‘interest’ granularity, and is composed of an item embedding module and a large scale clustering module. We apply the BoI model on lifelong behavior data to generate multi-scale BoI feature sequences, (b) Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN) is used to learn compressed user representations from BoI features sequences, and is composed of a multi-anchor module, a time aggregation module, a multi-scale aggregation module and a contrastive learning module.

Input: Figure 3: Comparison of LURM with inputs of different lengths on several downstream tasks. The two figures show the results in terms of AUC and ACC respectively.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the evidence, the claim "a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors of any length" appears somewhat overstated. While LURM does show capability in handling longer behavior sequences through its BoI and SMEN components, there are several limitations:

1. The reviewer points out lack of experimental validation for the multi-scale aggregation module
2. The evidence shows mixed results - BoI outperforms LURM on some industrial dataset tasks
3. Benefits on category preference tasks are minimal even with 5 years of data
4. The paper acknowledges modeling difficulties due to "catastrophic forgetting" with very small time intervals

While LURM is indeed novel and can handle longer sequences than previous methods, claiming it works for "any length" appears too strong given these limitations.

<score>3</score>


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

* In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors of any length.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Strengths:

1. This paper is easy to understand.
2. The problem studied in this paper is important.
3. The proposed multi-scale aggregation method is interesting.

Weaknesses:

1. The contribution of this paper can be somewhat incremental. First, the multi-anchor attention network is also called "multi-aspect attention", which has been widely used in many scenarios [1,2,3]. A very similar contrastive model pertaining approach is also studied in [4]. Thus, the contributions of this paper are somewhat incremental.
2. Discussions and comparisons on universal user modeling methods are insufficient. The authors only include PTUM as the baseline but do not discuss it in Section 2.1. There are also many other methods like [4,5]. They are also not cited nor compared.
3. The design of the item embedding method is problematic. Different from texts that there are rich relations between adjacent words, even adjacent behaviors can be rather random. Thus, it may not be suitable to learn item embeddings by regarding items as words and user behavior sequences as sentences. There are many methods for item embedding learning such as PinSage [6].
4. Compared baselines are also insufficient. As mentioned in the second point, there are many user model pretraining methods that are not compared. In addition, the compared basic user modeling techniques are also rather weak (e.g., CNN, HAN, Doc2Vec and TF-IDF).
5. Some details are unclear. PTUM and PeterRec require fine-tuning the user model in downstream tasks. However, in this work it is not clear whether the pretrained user model is finetuned.
6. The selection of some hyperparameters seems to be arbitrary, e.g., the number of anchors and the window size $\beta$. The authors do not provide experiments to show the influence of several key hyperparameters.
7. The generality of the proposed method is not verified. It is not clear whether the proposed method can be generalized to other types of user models.

Minor:

There are some typos and grammatical issues. For example, "committed to learn" and "Comparisonn".

[1] Event detection using hierarchical multi-aspect attention. WWW 2019.

[2] ARP: Aspect-aware neural review rating prediction. CIKM 2019.

[3] Hybrid graph convolutional networks with multi-head attention for location recommendation. World Wide Web 23.6 (2020): 3125-3151.

[4] Contrastive Pre-training for Sequential Recommendation. arXiv e-prints (2020): arXiv-2010.

[5] Parameter-efficient transfer from sequential behaviors for user modeling and recommendation. SIGIR. 2020.

[6] Graph convolutional neural networks for web-scale recommender systems. KDD 2018.

The evidence to be evaluated is:Unfortunately, these methods can only process user behavior sequences with a length of hundreds, and cannot leverage the rich information brought by lifelong user behaviors. Previous works have shown that considering long-term historical behavior sequences for user modeling can significantly improve the performance of different tasks

In this work, we are committed to learning universal user representation through truly lifelong user behavior sequences with arbitrary length. For this purpose, we propose a framework named Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) which consists of two cascaded sub-models: Bag of Interests (BoI) and Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN).

In order to model extremely long lifelong user behavior sequence, we propose to aggregate the content of items under user purchases, clicks, or other behaviors at a certain granularity.

Therefore, we propose a model called Bag of Interests (BoI) to aggregate user behavior data at 'interest' granularity.

Therefore, we propose to get a BoI feature sequence by applying the BoI model at each time period of the whole lifelong time. Then, a Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN) is designed to learn compressed user representations from the sequence of BoI features. The lifelong time \(\mathbf{T}\) is divided into \(N\) parts at a fixed time interval, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\) denotes the \(i\)-th time period. In our experiments, the time interval is usually set to be monthly seasonally/yearly granularity. In this way, a sequence of BoI features \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) can be obtained, where \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) denotes the BoI feature corresponding to the \(i\)-th time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). After that, SMEN is used to map \(\mathbf{B}\) to low-dimensional user representations.

To capture diverse aspects of user preferences, a novel multi-anchor module is proposed. Specifically, suppose there are \(M\) anchors, and each of them indicates a certain preference of users. Let \(\mathbf{b}\) be a BoI feature, the module converts \(\mathbf{b}\) to \(M\) low-dimensional representations as shown in Fig. 2.

