Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 119 references

Knowledge-Enhanced Conversational Recommendation via Transformer-based Sequential Modelling

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that modeling the order in which items and item-related entities are mentioned in a conversation—via a bidirectional Transformer with a masked-item Cloze task—improves conversational recommendation accuracy, and that…

desk verdict Useful incremental extension with an overstated abstract: TSCRKG is a solid SOTA on both benchmarks, but plain TSCR ties VRICR on TG-ReDial, so the abstract's 'significantly outperforms' should be narrowed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02415 v1 pith:BFTF2IRY submitted 2024-12-03 cs.IR cs.AI

Jie Zou , Aixin Sun , Cheng Long , Evangelos Kanoulas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.IRcs.AI
keywords ConversationalrecommendationSequentialTransformerKnowledgegraphClozetaskReDialTG-ReDBpedia
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that conversational recommender systems (CRSs) miss a key signal: the order in which items and item-related entities turn up in a dialogue. It proposes TSCR, a Transformer that converts a conversation into a user sequence of mentioned items and entities, then trains itself with a Cloze task—randomly masking items and predicting them from the bidirectional context. Because many CRS domains have a knowledge graph connecting items to entities, the paper extends TSCR into TSCRKG, which initialises item and entity embeddings offline with a graph encoder and augments each user sequence with shortest paths between neighbouring mentions. On the ReDial and TG-ReDial benchmarks, the paper reports that TSCR beats all existing baselines and TSCRKG improves further, with the largest gains where item mentions are sparse. If correct, this makes order modelling and knowledge-graph path completion simple, strong ingredients for conversational recommendation.

What carries the argument

The engine of the method is the user sequence: the ordered list of items and item-related entities extracted from a conversation, with position embeddings added. A deep bidirectional Transformer (multi-head self-attention over this sequence) is trained with a Cloze task: random items are replaced by a '[mask]' token and the model must predict their original IDs using context to the left and right. At test time, the future is unknown, so the model is evaluated in a left-to-right fashion by appending a mask and conditioning on the dialogue so far; the paper also masks the last item during training to match this. TSCRKG adds two knowledge-graph mechanisms: offline representation learning, where R-GCN encodes the DBpedia graph and the resulting node vectors initialize the sequence embeddings; and sequence augmentation, where A-star search finds shortest paths between neighbouring mentions in the graph and inserts the path entities into the sequence, densifying it and filling gaps.

