Preference elicitation with subjective features
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Utility or preference elicitation is a critical component in many recommender and decision support systems. However, most frameworks for elicitation assume a predefined set of features (e.g., as derived from catalog descriptions) over which user preferences are expressed. Just as user preferences vary considerably, so too can the features over which they are most comfortable expressing these preferences. In this work, we consider preference elicitation in the presence of subjective or user-defined features. We treat the problem of learning a user's feature definition as one of concept learning, but whose goal is to learn only enough about the concept definition to enable a good decision to be made. This is complicated by the fact that user preferences are unknown. We describe computational procedures for identifying optimal alternatives w.r.t minimax regret in the presence of both utility and concept uncertainty; and develop several heuristic query strategies that focus on reduction of relevant concept and utility uncertainty. Computational experiments verify the efficacy of these strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it