In this way, we can learn different aspects of user preferences. Specially, experiments prove that SMEN can achieve almost lossless dimensionality reduction mainly due to the multi-anchor module. Through the multi-anchor module, a sequence of representation groups \(\mathbf{\mathcal{R}}=\{\mathbf{R_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{R_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{R_{t_{N}}}\}\) for each user is obtained, where \(\mathbf{R_{t_{i}}}=\{\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{1}},\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{2}},...,\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{M}}\}\) is a representation group generated by multi-anchor module corresponding to the BoI feature \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) in time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). In the time aggregation module, each sequence \(\mathbf{R^{i}}=\{\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{i}},\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{i}},...,\mathbf{r_{t_{N}}^{i}}\}\) is aggregated separately to yield a new representation \(\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{H}\). Thus the variable-size representation sequence \(\mathbf{\mathcal{R}}\) can be transformed into \(M\) fixed-size representations \(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r }^{M}}\big{\}}\).

It's worth noting that if the time interval is too small, the input sequence of SMEN, i.e. \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) will become extremely long, which contains extensive details but causes modeling difficulties due to catastrophic forgetting.

To address this trade-off, multi-scale aggregation module is designed. The module captures diverse patterns from user behavior by aggregating several representations generated at different granularities. Generally, user behavior in this work is aggregated monthly and yearly, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}=\big{\{}\mathbf{t_{1}^{\prime}},\bm {t_{2}^{\prime}},...,\mathbf{t_{N^{\prime}}^{\prime}}\big{\}}\) (e.g., if the length of time period is 5 years, \(\mathbf{N}\) is 60 for monthly granularity, and \(\mathbf{N^{\prime}}\) is 5 for yearly granularity). Thus two sequences of BoI feature \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{B^{\prime}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{b_{t_{1}^{\prime}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}^{\prime}}},...,\bm {b_{t_{N^{\prime}}^{\prime}}}\big{\}}\) at different scales correspondingly are obtained. Then, two groups of representations \(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r }^{M}}\big{\}}\) and \(\mathbf{\tilde{R^{\prime}}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r^{\prime}}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r^{ \prime}}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r^{\prime}}^{M}}\big{\}}\) are obtained after the multi-anchor module and time aggregation module with parameter sharing.

The first one uses the high-dimensional output of BoI module as input in the downstream tasks, while the second uses the output of LURM. It can be seen that LURM consistently outperforms other unsupervised methods, e.g., about 3.23%/1.49% average improvements than SUMN and 4.41%/2.09% average improvements than PUTM in terms of AUC and ACC respectively.

In particular, it can be observed that LURM has a significant improvement over BoI.

When using longer input, we can obtain more improvements, e.g., about 15.55%/17.55% average improvement on user profiling prediction tasks, and 4.19%/2.91% average improvement on category preference identification tasks compared with SUMN. From Table 2 and Table 3, we have observed that LURM has achieved better performance compared to other self-supervised and supervised methods.

Fig. 3 shows the performance of LURM on several downstream tasks of industrial dataset when using inputs of different lengths. It can be seen that the richer the behavior, the better the performance on user profiling prediction tasks. Compared to using only behaviors of two months, an average improvement of 9.75%/16.03% can be achieved when using behaviors of 5 years on these tasks.

In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors with any length. With the ability to model lifelong user behaviors, our method shows promising results on different downstream tasks and datasets. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline Method & Books of Literature & Games of Sports & Outdoor-hunting & Musical Instrument \\ \hline TextCNN & 73.847/2.83 & 61.00/69.92 & 66.06/72.76 & 68.28/71.81 \\ HAN & 79.12/77.49 & 66.62/70.01 & 71.19/73.42 & 70.01/72.12 \\ \hline TF-IDF & 78.62/77.21 & 65.69/68.69 & 71.90/72.19 & 69.16/68.62 \\ Doc2Vec & 71.21/68.26 & 66.75/66.85 & 71.58/66.36 & 70.29/67.37 \\ \hline PTUM & 78.66/77.91 & 66.06/68.97 & 70.34/73.01 & 69.50/72.92 \\ SUMN & 79.57/77.73 & 66.83/70.63 & 72.27/73.44 & 70.61/73.43 \\ \hline BoI & 76.29/75.75 & 59.34/67.58 & 67.80/71.28 & 66.36/69.88 \\ LURM & **82.55/79.13** & **68.02/72.43** & **77.59/75.19** & **74.04/74.43** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline Method & Age & Baby Age & Clothing & Shoe & Coffee \\ \hline TextCNN & 86.40/61.02 & 72.19/66.01 & 76.64/76.13 & 84.33/80.24 & 80.49/79.46 \\ TF-IDF & 87.73/61.75 & 73.08/67.26 & 77.61/78.01 & 85.04/81.15 & 81.75/80.78 \\ SUMN & 85.35/60.61 & 74.20/67.63 & 73.86/74.16 & 83.47/79.63 & 79.89/79.42 \\ \hline BoI(short) & 89.57/63.99 & 82.23/70.22 & 78.93/78.85 & 85.53/81.68 & 82.61/81.41 \\ LURM(short) & 88.48/61.99 & 82.71/69.29 & 78.37/78.57 & 85.15/81.18 & 81.94/80.78 \\ BoI & **96.48**/**80.19** & 93.29/83.57 & **80.83**/**79.33** & **86.69**/**82.16** & **83.78**/**81.74** \\ LURM & 96.09/78.43 & **94.59**/**84.91** & 80.37/79.10 & 86.30/81.65 & 83.11/81.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Figure 1: Illustration of our Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) for user understanding. LURM consists of two sub-model: (a) Bag of Interests (BoI) is used to aggregate user behavior data at ‘interest’ granularity, and is composed of an item embedding module and a large scale clustering module. We apply the BoI model on lifelong behavior data to generate multi-scale BoI feature sequences, (b) Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN) is used to learn compressed user representations from BoI features sequences, and is composed of a multi-anchor module, a time aggregation module, a multi-scale aggregation module and a contrastive learning module.