What would settle it

Corrupt the entity-linking stage for a controlled fraction of mentions (e.g., replace 10%, 20%, 50% of linked entities with random entities from the same graph) and measure how Recall@k changes for TSCR and TSCRKG. If accuracy is largely unchanged after heavy corruption, then the reported gains are not actually driven by accurate sequential entity dependencies; if accuracy degrades proportionally, the entity-linking premise is load-bearing. A second check: train TSCR with sequences whose mention order is randomly shuffled; if shuffled-order training retains the same accuracy, the 'sequential dependency' claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the sequential dependency of items and item-related entities mentioned across a conversation can be captured by a bidirectional Transformer, and that this alone yields recommendation accuracies above existing CRS models on both ReDial and TG-ReDial. TSCR builds a sequence from the dialogue's mentioned items and entities, randomly masks a fraction of items, and trains by predicting the masked items with a Cloze objective, which forces the model to use surrounding mentions as context. The paper then shows that injecting knowledge-graph structure helps further: TSCRKG pre-trains embeddings with a relational graph convolutional network over DBpedia, and augments each user sequence with the shortest path between each pair of neighbouring mentions, so missing connections are filled in and the sequence becomes denser. In ablations, removing either KG component lowers performance, and on TG-ReDial—where item mentions are sparse—path augmentation matters more than offline initialisation. The paper frames TSCR as a simple, strong baseline for future CRS work and TSCRKG as the knowledge-graph-enhanced extension.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline assumes that the entity linking from raw dialogue text to the knowledge graph is accurate and complete; the paper acknowledges that extracted entities 'may not be 100% accurate', and any missed or wrong links distort the user sequences, the graph paths, and the dependencies the Transformer learns.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, CRS models that ignore the order of mentions are leaving accuracy on the table; order-aware modeling should be a default ingredient.
  • The knowledge graph's shortest paths act as a data augmentation that helps most when conversations contain few item mentions, as in TG-ReDial; on such data, KG sequence completion is more valuable than KG embedding initialisation.
  • A Cloze objective on item mentions can serve as a simple and effective training signal for the recommendation module, without needing hand-crafted preference labels.
  • TSCRKG's path-based augmentation provides a measure of explainability: the path entities (e.g., a shared actor) explain why one item is recommended after another.
  • The paper's best configuration on both datasets is TSCRKG, so for domains with a ready-made knowledge graph the enhanced model should be preferred over the plain Transformer.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is sentiment weighting: since the paper treats all mentions equally, giving negative mentions lower weight could sharpen user-preference modeling; the paper itself notes this as future work.
  • Contrastive learning may replace or complement R-GCN initialisation to bridge the semantic gap between KG embeddings and conversation context, an idea the paper mentions as future work.
  • The same sequence-plus-Cloze recipe could be transferred to anchor-based CRSs, where the 'anchors' (aspects, facets, topics) form a natural sequence of attributes.
  • If entity linking noise is indeed the weak point, training the Transformer end-to-end with a differentiable entity linker, or jointly optimising linking and recommendation, is a concrete way to test and possibly extend the approach.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TSCR, a Transformer-based conversational recommender that constructs a sequence from items and item-related entities mentioned in a dialog and trains with a Cloze (masked-item prediction) objective, and TSCRKG, an extension that initializes item/entity embeddings with R-GCN representations learned from DBpedia and augments user sequences with multi-hop knowledge-graph paths. The models are evaluated against seven conversational recommendation baselines on ReDial and TG-ReDial using Recall@1/10/50, with additional ablations, parameter sensitivity, and case studies. The paper discloses that TSCR and part of the ReDial experiments appeared in the authors' prior SIGIR work [117], and positions the new contribution as TSCRKG plus additional experiments and analyses.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, the paper makes a useful incremental contribution: it demonstrates that a simple bidirectional Transformer with a Cloze objective, combined with knowledge-graph initialization and path augmentation, can improve recommendation accuracy in conversational settings, and it provides a strong and simple baseline for future CRS work. The experiments are carried out on two standard benchmarks with a clear evaluation protocol, and the knowledge-graph ablations are directionally consistent with the proposed mechanism. However, the paper does not release code or provide error bars, and the headline sequential-modelling contribution is partly drawn from the authors' prior work; the genuinely new KG-enhanced component is the more defensible contribution. The main significance risk is that the abstract's claim that TSCR 'significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines' is not supported on TG-ReDial, where TSCR ties VRICR.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4.2, Table 4] The abstract states that 'our TSCR model significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines,' but Table 4 shows TSCR achieving Recall@1=0.005, Recall@10=0.032, Recall@50=0.080 on TG-ReDial versus VRICR's 0.005, 0.032, 0.081, with no significance mark on the TSCR row, and Section 4.2 explicitly says 'TSCR achieves a similar performance with VRICR.' This is an internal inconsistency in a central claim, not a wording issue. The SOTA claim is only supported for TSCRKG and for TSCR on ReDial; the abstract, introduction, and conclusion must be revised to distinguish the two models and qualify the claim.
  2. [Section 4.1.2, 4.2, Tables 3-6] The statistical evidence is reported inconsistently. Significance is computed only against the best baseline (Tables 3-4) or against the '-w/o both' ablation (Tables 5-6), and no error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed results are given anywhere in Section 4. In particular, the text claims in Section 4.2 that 'TSCRKG achieves a significant improvement over TSCR,' but no test comparing TSCR and TSCRKG directly is reported, and the differences on some metrics (e.g., Recall@10 on ReDial: 0.257 vs 0.268) are small. The paper should report variance across seeds and pairwise significance for the specific comparisons that carry the sequential-modelling and KG-enhancement claims.
  3. [Section 3.2] There is a train/inference mismatch that directly affects the interpretation of the sequential-dependency contribution. Training uses bidirectional masking of arbitrary items, while testing reconstructs items one by one from left to right using a trailing '[mask]' token, as described in Section 3.2. The paper argues that additionally masking the last item during training helps, but it does not ablate bidirectional versus causal masking, nor does it compare against a permutation-invariant baseline. Without such an analysis, the observed gains cannot be attributed specifically to sequential order rather than to bidirectional context or to the Cloze objective itself. A causal-masking or input-permutation ablation would make the central claim load-bearing evidence.
  4. [Section 3.4, Algorithm 1] The description of knowledge-graph sequence augmentation is internally inconsistent and under-specified. The text says that for a pair (s_k, s_{k+1}), the shortest path entities are inserted so that '[... , s_1, s_k, s_2, ...]' is replaced by '[... , s_1, s_k, s_2, ...]' (i.e., inserted between the two neighbors), but Algorithm 1 sequentially appends the path N to S* in line 10, which would place the path after all original entities rather than between the paired entities. The paper also does not state how the augmented sequence is truncated or padded relative to the maximum sequence length K=100. This ambiguity makes the method hard to reproduce and should be resolved with a precise example and pseudocode.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1.2] MRR is listed as an evaluation metric, but no MRR results appear in Tables 3-6 or in the parameter-sensitivity figures; either report the MRR results or remove the metric from Section 4.1.2.
  2. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'The evaluation metrics are reported as the average performance for the max number of conversational turns' is unclear; it should specify whether the average is over all item-prediction positions and how conversations with different numbers of recommendations are handled.
  3. [Section 4.3, Tables 5-6] In the discussion of ReDial results, the text states that '-w/o offline' and '-w/o both' drop by 4% on Recall@50, but Table 5 shows both at 0.447; the identical values weaken the claim that the two components have an independent additive effect and should be acknowledged explicitly.
  4. [Section 5] The admitted limitation that 'the extracted entities may not be 100% accurate' is not quantified for either dataset; a simple linking-error analysis (e.g., fraction of utterances with missed or spurious mentions) would help assess how robust the sequential and KG-path components are to linking noise.
  5. [Figures 3-4] The legends in Figures 3 and 4 duplicate the axis labels and are visually cluttered; a table or a small-multiple plot would be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TSCR and TSCRKG are evaluated on held-out data with external knowledge-graph features; the disclosed self-citation and the abstract's TG-ReDial overstatement are not reduction-by-construction.

