Bayesian Knowledge-driven Critiquing with Indirect Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conversational recommender systems (CRS) enhance the expressivity and personalization of recommendations through multiple turns of user-system interaction. Critiquing is a well-known paradigm for CRS that allows users to iteratively refine recommendations by providing feedback about attributes of recommended items. While existing critiquing methodologies utilize direct attributes of items to address user requests such as 'I prefer Western movies', the opportunity of incorporating richer contextual and side information about items stored in Knowledge Graphs (KG) into the critiquing paradigm has been overlooked. Employing this substantial knowledge together with a well-established reasoning methodology paves the way for critique-based recommenders to allow for complex knowledge-based feedback (e.g., 'I like movies featuring war side effects on veterans') which may arise in natural user-system conversations. In this work, we aim to increase the flexibility of critique-based recommendation by integrating KGs and propose a novel Bayesian inference framework that enables reasoning with relational knowledge-based feedback. We study and formulate the framework considering a Gaussian likelihood and evaluate it on two well-known recommendation datasets with KGs. Our evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in leveraging indirect KG-based feedback (i.e., preferred relational properties of items rather than preferred items themselves), often improving personalized recommendations over a one-shot recommender by more than 15%. This work enables a new paradigm for using rich knowledge content and reasoning over indirect evidence as a mechanism for critiquing interactions with CRS.
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 | 0.011 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".