Input: Figure 3: Comparison of LURM with inputs of different lengths on several downstream tasks. The two figures show the results in terms of AUC and ACC respectively.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
Based on the review and evidence, the claim "In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors of any length" appears to be somewhat overstated. While LURM does show promising results in modeling long-term user behaviors, the reviewer points out that key components like multi-anchor attention and contrastive learning have been used in previous works [1,2,3,4]. The framework combines existing techniques in an incremental way rather than presenting entirely novel concepts. Additionally, there are concerns about insufficient baseline comparisons and unclear generalizability to other user models.

<score>4</score>

Justification:

1. Lack of novelty:
- The multi-anchor attention mechanism is similar to existing "multi-aspect attention" approaches
- Similar contrastive model pretraining has been studied before
- The contribution appears more incremental than novel

2. Insufficient evidence of universality:
- Limited comparison with universal user modeling methods
- Reviewer notes PTUM was the only baseline included
- Generalizability to other types of user models is not verified

3. Problematic design choices:
- Item embedding method may not be suitable given random nature of adjacent behaviors
- Hyperparameter selection (number of anchors, window size) lacks experimental justification
- Unclear whether pretrained model requires fine-tuning

4. Performance improvements:
- Tables 2 and 3 do show competitive results
- Demonstrates ability to handle longer behavior sequences
- Shows improvements over baselines, especially with longer input sequences

While LURM shows promise in modeling long-term behaviors, claiming it as entirely "novel" and universally applicable overstates its contributions given the incremental nature of its innovations and limitations in experimental validation.


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

* In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors of any length.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

[Advantages]
- Modeling users and user behaviors are essential, especially for web-based applications. The problem dealt with in this paper will be a promising application of representation learning based on neural networks.
- The structure of the proposed method is reasonable, especially for e-commerce applications.

[Drawbacks]
- I could not understand the novelty of the proposed method. The bag-of-features representation seems to be standard in several research fields such as computer vision, natural language processing, and data mining. The "multi-anchor module" seems to be almost the same as the multi-head attention module that is famous in the transformer. The time aggregation module does not contain a special trick. According to the introduction of this paper, the novelty of the proposed method is the ability for modeling life-long behaviors. However, I could not find any special techniques for handling life-long sequences. Please clearly state the technical novelty of the proposed method.
- The proposed method for modeling user behaviors dismisses both microscopic and macroscopic time-series characteristics, which would be significant for tracing user interest. More specifically, bag-of-interest representations remove microscopic characteristics, and the time aggregation module erases macroscopic features. If the authors believe that I have some misunderstanding, please justify it.
- When obtaining stable user representations, the knowledge of life-long learning will be required, since (1) users might have several completely different interests in their minds, (2) each interest lasts only a short term, especially in e-commerce applications, and (3) interests containing old behavior sequences might come back suddenly. This implies that almost all the information containing behavior sequences should be kept in user representations and this problem is exactly in the context of life-long learning. Please perform bibliographic surveys for life-long learning, describe the critical problem for the previous work, and present the novelty and advantage(s)  of the proposed method against the previous work.
- The downstream tasks in the experimental evaluations seem to be too easy and not suitable for evaluating the ability to handle long behavior sequences.

The evidence to be evaluated is:Unfortunately, these methods can only process user behavior sequences with a length of hundreds, and cannot leverage the rich information brought by lifelong user behaviors. Previous works have shown that considering long-term historical behavior sequences for user modeling can significantly improve the performance of different tasks

In this work, we are committed to learning universal user representation through truly lifelong user behavior sequences with arbitrary length. For this purpose, we propose a framework named Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) which consists of two cascaded sub-models: Bag of Interests (BoI) and Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN).

In order to model extremely long lifelong user behavior sequence, we propose to aggregate the content of items under user purchases, clicks, or other behaviors at a certain granularity.

Therefore, we propose a model called Bag of Interests (BoI) to aggregate user behavior data at 'interest' granularity.

Therefore, we propose to get a BoI feature sequence by applying the BoI model at each time period of the whole lifelong time. Then, a Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN) is designed to learn compressed user representations from the sequence of BoI features. The lifelong time \(\mathbf{T}\) is divided into \(N\) parts at a fixed time interval, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\) denotes the \(i\)-th time period. In our experiments, the time interval is usually set to be monthly seasonally/yearly granularity. In this way, a sequence of BoI features \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) can be obtained, where \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) denotes the BoI feature corresponding to the \(i\)-th time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). After that, SMEN is used to map \(\mathbf{B}\) to low-dimensional user representations.

To capture diverse aspects of user preferences, a novel multi-anchor module is proposed. Specifically, suppose there are \(M\) anchors, and each of them indicates a certain preference of users. Let \(\mathbf{b}\) be a BoI feature, the module converts \(\mathbf{b}\) to \(M\) low-dimensional representations as shown in Fig. 2.