full rationale

The paper's claims rest on empirical evaluation rather than on an analytic derivation that could reduce to its inputs. TSCR is specified by its own equations (embedding layer Eq. 1, self-attention Eq. 2, and Cloze loss Eq. 5) and is tested on held-out ReDial and TG-ReDial splits, while TSCRKG adds R-GCN initialization and A-star path augmentation over the external DBpedia graph; none of these components is fitted to test labels and then renamed as a prediction. The self-citation to [117] is disclosed ('were covered in our prior work') and is not load-bearing: the model is independently described in Sections 3.1-3.2, and the TG-ReDial experiments are new. Two passages flagged by the review rules do not alter the verdict. Section 5's admission that 'the extracted entities may not be 100% accurate' is a data-quality limitation that also affects entity-based baselines, not a circular step. Section 4.2's statement that 'TSCR achieves a similar performance with VRICR' on TG-ReDial contradicts the abstract's unqualified 'significantly outperforms' claim on that dataset, but that is an internal-consistency or correctness problem, not a case where a prediction is equivalent to its input by construction. No equation in the paper makes the output equal the input, no fitted parameter is presented as a prediction, and no conclusion depends on an unverified self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central load-bearing assumptions are the fidelity of dialogue-to-knowledge-graph entity linking and the usefulness of order-based and path-augmented sequence modeling. The listed free parameters are hyperparameters tuned on validation data.

free parameters (3)
  • Hidden dimensionality = 32
    Tuned over [32, 64, 128, 256]; best at 32 due to overfitting at larger sizes (Section 4.6, Fig. 5a).
  • Mask proportion = 0.4 to 0.6
    Tuned over [0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8]; performance stable, best in 0.4-0.6 range (Section 4.6, Fig. 5b).
  • R-GCN layers = 1
    Set to 1 in Section 4.1.3 without reported sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Mentioned items and item-related entities in a conversation form a sequence whose order encodes user preferences (Section 1, Fig. 1).
    This is the core motivation. The paper provides motivating examples but no independent validation of the order-dependency hypothesis beyond its own experiments.
  • domain assumption Entity linking from utterances to DBpedia yields sufficiently accurate item and entity sequences (Section 3.3).
    The paper acknowledges in Section 5 that extracted entities may not be 100% accurate, and no error analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption Shortest paths between neighboring entities in the knowledge graph are the right way to enrich user sequences and improve recommendation (Section 3.4, Algorithm 1).
    The choice of A* shortest path is one of many possible path-selection strategies; no comparison against random paths or alternative walks is given.
  • standard math Standard Transformer self-attention and R-GCN architectures behave as described in the literature (Sections 3.1, 3.3).
    Background machine learning models used without proof; appropriate for an applied paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Knowledge-Enhanced Conversational Recommendation via Transformer-based Sequential Modelling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BFTF2IRY

@misc{pith2026241202415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Knowledge-Enhanced Conversational Recommendation via Transformer-based Sequential Modelling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BFTF2IRY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02415}
}
read the original abstract

In conversational recommender systems (CRSs), conversations usually involve a set of items and item-related entities or attributes, e.g., director is a related entity of a movie. These items and item-related entities are often mentioned along the development of a dialog, leading to potential sequential dependencies among them. However, most of existing CRSs neglect these potential sequential dependencies. In this article, we first propose a Transformer-based sequential conversational recommendation method, named TSCR, to model the sequential dependencies in the conversations to improve CRS. In TSCR, we represent conversations by items and the item-related entities, and construct user sequences to discover user preferences by considering both the mentioned items and item-related entities. Based on the constructed sequences, we deploy a Cloze task to predict the recommended items along a sequence. Meanwhile, in certain domains, knowledge graphs formed by the items and their related entities are readily available, which provide various different kinds of associations among them. Given that TSCR does not benefit from such knowledge graphs, we then propose a knowledge graph enhanced version of TSCR, called TSCRKG. In specific, we leverage the knowledge graph to offline initialize our model TSCRKG, and augment the user sequence of conversations (i.e., sequence of the mentioned items and item-related entities in the conversation) with multi-hop paths in the knowledge graph. Experimental results demonstrate that our TSCR model significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, and the enhanced version TSCRKG further improves recommendation performance on top of TSCR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02415 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example dialog from the ReDial dataset. The mentioned items (i.e., movies) are highlighted in blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of our model. Our model extracts the items and item-related entities to form an input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The performance of TSCR and TSCRKG on ReDial with the ordinal number of item predictions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The performance of TSCR and TSCRKG on TG-ReDial with the ordinal number of item predictions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of hidden dimensionality and mask proportion. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [117]

