REVIEW 2 cited by
Factual and Personalized Recommendations using Language Models and Reinforcement Learning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Recommender systems (RSs) play a central role in connecting users to content, products, and services, matching candidate items to users based on their preferences. While traditional RSs rely on implicit user feedback signals, conversational RSs interact with users in natural language. In this work, we develop a comPelling, Precise, Personalized, Preference-relevant language model (P4LM) that recommends items to users while putting emphasis on explaining item characteristics and their relevance. P4LM uses the embedding space representation of a user's preferences to generate compelling responses that are factually-grounded and relevant w.r.t. the user's preferences. Moreover, we develop a joint reward function that measures precision, appeal, and personalization, which we use as AI-based feedback in a reinforcement learning-based language model framework. Using the MovieLens 25M dataset, we demonstrate that P4LM delivers compelling, personalized movie narratives to users.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
VRAgent-R1: Boosting Video Recommendation with MLLM-based Agents via Reinforcement Learning
VRAgent-R1 uses an MLLM agent to summarize videos and a reinforcement-learned agent to simulate user choices, improving video recommendation and user-decision simulation on MicroLens-100K.
-
RecLLM-R1: A Two-Stage Training Paradigm with Reinforcement Learning and Chain-of-Thought v1
A two-stage SFT + GRPO training recipe with chain-of-thought reasoning improves LLM-based sequential recommendation on Amazon and industrial data, but the reported evaluation does not support the diversity and novelty claims.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.