In this way, we can learn different aspects of user preferences. Specially, experiments prove that SMEN can achieve almost lossless dimensionality reduction mainly due to the multi-anchor module. Through the multi-anchor module, a sequence of representation groups \(\mathbf{\mathcal{R}}=\{\mathbf{R_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{R_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{R_{t_{N}}}\}\) for each user is obtained, where \(\mathbf{R_{t_{i}}}=\{\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{1}},\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{2}},...,\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{M}}\}\) is a representation group generated by multi-anchor module corresponding to the BoI feature \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) in time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). In the time aggregation module, each sequence \(\mathbf{R^{i}}=\{\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{i}},\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{i}},...,\mathbf{r_{t_{N}}^{i}}\}\) is aggregated separately to yield a new representation \(\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{H}\). Thus the variable-size representation sequence \(\mathbf{\mathcal{R}}\) can be transformed into \(M\) fixed-size representations \(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r }^{M}}\big{\}}\).

It's worth noting that if the time interval is too small, the input sequence of SMEN, i.e. \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) will become extremely long, which contains extensive details but causes modeling difficulties due to catastrophic forgetting.

To address this trade-off, multi-scale aggregation module is designed. The module captures diverse patterns from user behavior by aggregating several representations generated at different granularities. Generally, user behavior in this work is aggregated monthly and yearly, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}=\big{\{}\mathbf{t_{1}^{\prime}},\bm {t_{2}^{\prime}},...,\mathbf{t_{N^{\prime}}^{\prime}}\big{\}}\) (e.g., if the length of time period is 5 years, \(\mathbf{N}\) is 60 for monthly granularity, and \(\mathbf{N^{\prime}}\) is 5 for yearly granularity). Thus two sequences of BoI feature \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{B^{\prime}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{b_{t_{1}^{\prime}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}^{\prime}}},...,\bm {b_{t_{N^{\prime}}^{\prime}}}\big{\}}\) at different scales correspondingly are obtained. Then, two groups of representations \(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r }^{M}}\big{\}}\) and \(\mathbf{\tilde{R^{\prime}}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r^{\prime}}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r^{ \prime}}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r^{\prime}}^{M}}\big{\}}\) are obtained after the multi-anchor module and time aggregation module with parameter sharing.

The first one uses the high-dimensional output of BoI module as input in the downstream tasks, while the second uses the output of LURM. It can be seen that LURM consistently outperforms other unsupervised methods, e.g., about 3.23%/1.49% average improvements than SUMN and 4.41%/2.09% average improvements than PUTM in terms of AUC and ACC respectively.

In particular, it can be observed that LURM has a significant improvement over BoI.

When using longer input, we can obtain more improvements, e.g., about 15.55%/17.55% average improvement on user profiling prediction tasks, and 4.19%/2.91% average improvement on category preference identification tasks compared with SUMN. From Table 2 and Table 3, we have observed that LURM has achieved better performance compared to other self-supervised and supervised methods.

Fig. 3 shows the performance of LURM on several downstream tasks of industrial dataset when using inputs of different lengths. It can be seen that the richer the behavior, the better the performance on user profiling prediction tasks. Compared to using only behaviors of two months, an average improvement of 9.75%/16.03% can be achieved when using behaviors of 5 years on these tasks.

In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors with any length. With the ability to model lifelong user behaviors, our method shows promising results on different downstream tasks and datasets. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline Method & Books of Literature & Games of Sports & Outdoor-hunting & Musical Instrument \\ \hline TextCNN & 73.847/2.83 & 61.00/69.92 & 66.06/72.76 & 68.28/71.81 \\ HAN & 79.12/77.49 & 66.62/70.01 & 71.19/73.42 & 70.01/72.12 \\ \hline TF-IDF & 78.62/77.21 & 65.69/68.69 & 71.90/72.19 & 69.16/68.62 \\ Doc2Vec & 71.21/68.26 & 66.75/66.85 & 71.58/66.36 & 70.29/67.37 \\ \hline PTUM & 78.66/77.91 & 66.06/68.97 & 70.34/73.01 & 69.50/72.92 \\ SUMN & 79.57/77.73 & 66.83/70.63 & 72.27/73.44 & 70.61/73.43 \\ \hline BoI & 76.29/75.75 & 59.34/67.58 & 67.80/71.28 & 66.36/69.88 \\ LURM & **82.55/79.13** & **68.02/72.43** & **77.59/75.19** & **74.04/74.43** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline Method & Age & Baby Age & Clothing & Shoe & Coffee \\ \hline TextCNN & 86.40/61.02 & 72.19/66.01 & 76.64/76.13 & 84.33/80.24 & 80.49/79.46 \\ TF-IDF & 87.73/61.75 & 73.08/67.26 & 77.61/78.01 & 85.04/81.15 & 81.75/80.78 \\ SUMN & 85.35/60.61 & 74.20/67.63 & 73.86/74.16 & 83.47/79.63 & 79.89/79.42 \\ \hline BoI(short) & 89.57/63.99 & 82.23/70.22 & 78.93/78.85 & 85.53/81.68 & 82.61/81.41 \\ LURM(short) & 88.48/61.99 & 82.71/69.29 & 78.37/78.57 & 85.15/81.18 & 81.94/80.78 \\ BoI & **96.48**/**80.19** & 93.29/83.57 & **80.83**/**79.33** & **86.69**/**82.16** & **83.78**/**81.74** \\ LURM & 96.09/78.43 & **94.59**/**84.91** & 80.37/79.10 & 86.30/81.65 & 83.11/81.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Figure 1: Illustration of our Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) for user understanding. LURM consists of two sub-model: (a) Bag of Interests (BoI) is used to aggregate user behavior data at ‘interest’ granularity, and is composed of an item embedding module and a large scale clustering module. We apply the BoI model on lifelong behavior data to generate multi-scale BoI feature sequences, (b) Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN) is used to learn compressed user representations from BoI features sequences, and is composed of a multi-anchor module, a time aggregation module, a multi-scale aggregation module and a contrastive learning module.