    Jie Zou, Evangelos Kanoulas, Pengjie Ren, Zhaochun Ren, Aixin Sun, and Cheng Long. 2022. Improving conversational recommender systems via transformer-based sequential modelling. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 2319–2324

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Mohammad Aliannejadi, Hamed Zamani, Fabio Crestani, and W Bruce Croft. 2019. Asking clarifying questions in open-domain information-seeking conversations. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 475–484

    2019

  3. [2]

    Ashutosh Baheti, Maarten Sap, Alan Ritter, and Mark Riedl. 2021. Just Say No: Analyzing the Stance of Neural Dialogue Generation in Offensive Contexts. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    2021

  4. [3]

    Rafael E Banchs and Haizhou Li. 2012. IRIS: a chat-oriented dialogue system based on the vector space model. In Proceedings of the ACL 2012 System Demonstrations . 37–42

    2012

  5. [4]

    Belkin, Colleen Cool, A

    N. Belkin, Colleen Cool, A. Stein, and U. Thiel. 1995. Cases, scripts, and information-seeking strategies: On the design of interactive information retrieval systems. Expert Systems With Applications 9 (1995), 379–395

    1995

  6. [5]

    Keping Bi, Qingyao Ai, Yongfeng Zhang, and W Bruce Croft. 2019. Conversational product search based on negative feedback. In Proceedings of the 28th acm international conference on information and knowledge management . 359–368

    2019

  7. [6]

    Christian Bizer, Jens Lehmann, Georgi Kobilarov, Sören Auer, Christian Becker, Richard Cyganiak, and Sebastian Hellmann. 2009. Dbpedia-a crystallization point for the web of data. Journal of web semantics 7, 3 (2009), 154–165

    2009

  8. [7]

    Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2014. Question answering with subgraph embeddings. In 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2014 . 615–620

    2014

Show all 119 references
  1. [8]

    Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Duran, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. Advances in neural information processing systems 26 (2013)

    2013

  2. [9]

    Derek G Bridge. 2002. Towards Conversational Recommender Systems: A Dialogue Grammar Approach.. In ECCBR Workshops. 9–22

    2002

  3. [10]

    Giuseppe Carenini, Jocelyin Smith, and David Poole. 2003. Towards more conversational and collaborative recom- mender systems. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces . 12–18

    2003

  4. [11]

    Keyu Chen and Shiliang Sun. 2021. Knowledge-Based Conversational Recommender Systems Enhanced by Dialogue Policy Learning. In The 10th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Graphs . 10–18

    2021

  5. [12]

    Limin Chen, Zhiwen Tang, and Grace Hui Yang. 2020. Balancing reinforcement learning training experiences in interactive information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 1525–1528

    2020

  6. [13]

    Qibin Chen, Junyang Lin, Yichang Zhang, Ming Ding, Yukuo Cen, Hongxia Yang, and Jie Tang. 2019. Towards Knowledge-Based Recommender Dialog System. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conferen...

    2019

  7. [14]

    Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019. Generating long sequences with sparse transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.10509 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Konstantina Christakopoulou, Alex Beutel, Rui Li, Sagar Jain, and Ed H Chi. 2018. Q&R: A two-stage approach toward interactive recommendation. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 139–148

    2018

  9. [16]

    Konstantina Christakopoulou, Filip Radlinski, and Katja Hofmann. 2016. Towards conversational recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . ACM, 815–824

    2016

  10. [17]

    Marco De Boni and Suresh Manandhar. 2003. An analysis of clarification dialogue for question answering. In Proceedings of the 2003 Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 48–55

    2003

  11. [18]

    Yang Deng, Yaliang Li, Fei Sun, Bolin Ding, and Wai Lam. 2021. Unified conversational recommendation policy learning via graph-based reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 1431–1441

    2021

  12. [19]

    Yang Deng, Lizi Liao, Zhonghua Zheng, Grace Hui Yang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. Towards Human-centered Proactive Conversational Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12670 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Yang Deng, Wenxuan Zhang, Weiwen Xu, Wenqiang Lei, Tat-Seng Chua, and Wai Lam. 2022. A Unified Multi-task Learning Framework for Multi-goal Conversational Recommender Systems.ACM Transactions on Information Systems (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Alexander Felfernig, Gerhard Friedrich, Dietmar Jannach, and Markus Zanker. 2011. Developing constraint-based recommenders. In Recommender systems handbook. Springer, 187–215

    2011

  16. [23]

    Paolo Ferragina and Ugo Scaiella. 2010. Tagme: on-the-fly annotation of short text fragments (by wikipedia entities). In Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management . 1625–1628. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Pu...

