User Experience and the Role of Personalization in Critiquing-Based Conversational Recommendation
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
Critiquing—where users propose directional preferences to attribute values—has historically been a highly popular method for conversational recommendation. However, with the growing size of catalogs and item attributes, it becomes increasingly difficult and time-consuming to express all of one’s constraints and preferences in the form of critiquing. It is found to be even more confusing in case of critiquing failures: when the system returns no matching items in response to user critiques. To this end, it would seem important to combine a critiquing-based conversational system with a personalized recommendation component to capture implicit user preferences and thus reduce the user’s burden of providing explicit critiques. To examine the impact of such personalization on critiquing, this article reports on a user study with 228 participants to understand user critiquing behavior for two different recommendation algorithms: (i) non-personalized , that recommends any item consistent with the user critiques; and (ii) personalized , which leverages a user’s past preferences on top of user critiques. In the study, we ask users to find a restaurant that they think is the most suitable to a given scenario by critiquing the recommended restaurants at each round of the conversation on the dimensions of price, cuisine, category, and distance. We observe that the non-personalized recommender leads to more critiquing interactions, more severe critiquing failures, overall more time for users to express their preferences, and longer dialogs to find their item of interest. We also observe that non-personalized users were less satisfied with the system’s performance. They find its recommendations less relevant, more unexpected, and somewhat equally diverse and surprising than those of personalized ones. The results of our user study highlight an imperative for further research on the integration of the two complementary components of personalization and critiquing to achieve the best overall user experience in future critiquing-based conversational recommender systems.
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 | 0.001 | 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