Input: Figure 3: Comparison of LURM with inputs of different lengths on several downstream tasks. The two figures show the results in terms of AUC and ACC respectively.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim and evidence, I find the claim to be moderately overstated. While LURM does propose a framework for modeling user behaviors, several key issues raised in the review comments undermine the claim's "novelty":

1. The multi-anchor module appears similar to existing multi-head attention mechanisms
2. The time aggregation module lacks special techniques for handling lifelong sequences
3. The basic components (bag-of-features, etc.) are standard approaches in multiple fields
4. The method doesn't fully address key challenges of lifelong learning like handling evolving interests and sudden interest resurgence

The experimental results show improvements over baselines, but the reviewer notes the tasks may be too simple to properly evaluate long sequence handling capabilities.

<score>4</score>


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

To the best of our knowledge, it is the first method that has the ability to model lifelong behaviors in the field of universal user representation learning.

The evidence to be evaluated is:Ren _et al._ proposed a hierarchical periodic memory network for lifelong sequential modeling. They built a personalized memorization for each user, which remembers both intrinsic user tastes and multi-facet user interests with the learned while compressed memory. Pi _et al._ decoupled the user modeling from the whole CTR prediction system to tackle the challenge of the storage cost and the system latency. Specifically, they proposed a user interest center module for real-time inference and a memory-based network that can be implemented incrementally. Pi _et al._ also designed a search-based interest model (SIM) with a cascaded two-stage search paradigm to capture the diverse long-term interest with target item.

In this work, we are committed to learning universal user representation through truly lifelong user behavior sequences with arbitrary length. For this purpose, we propose a framework named Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) which consists of two cascaded sub-models: Bag of Interests (BoI) and Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN).

In order to model extremely long lifelong user behavior sequence, we propose to aggregate the content of items under user purchases, clicks, or other behaviors at a certain granularity.

As mentioned above, a BoI feature \(\mathbf{b_{t}}\) for each user is obtained, through the BoI model given behavior data in any time period \(\mathbf{t}\). Most directly, a user representation with super-high dimension \(\mathbf{b_{T}}\) can be obtained by applying the BoI model to the whole lifelong time \(\mathbf{T}\).

Therefore, we propose to get a BoI feature sequence by applying the BoI model at each time period of the whole lifelong time. Then, a Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN) is designed to learn compressed user representations from the sequence of BoI features. The lifelong time \(\mathbf{T}\) is divided into \(N\) parts at a fixed time interval, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\) denotes the \(i\)-th time period.

In this way, a sequence of BoI features \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) can be obtained, where \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) denotes the BoI feature corresponding to the \(i\)-th time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). After that, SMEN is used to map \(\mathbf{B}\) to low-dimensional user representations. As shown in Fig. 1 (b), SMEN consists of a multi-anchor module, a time aggregation module, a multi-scale aggregation module and a contrastive learning module.

To capture diverse aspects of user preferences, a novel multi-anchor module is proposed. Specifically, suppose there are \(M\) anchors, and each of them indicates a certain preference of users. Let \(\mathbf{b}\) be a BoI feature, the module converts \(\mathbf{b}\) to \(M\) low-dimensional representations as shown in Fig. 2.

Specially, experiments prove that SMEN can achieve almost lossless dimensionality reduction mainly due to the multi-anchor module. Through the multi-anchor module, a sequence of representation groups \(\mathbf{\mathcal{R}}=\{\mathbf{R_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{R_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{R_{t_{N}}}\}\) for each user is obtained, where \(\mathbf{R_{t_{i}}}=\{\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{1}},\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{2}},...,\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{M}}\}\) is a representation group generated by multi-anchor module corresponding to the BoI feature \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) in time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). In the time aggregation module, each sequence \(\mathbf{R^{i}}=\{\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{i}},\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{i}},...,\mathbf{r_{t_{N}}^{i}}\}\) is aggregated separately to yield a new representation \(\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{H}\). Thus the variable-size representation sequence \(\mathbf{\mathcal{R}}\) can be transformed into \(M\) fixed-size representations \(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r }^{M}}\big{\}}\).

Compared to average and max pooling, RNNs are more appropriate to capture variations over time.

To address this trade-off, multi-scale aggregation module is designed. The module captures diverse patterns from user behavior by aggregating several representations generated at different granularities. Generally, user behavior in this work is aggregated monthly and yearly, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}=\big{\{}\mathbf{t_{1}^{\prime}},\bm {t_{2}^{\prime}},...,\mathbf{t_{N^{\prime}}^{\prime}}\big{\}}\) (e.g., if the length of time period is 5 years, \(\mathbf{N}\) is 60 for monthly granularity, and \(\mathbf{N^{\prime}}\) is 5 for yearly granularity). Thus two sequences of BoI feature \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{B^{\prime}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{b_{t_{1}^{\prime}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}^{\prime}}},...,\bm {b_{t_{N^{\prime}}^{\prime}}}\big{\}}\) at different scales correspondingly are obtained. Then, two groups of representations \(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r }^{M}}\big{\}}\) and \(\mathbf{\tilde{R^{\prime}}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r^{\prime}}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r^{ \prime}}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r^{\prime}}^{M}}\big{\}}\) are obtained after the multi-anchor module and time aggregation module with parameter sharing.