    2010

  17. [24]

    Chongming Gao, Wenqiang Lei, Xiangnan He, Maarten de Rijke, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Advances and challenges in conversational recommender systems: A survey. AI Open 2 (2021), 100–126

    2021

  18. [25]

    Mark P Graus and Martijn C Willemsen. 2015. Improving the user experience during cold start through choice-based preference elicitation. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 273–276

    2015

  19. [26]

    Qipeng Guo, Xipeng Qiu, Xiangyang Xue, and Zheng Zhang. 2019. Low-rank and locality constrained self-attention for sequence modeling. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing 27, 12 (2019), 2213–2222

    2019

  20. [27]

    Qingyu Guo, Fuzhen Zhuang, Chuan Qin, Hengshu Zhu, Xing Xie, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. 2020. A survey on knowledge graph-based recommender systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 34, 8 (2020), 3549–3568

    2020

  21. [28]

    Bruce Croft

    Helia Hashemi, Hamed Zamani, and W. Bruce Croft. 2020. Guided Transformer: Leveraging Multiple External Sources for Representation Learning in Conversational Search. In SIGIR. 1131–1140

    2020

  22. [29]

    Chen He, Denis Parra, and Katrien Verbert. 2016. Interactive recommender systems: A survey of the state of the art and future research challenges and opportunities. Expert Systems with Applications 56 (2016), 9–27

    2016

  23. [30]

    Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. 2016. Bridging nonlinearities and stochastic regularizers with gaussian error linear units. CoRR, abs/1606.08415 3 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Chenhao Hu, Shuhua Huang, Yansen Zhang, and Yubao Liu. 2022. Learning to Infer User Implicit Preference in Conversational Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 256–266

    2022

  25. [32]

    Dietmar Jannach and Ahtsham Manzoor. 2020. End-to-End Learning for Conversational Recommendation: A Long Way to Go?. In IntRS@ RecSys. 72–76

    2020

  26. [33]

    Dietmar Jannach, Ahtsham Manzoor, Wanling Cai, and Li Chen. 2021. A survey on conversational recommender systems. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 5 (2021), 1–36

    2021

  27. [34]

    Shaoxiong Ji, Shirui Pan, Erik Cambria, Pekka Marttinen, and S Yu Philip. 2021. A survey on knowledge graphs: Representation, acquisition, and applications. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 33, 2 (2021), 494–514

    2021

  28. [35]

    Yucheng Jin, Wanling Cai, Li Chen, Nyi Nyi Htun, and Katrien Verbert. 2019. MusicBot: Evaluating Critiquing-Based Music Recommenders with Conversational Interaction. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 951–960

    2019

  29. [36]

    Michael Jugovac and Dietmar Jannach. 2017. Interacting with recommenders – overview and research directions. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 7, 3, Article 10 (Sept. 2017), 46 pages

    2017

  30. [37]

    Dimitri Kartsaklis, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, and Nigel Collier. 2018. Mapping Text to Knowledge Graph Entities using Multi-Sense LSTMs. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 1959–1970

    2018

  31. [38]

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Jens Lehmann, Robert Isele, Max Jakob, Anja Jentzsch, Dimitris Kontokostas, Pablo N Mendes, Sebastian Hellmann, Mohamed Morsey, Patrick Van Kleef, Sören Auer, et al. 2015. Dbpedia–a large-scale, multilingual knowledge base extracted from wikipedia. Semantic web 6, 2 (2015), 167–195

    2015

  34. [41]

    Wenqiang Lei, Xiangnan He, Yisong Miao, Qingyun Wu, Richang Hong, Min-Yen Kan, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2020. Estimation-action-reflection: Towards deep interaction between conversational and recommender systems. In Pro- ceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search an...

    2020

  35. [42]

    Wenqiang Lei, Gangyi Zhang, Xiangnan He, Yisong Miao, Xiang Wang, Liang Chen, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2020. Interactive Path Reasoning on Graph for Conversational Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (Vi...

    2020

  36. [43]

    Raymond Li, Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Hannes Schulz, Vincent Michalski, Laurent Charlin, and Chris Pal. 2018. Towards Deep Conversational Recommendations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . 9748–9758

    2018

  37. [44]

    Shijun Li, Wenqiang Lei, Qingyun Wu, Xiangnan He, Peng Jiang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Seamlessly unifying attributes and items: Conversational recommendation for cold-start users. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 39, 4 (2021), 1–29

    2021

  38. [45]

    Shuokai Li, Ruobing Xie, Yongchun Zhu, Xiang Ao, Fuzhen Zhuang, and Qing He. 2022. User-centric conversational recommendation with multi-aspect user modeling. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 223–233

    2022

  39. [46]

    Zujie Liang, Huang Hu, Can Xu, Jian Miao, Yingying He, Yining Chen, Xiubo Geng, Fan Liang, and Daxin Jiang. 2021. Learning Neural Templates for Recommender Dialogue System. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 7821–7833. A...

