Retrieval-Augmented Conversational Recommendation with Prompt-based Semi-Structured Natural Language State Tracking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conversational recommendation (ConvRec) systems must understand rich and diverse natural language (NL) expressions of user preferences and intents, often communicated in an indirect manner (e.g., "I'm watching my weight''). Such complex utterances make retrieving relevant items challenging, especially if only using often incomplete or out-of-date metadata. Fortunately, many domains feature rich item reviews that cover standard metadata categories and offer complex opinions that might match a user's interests (e.g., "classy joint for a date''). However, only recently have large language models (LLMs) let us unlock the commonsense connections between user preference utterances and complex language in user-generated reviews. Further, LLMs enable novel paradigms for semi-structured dialogue state tracking, complex intent and preference understanding, and generating recommendations, explanations, and question answers. We thus introduce a novel technology RA-Rec, a Retrieval-Augmented, LLM-driven dialogue state tracking system for ConvRec, showcased with a video, open source GitHub repository, and interactive Google Colab notebook.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".