From Table 2 and Table 3, we have observed that LURM has achieved better performance compared to other self-supervised and supervised methods. Its success can be attributed to lifelong user behavior modeling and lossless dimensionality reduction of SMEN.

It can be seen that the richer the behavior, the better the performance on user profiling prediction tasks. Compared to using only behaviors of two months, an average improvement of 9.75%/16.03% can be achieved when using behaviors of 5 years on these tasks.

This is because these tasks are more focused on the short-term interests of users, and it can be observed that the best performance can be obtained when input with a length of one year is used on these tasks.

In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors with any length. With the ability to model lifelong user behaviors, our method shows promising results on different downstream tasks and datasets. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline Method & Books of Literature & Games of Sports & Outdoor-hunting & Musical Instrument \\ \hline TextCNN & 73.847/2.83 & 61.00/69.92 & 66.06/72.76 & 68.28/71.81 \\ HAN & 79.12/77.49 & 66.62/70.01 & 71.19/73.42 & 70.01/72.12 \\ \hline TF-IDF & 78.62/77.21 & 65.69/68.69 & 71.90/72.19 & 69.16/68.62 \\ Doc2Vec & 71.21/68.26 & 66.75/66.85 & 71.58/66.36 & 70.29/67.37 \\ \hline PTUM & 78.66/77.91 & 66.06/68.97 & 70.34/73.01 & 69.50/72.92 \\ SUMN & 79.57/77.73 & 66.83/70.63 & 72.27/73.44 & 70.61/73.43 \\ \hline BoI & 76.29/75.75 & 59.34/67.58 & 67.80/71.28 & 66.36/69.88 \\ LURM & **82.55/79.13** & **68.02/72.43** & **77.59/75.19** & **74.04/74.43** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline Method & Age & Baby Age & Clothing & Shoe & Coffee \\ \hline TextCNN & 86.40/61.02 & 72.19/66.01 & 76.64/76.13 & 84.33/80.24 & 80.49/79.46 \\ TF-IDF & 87.73/61.75 & 73.08/67.26 & 77.61/78.01 & 85.04/81.15 & 81.75/80.78 \\ SUMN & 85.35/60.61 & 74.20/67.63 & 73.86/74.16 & 83.47/79.63 & 79.89/79.42 \\ \hline BoI(short) & 89.57/63.99 & 82.23/70.22 & 78.93/78.85 & 85.53/81.68 & 82.61/81.41 \\ LURM(short) & 88.48/61.99 & 82.71/69.29 & 78.37/78.57 & 85.15/81.18 & 81.94/80.78 \\ BoI & **96.48**/**80.19** & 93.29/83.57 & **80.83**/**79.33** & **86.69**/**82.16** & **83.78**/**81.74** \\ LURM & 96.09/78.43 & **94.59**/**84.91** & 80.37/79.10 & 86.30/81.65 & 83.11/81.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
Let me assess the claim: "To the best of our knowledge, it is the first method that has the ability to model lifelong behaviors in the field of universal user representation learning."

This claim appears to be overstated based on the evidence. The introduction discusses prior work by Ren et al. who proposed a "hierarchical periodic memory network for lifelong sequential modeling" and Pi et al. who developed approaches for user modeling and interest capturing. While LURM introduces novel elements like the BoI and SMEN components for handling long-term user behaviors, claiming it is the "first method" to model lifelong behaviors ignores these precedents. The evidence shows LURM performs well compared to other methods (as shown in Tables 2 and 3), but does not support the claim of being first.

<score>4</score>

Justification:
1. The evidence cites prior work in lifelong behavioral modeling
2. While LURM shows strong performance and novel components, claiming it's the "first" is not supported
3. The results demonstrate effectiveness but not uniqueness in ability to model lifelong behaviors
4. More measured language like "a novel approach" or "an effective method" would better reflect the evidence
5. The authors' own description of their work in later sections uses more appropriate language, focusing on specific innovations rather than claiming to be first


Input:
Your role is to assess whether a claim is well-stated or overstated based on the available evidence.

The Input Information will include:
1. Original Claim: The claim under evaluation.
2. Evidence: Research findings, including figures, tables, or other relevant data supporting the claim.

Optional. review comment: Reviewer feedback relevant to the claim's validity.

The claim should be assesed with the following:
Score: Evaluate the claim on a scale of 1 to 5, where:
- 1: Well-stated (accurately reflects the evidence without exaggeration)
- 5: Overstated (exaggerates findings' significance, magnitude, or certainty)

Justification: Provide a detailed explanation that includes:
- Instances of exaggerated wording, insufficient experiments, lack of experimental details, gaps in knowledge, weak grounding in evidence, or lack of acknowledgment of limitations.
- Direct citations from relevant evidence that substantiate your reasoning.
- If review comment is included only take into account the relevant comments towards the claim.

The claim to be assessed is:

To the best of our knowledge, it is the first method that has the ability to model lifelong behaviors in the field of universal user representation learning.

The review comment to be evaluated is:

Strengths:

--Previous work cannot model universal user representation based on lifelong sequences of user behavior since registration and challenging to make full use of highly long user behavior sequences accumulated in Internet service platforms.