    2021

  40. [47]

    Lizi Liao, Ryuichi Takanobu, Yunshan Ma, Xun Yang, Minlie Huang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2019. Deep conversational recommender in travel. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.00710 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Lizi Liao, Ryuichi Takanobu, Yunshan Ma, Xun Yang, Minlie Huang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2020. Topic-guided conversational recommender in multiple domains. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 34, 5 (2020), 2485–2496

    2020

  42. [49]

    Tianyang Lin, Yuxin Wang, Xiangyang Liu, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. A survey of transformers. AI Open (2022)

    2022

  43. [50]

    Ting-En Lin, Hua Xu, and Hanlei Zhang. 2020. Discovering new intents via constrained deep adaptive clustering with cluster refinement. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 34. 8360–8367

    2020

  44. [51]

    Yankai Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. InProceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2181–2187

    2015

  45. [52]

    Jiqun Liu and Chirag Shah. 2019. Proactive identification of query failure.Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 56, 1 (2019), 176–185

    2019

  46. [53]

    Zeming Liu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2020. Towards Conversational Rec- ommendation over Multi-Type Dialogs. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 1036–1049

    2020

  47. [54]

    Benedikt Loepp, Tim Hussein, and Jüergen Ziegler. 2014. Choice-based preference elicitation for collaborative filtering recommender systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 3085–3094

    2014

  48. [55]

    Stanley Loh, Daniel Lichtnow, Adriana Justin Cerveira Kampff, and Jose Palazzo Moreira de Oliveira. 2010. Recom- mendation of complementary material during chat discussions. Knowledge Management & E-Learning 2, 4 (2010), 385

    2010

  49. [56]

    Yu Lu, Junwei Bao, Yan Song, Zichen Ma, Shuguang Cui, Youzheng Wu, and Xiaodong He. 2021. RevCore: Review- augmented conversational recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.00957 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Wenchang Ma, Ryuichi Takanobu, and Minlie Huang. 2021. CR-Walker: Tree-Structured Graph Reasoning and Dialog Acts for Conversational Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 1839–1851

    2021

  51. [58]

    Andrea Madotto, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Genta Indra Winata, Yan Xu, Zihan Liu, Zhaojiang Lin, and Pascale Fung

  52. [59]

    Tariq Mahmood and Francesco Ricci. 2009. Improving recommender systems with adaptive conversational strategies. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia . 73–82

    2009

  53. [60]

    Chaitanya Malaviya, Chandra Bhagavatula, Antoine Bosselut, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Commonsense knowledge base completion with structural and semantic context. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 34. 2925–2933

    2020

  54. [61]

    Ahtsham Manzoor and Dietmar Jannach. 2021. Generation-based vs. Retrieval-based Conversational Recommendation: A User-Centric Comparison. In Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 515–520

    2021

  55. [62]

    Andriy Mnih and Ruslan R Salakhutdinov. 2008. Probabilistic matrix factorization. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 1257–1264

    2008

  56. [63]

    Maximilian Nickel, Lorenzo Rosasco, and Tomaso Poggio. 2016. Holographic embeddings of knowledge graphs. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . 1955–1961

    2016

  57. [64]

    Yiming Pan, Yunfei Yin, and Faliang Huang. 2022. Keyword-guided Topic-oriented Conversational Recommender System. In 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . 1–8

    2022

  58. [65]

    Filip Radlinski and Nick Craswell. 2017. A theoretical framework for conversational search. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on conference human information interaction and retrieval . 117–126

    2017

  59. [66]

    Xuhui Ren, Hongzhi Yin, Tong Chen, Hao Wang, Zi Huang, and Kai Zheng. 2021. Learning to ask appropriate questions in conversational recommendation. InProceedings of the 44th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval . 808–817

    2021

  60. [67]

    Zhaochun Ren, Zhi Tian, Dongdong Li, Pengjie Ren, Liu Yang, Xin Xin, Huasheng Liang, Maarten de Rijke, and Zhumin Chen. 2022. Variational Reasoning about User Preferences for Conversational Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Resear...

    2022

  61. [68]

    Saed Rezayi, Handong Zhao, Sungchul Kim, Ryan Rossi, Nedim Lipka, and Sheng Li. 2021. Edge: Enriching Knowledge Graph Embeddings with External Text. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Lang...

    2021

  62. [69]

    Corbin Rosset, Chenyan Xiong, Xia Song, Daniel Campos, Nick Craswell, Saurabh Tiwary, and Paul Bennett. 2020. Leading Conversational Search by Suggesting Useful Questions. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 (Taipei, Taiwan) (WWW ’20). 1160‚Äì1170. https://doi.org/10.114...

    2020

  63. [70]

    Pratyaksa Ocsa Nugraha Saian et al. 2016. Optimized A-Star algorithm in hexagon-based environment using parallel bidirectional search. In 2016 8th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ICITEE) . ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., Vol. 1, No. 1, Art...

