Latent Linear Critiquing for Conversational Recommender Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critiquing is a method for conversational recommendation that iteratively adapts recommendations in response to user preference feedback. In this setting, a user is iteratively provided with an item recommendation and attribute description for that item; a user may either accept the recommendation, or critique the attributes in the item description to generate a new recommendation. Historical critiquing methods were largely based on explicit constraint- and utility-based methods for modifying recommendations w.r.t. critiqued item attributes. In this paper, we revisit the critiquing approach in the era of recommendation methods based on latent embeddings with subjective item descriptions (i.e., keyphrases from user reviews). Two critical research problems arise: (1) how to co-embed keyphrase critiques with user preference embeddings to update recommendations, and (2) how to modulate the strength of multi-step critiquing feedback, where critiques are not necessarily independent, nor of equal importance. To address (1), we build on an existing state-of-the-art linear embedding recommendation algorithm to align review-based keyphrase attributes with user preference embeddings. To address (2), we exploit the linear structure of the embeddings and recommendation prediction to formulate a linear program (LP) based optimization problem to determine optimal weights for incorporating critique feedback. We evaluate the proposed framework on two recommendation datasets containing user reviews with simulated users. Empirical results compared to a standard approach of averaging critique feedback show that our approach reduces the number of interactions required to find a satisfactory item and increases the overall success rate.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".