-- This work proposes a universal Lifelong User Representation Model to encode user behaviors in any period with a sparse vector with super-high dimension and map these user features to user representations with almost lossless dimensionality reduction. In this way, the model could easily learn different aspects of user preferences in extremely long sequences and generalize to other downstream tasks.

Weaknesses:

-- The structure of related works is not clear enough. At the end of universal user modeling, this work focuses on the conclusion that previous work dedicated to learning universal user representations cannot leverage information from lifelong user behaviors instead of their generalization ability. The same problem also appeared at the end of lifelong user modeling.

-- In a multi-scale aggregation module, this work captures diverse patterns from user behavior by aggregating several representations generated at different time granularities. However, this method could only use information intra-corresponding representation of every time granularity and cannot explore the information inter different time granularities.

-- The explanation of the considerable gap between BoI and LURM on the two datasets is unconvincing. On the industrial dataset, the performance of BOI is better than LURM, which proved that the design of SMEN cannot bring benefits for BOI.

-- In different downstream tasks, the benefits on category preference identification tasks are tiny, even using behaviors of 5 years on this task. There is no explanation about this phenomenon, and it proves BOI cannot learn much preference information about user behaviors on different categories.

-- This work did not design experiments about multi-scale aggregation modules to prove the effectiveness of process representations of different time granularities.

-- There are some format problems in the paper, such as no period at the end of the first paragraph of the introduction.

The evidence to be evaluated is:Ren _et al._ proposed a hierarchical periodic memory network for lifelong sequential modeling. They built a personalized memorization for each user, which remembers both intrinsic user tastes and multi-facet user interests with the learned while compressed memory. Pi _et al._ decoupled the user modeling from the whole CTR prediction system to tackle the challenge of the storage cost and the system latency. Specifically, they proposed a user interest center module for real-time inference and a memory-based network that can be implemented incrementally. Pi _et al._ also designed a search-based interest model (SIM) with a cascaded two-stage search paradigm to capture the diverse long-term interest with target item.

In this work, we are committed to learning universal user representation through truly lifelong user behavior sequences with arbitrary length. For this purpose, we propose a framework named Lifelong User Representation Model (LURM) which consists of two cascaded sub-models: Bag of Interests (BoI) and Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN).

In order to model extremely long lifelong user behavior sequence, we propose to aggregate the content of items under user purchases, clicks, or other behaviors at a certain granularity.

As mentioned above, a BoI feature \(\mathbf{b_{t}}\) for each user is obtained, through the BoI model given behavior data in any time period \(\mathbf{t}\). Most directly, a user representation with super-high dimension \(\mathbf{b_{T}}\) can be obtained by applying the BoI model to the whole lifelong time \(\mathbf{T}\).

Therefore, we propose to get a BoI feature sequence by applying the BoI model at each time period of the whole lifelong time. Then, a Self-supervised Multi-anchor Encoder Network (SMEN) is designed to learn compressed user representations from the sequence of BoI features. The lifelong time \(\mathbf{T}\) is divided into \(N\) parts at a fixed time interval, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\) denotes the \(i\)-th time period.

In this way, a sequence of BoI features \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) can be obtained, where \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) denotes the BoI feature corresponding to the \(i\)-th time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). After that, SMEN is used to map \(\mathbf{B}\) to low-dimensional user representations. As shown in Fig. 1 (b), SMEN consists of a multi-anchor module, a time aggregation module, a multi-scale aggregation module and a contrastive learning module.

To capture diverse aspects of user preferences, a novel multi-anchor module is proposed. Specifically, suppose there are \(M\) anchors, and each of them indicates a certain preference of users. Let \(\mathbf{b}\) be a BoI feature, the module converts \(\mathbf{b}\) to \(M\) low-dimensional representations as shown in Fig. 2.

Specially, experiments prove that SMEN can achieve almost lossless dimensionality reduction mainly due to the multi-anchor module. Through the multi-anchor module, a sequence of representation groups \(\mathbf{\mathcal{R}}=\{\mathbf{R_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{R_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{R_{t_{N}}}\}\) for each user is obtained, where \(\mathbf{R_{t_{i}}}=\{\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{1}},\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{2}},...,\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{M}}\}\) is a representation group generated by multi-anchor module corresponding to the BoI feature \(\mathbf{b_{t_{i}}}\) in time period \(\mathbf{t_{i}}\). In the time aggregation module, each sequence \(\mathbf{R^{i}}=\{\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{i}},\mathbf{r_{t_{i}}^{i}},...,\mathbf{r_{t_{N}}^{i}}\}\) is aggregated separately to yield a new representation \(\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{H}\). Thus the variable-size representation sequence \(\mathbf{\mathcal{R}}\) can be transformed into \(M\) fixed-size representations \(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r }^{M}}\big{\}}\).

Compared to average and max pooling, RNNs are more appropriate to capture variations over time.