    2016

  64. [71]

    Nicola Sardella, Claudio Biancalana, Alessandro Micarelli, and Giuseppe Sansonetti. 2019. An Approach to Conversa- tional Recommendation of Restaurants. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction . 123–130

    2019

  65. [72]

    Rajdeep Sarkar, Koustava Goswami, Mihael Arcan, and John Philip McCrae. 2020. Suggest me a movie for tonight: Leveraging Knowledge Graphs for Conversational Recommendation. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 4179–4189

    2020

  66. [73]

    Andrew I Schein, Alexandrin Popescul, Lyle H Ungar, and David M Pennock. 2002. Methods and metrics for cold-start recommendations. In Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 253–260

    2002

  67. [74]

    Michael Schlichtkrull, Thomas N Kipf, Peter Bloem, Rianne Van Den Berg, Ivan Titov, and Max Welling. 2018. Modeling relational data with graph convolutional networks. In The Semantic Web. 593–607

    2018

  68. [75]

    Anna Sepliarskaia, Julia Kiseleva, Filip Radlinski, and Maarten de Rijke. 2018. Preference elicitation as an optimization problem. In RecSys. 172–180

    2018

  69. [76]

    Chirag Shah and Ryen W White. 2021. Applying Task Information for Search and Recommendations. In Task Intelligence for Search and Recommendation . Springer, 63–74

    2021

  70. [77]

    Robyn Speer, Joshua Chin, and Catherine Havasi. 2017. ConceptNet 5.5: an open multilingual graph of general knowledge. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . 4444–4451

    2017

  71. [78]

    Svetlana Stoyanchev, Alex Liu, and Julia Hirschberg. 2014. Towards natural clarification questions in dialogue systems. In AISB symposium on questions, discourse and dialogue , Vol. 20

    2014

  72. [79]

    Fei Sun, Jun Liu, Jian Wu, Changhua Pei, Xiao Lin, Wenwu Ou, and Peng Jiang. 2019. BERT4Rec: Sequential recommendation with bidirectional encoder representations from transformer. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management ....

    2019

  73. [80]

    Haitian Sun, Bhuwan Dhingra, Manzil Zaheer, Kathryn Mazaitis, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and William Cohen. 2018. Open Domain Question Answering Using Early Fusion of Knowledge Bases and Text. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing...

    2018

  74. [81]

    Yueming Sun and Yi Zhang. 2018. Conversational recommender system. InThe 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval . 235–244

    2018

  75. [82]

    Zhiwen Tang, Hrishikesh Kulkarni, and Grace Hui Yang. 2021. High-quality dialogue diversification by intermittent short extension ensembles. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021 . 1861–1872

    2021

  76. [83]

    Zhiwen Tang and Grace Hui Yang. 2022. A re-classification of information seeking tasks and their computational solutions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 40, 4 (2022), 1–32

    2022

  77. [84]

    Cloze procedure

    Wilson L Taylor. 1953. “Cloze procedure”: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism quarterly 30, 4 (1953), 415–433

    1953

  78. [85]

    Cynthia A Thompson, Mehmet H Goker, and Pat Langley. 2004. A personalized system for conversational recommen- dations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21 (2004), 393–428

    2004

  79. [86]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems . 5998–6008

    2017

  80. [87]

    Paolo Viappiani, Pearl Pu, and Boi Faltings. 2007. Conversational recommenders with adaptive suggestions. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM conference on Recommender systems . 89–96

    2007

  81. [88]

    Lingzhi Wang, Huang Hu, Lei Sha, Can Xu, Daxin Jiang, and Kam-Fai Wong. 2022. RecInDial: A Unified Framework for Conversational Recommendation with Pretrained Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational...

    2022

  82. [89]

    Xiaoyi Wang, Yaguang Li, and Jie Liu. 2021. Conversation Recommender System Based on Knowledge Graph and Time-series Feature. In The 5th International Conference on Computer Science and Application Engineering . 1–5

    2021

  83. [90]

    Xiaolei Wang, Kun Zhou, Ji-Rong Wen, and Wayne Xin Zhao. 2022. Towards Unified Conversational Recommender Systems via Knowledge-Enhanced Prompt Learning. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 1929–1937

    2022

  84. [91]

    Zhigang Wang, Juanzi Li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Jie Tang. 2016. Text-enhanced representation learning for knowledge graph. In Proceedings of International joint conference on artificial intelligent (IJCAI) . 4–17

    2016

  85. [92]

    Zhen Wang, Jianwen Zhang, Jianlin Feng, and Zheng Chen. 2014. Knowledge graph embedding by translating on hyperplanes. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . 1112–1119

    2014

  86. [93]

    Marilyn Domas White and Mirja Iivonen. 2001. Questions as a factor in Web search strategy. Information Processing & Management 37, 5 (2001), 721–740

    2001

  87. [94]

    Ga Wu, Kai Luo, Scott Sanner, and Harold Soh. 2019. Deep language-based critiquing for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 137–145. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: December 2024. Knowledge-En...

    2019

  88. [95]

    Fuzhao Xue, Aixin Sun, Hao Zhang, Jinjie Ni, and Eng Siong Chng. 2022. An Embarrassingly Simple Model for Dialogue Relation Extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.13873 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  89. [96]

    Hang Yan, Junqi Dai, Xipeng Qiu, Zheng Zhang, et al . 2021. A Unified Generative Framework for Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.04300 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  90. [97]

    Bowen Yang, Cong Han, Yu Li, Lei Zuo, and Zhou Yu. 2021. Improving Conversational Recommendation Systems’ Quality with Context-Aware Item Meta Information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08140 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  91. [98]

    Tong Yu, Yilin Shen, and Hongxia Jin. 2019. An Visual Dialog Augmented Interactive Recommender System. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining . 157–165

    2019

  92. [99]

    Hanlei Zhang, Hua Xu, Ting-En Lin, and Rui Lyu. 2021. Discovering new intents with deep aligned clustering. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 35. 14365–14373

    2021

  93. [100]

    Jun Zhang, Yan Yang, Chencai Chen, Liang He, and Zhou Yu. 2021. Kers: A knowledge-enhanced framework for recommendation dialog systems with multiple subgoals. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021. 1092–1101

    2021

  94. [101]

    Tong Zhang, Yong Liu, Peixiang Zhong, Chen Zhang, Hao Wang, and Chunyan Miao. 2021. KECRS: Towards Knowledge-Enriched Conversational Recommendation System. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.08261 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  95. [102]

    Xiaoyu Zhang, Xin Xin, Dongdong Li, Wenxuan Liu, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Jun Ma, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Variational Reasoning over Incomplete Knowledge Graphs for Conversational Recommendation. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and D...

    2023

  96. [103]

    Yongfeng Zhang, Xu Chen, Qingyao Ai, Liu Yang, and W Bruce Croft. 2018. Towards conversational search and recommendation: System ask, user respond. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management. 177–186

    2018

  97. [104]

    Yiming Zhang, Lingfei Wu, Qi Shen, Yitong Pang, Zhihua Wei, Fangli Xu, Bo Long, and Jian Pei. 2022. Multiple Choice Questions based Multi-Interest Policy Learning for Conversational Recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. 2153–2162

    2022

  98. [105]

    Xiaoxue Zhao, Weinan Zhang, and Jun Wang. 2013. Interactive collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Conference on information & knowledge management . 1411–1420

    2013

  99. [106]

    Wen Zheng and Ke Zhou. 2019. Enhancing conversational dialogue models with grounded knowledge. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 709–718

    2019

  100. [107]

    Jinfeng Zhou, Bo Wang, Ruifang He, and Yuexian Hou. 2021. CRFR: Improving Conversational Recommender Systems via Flexible Fragments Reasoning on Knowledge Graphs. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 4324–4334

    2021

  101. [108]

    Kun Zhou, Wayne Xin Zhao, Shuqing Bian, Yuanhang Zhou, Ji-Rong Wen, and Jingsong Yu. 2020. Improving conversational recommender systems via knowledge graph based semantic fusion. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Minin...

    2020

  102. [109]

    Kun Zhou, Wayne Xin Zhao, Hui Wang, Sirui Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Zhongyuan Wang, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2020. Leveraging historical interaction data for improving conversational recommender system. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Mana...

    2020

  103. [110]

    Kun Zhou, Yuanhang Zhou, Wayne Xin Zhao, Xiaoke Wang, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2020. Towards Topic-Guided Conversational Recommender System. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics . 4128–4139

    2020

  104. [111]

    Yuanhang Zhou, Kun Zhou, Wayne Xin Zhao, Cheng Wang, Peng Jiang, and He Hu. 2022. C2-CRS: Coarse-to-Fine Contrastive Learning for Conversational Recommender System. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 1488–1496

    2022

  105. [112]

    Yutao Zhu, Jian-Yun Nie, Kun Zhou, Pan Du, Hao Jiang, and Zhicheng Dou. 2021. Proactive retrieval-based chatbots based on relevant knowledge and goals. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 2000–2004

    2021

  106. [113]

    Jie Zou, Yifan Chen, and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2020. Towards Question-Based Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (Virtual Event, China) (SIGIR ’20). 881–890

    2020

  107. [114]

    Jie Zou, Jimmy Huang, Zhaochun Ren, and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2022. Learning to Ask: Conversational Product Search via Representation Learning. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 2 (2022), 1–27

    2022

  108. [115]

    Jie Zou and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2019. Learning to Ask: Question-Based Sequential Bayesian Product Search. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (Beijing, China) (CIKM ’19). 369–378

    2019

  109. [116]

    Jie Zou and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2020. Towards Question-Based High-Recall Information Retrieval: Locating the Last Few Relevant Documents for Technology-Assisted Reviews. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 38, 3, Article 27 (May 2020), 35 pages. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article...

    2020

  110. [118]

    Jie Zou, Aixin Sun, Cheng Long, Mohammad Aliannejadi, and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2023. Asking Clarifying Questions: To benefit or to disturb users in Web search? Information Processing & Management 60, 2 (2023), 103176. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication ...

    2023

  111. [2020]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.13656 (2020)

    Learning knowledge bases with parameters for task-oriented dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.13656 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.