To address this trade-off, multi-scale aggregation module is designed. The module captures diverse patterns from user behavior by aggregating several representations generated at different granularities. Generally, user behavior in this work is aggregated monthly and yearly, i.e. \(\mathbf{T}=\{\mathbf{t_{1}},\mathbf{t_{2}},...,\mathbf{t_{N}}\}=\big{\{}\mathbf{t_{1}^{\prime}},\bm {t_{2}^{\prime}},...,\mathbf{t_{N^{\prime}}^{\prime}}\big{\}}\) (e.g., if the length of time period is 5 years, \(\mathbf{N}\) is 60 for monthly granularity, and \(\mathbf{N^{\prime}}\) is 5 for yearly granularity). Thus two sequences of BoI feature \(\mathbf{B}=\{\mathbf{b_{t_{1}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}}},...,\mathbf{b_{t_{N}}}\}\) and \(\mathbf{B^{\prime}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{b_{t_{1}^{\prime}}},\mathbf{b_{t_{2}^{\prime}}},...,\bm {b_{t_{N^{\prime}}^{\prime}}}\big{\}}\) at different scales correspondingly are obtained. Then, two groups of representations \(\mathbf{\tilde{R}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r }^{M}}\big{\}}\) and \(\mathbf{\tilde{R^{\prime}}}=\big{\{}\mathbf{\tilde{r^{\prime}}^{1}},\mathbf{\tilde{r^{ \prime}}^{2}},...,\mathbf{\tilde{r^{\prime}}^{M}}\big{\}}\) are obtained after the multi-anchor module and time aggregation module with parameter sharing.

From Table 2 and Table 3, we have observed that LURM has achieved better performance compared to other self-supervised and supervised methods. Its success can be attributed to lifelong user behavior modeling and lossless dimensionality reduction of SMEN.

It can be seen that the richer the behavior, the better the performance on user profiling prediction tasks. Compared to using only behaviors of two months, an average improvement of 9.75%/16.03% can be achieved when using behaviors of 5 years on these tasks.

This is because these tasks are more focused on the short-term interests of users, and it can be observed that the best performance can be obtained when input with a length of one year is used on these tasks.

In this work, a novel framework named LURM is proposed to model lifelong user behaviors with any length. With the ability to model lifelong user behaviors, our method shows promising results on different downstream tasks and datasets. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline Method & Books of Literature & Games of Sports & Outdoor-hunting & Musical Instrument \\ \hline TextCNN & 73.847/2.83 & 61.00/69.92 & 66.06/72.76 & 68.28/71.81 \\ HAN & 79.12/77.49 & 66.62/70.01 & 71.19/73.42 & 70.01/72.12 \\ \hline TF-IDF & 78.62/77.21 & 65.69/68.69 & 71.90/72.19 & 69.16/68.62 \\ Doc2Vec & 71.21/68.26 & 66.75/66.85 & 71.58/66.36 & 70.29/67.37 \\ \hline PTUM & 78.66/77.91 & 66.06/68.97 & 70.34/73.01 & 69.50/72.92 \\ SUMN & 79.57/77.73 & 66.83/70.63 & 72.27/73.44 & 70.61/73.43 \\ \hline BoI & 76.29/75.75 & 59.34/67.58 & 67.80/71.28 & 66.36/69.88 \\ LURM & **82.55/79.13** & **68.02/72.43** & **77.59/75.19** & **74.04/74.43** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

 \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline Method & Age & Baby Age & Clothing & Shoe & Coffee \\ \hline TextCNN & 86.40/61.02 & 72.19/66.01 & 76.64/76.13 & 84.33/80.24 & 80.49/79.46 \\ TF-IDF & 87.73/61.75 & 73.08/67.26 & 77.61/78.01 & 85.04/81.15 & 81.75/80.78 \\ SUMN & 85.35/60.61 & 74.20/67.63 & 73.86/74.16 & 83.47/79.63 & 79.89/79.42 \\ \hline BoI(short) & 89.57/63.99 & 82.23/70.22 & 78.93/78.85 & 85.53/81.68 & 82.61/81.41 \\ LURM(short) & 88.48/61.99 & 82.71/69.29 & 78.37/78.57 & 85.15/81.18 & 81.94/80.78 \\ BoI & **96.48**/**80.19** & 93.29/83.57 & **80.83**/**79.33** & **86.69**/**82.16** & **83.78**/**81.74** \\ LURM & 96.09/78.43 & **94.59**/**84.91** & 80.37/79.10 & 86.30/81.65 & 83.11/81.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 2: Comparison in terms of AUC(%)/ACC(%) on the Amazon dataset. Several category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input: Table 3: Comparison in terms of AUC/ACC on Industrial dataset. Two profiling prediction tasks and three category preference identification tasks are evaluated. The best score is bold.

Input:
You should:
1. Carefully review the claim and the text and image evidence. Summarize how the evidence influenced your evaluation of the claim's validity and strength and briefly explain whether the claim is wellstated or overstated on a scale of 1 to 5 (up to 100 words).
2. Provide the final score (choose from 1 to 5), in the format: <score>{score}</score>.

Output:
After reviewing the claim, evidence, and reviewer comments, I'll evaluate whether this is the "first method that has the ability to model lifelong behaviors in the field of universal user representation learning."

Summary of evaluation:
The claim appears overstated based on several factors:

1. The evidence mentions other works dealing with lifelong sequential modeling (Ren et al.'s hierarchical periodic memory network) and long-term interest modeling (Pi et al.'s work).

2. The reviewer points out weaknesses in the methodology, particularly that:
- The multi-scale aggregation can only use information within corresponding time granularities
- The benefits on category preference tasks are minimal even with 5 years of data
- The effectiveness of multi-scale aggregation modules wasn't experimentally validated

While LURM shows improvements over baselines, claiming it's the "first" to model lifelong behaviors appears to overstate its novelty given prior work in the space.

<score>4</score>

The claim would be better stated by highlighting its specific innovations in handling variable-length sequences and multi-scale temporal aggregation, rather than claiming to be the first method for lifelong behavior modeling.