Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

Personalized Graph-Based Retrieval for Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · 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 retrieving reviews written by other users about items a user has reviewed improves LLM personalization beyond using the user's own history, with average ROUGE-1 gains of 14.8% on long-text and 4.6% on short-text…

desk verdict Useful benchmark, honest ablations, and a central claim that their own tables contradict. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02157 v2 pith:NW7IKFIO submitted 2025-01-04 cs.CL

Steven Au , Cameron J. Dimacali , Ojasmitha Pedirappagari , Namyong Park , Franck Dernoncourt , Yu Wang , Nikos Kanakaris , Hanieh Deilamsalehy
show 2 more authors
Ryan A. Rossi Nesreen K. Ahmed
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords personalizationretrieval-augmentedgenerationknowledgegraphscoldstartsparseuserprofilesbipartitetextbenchmarklargelanguagemodels
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 sets out to show that structured graph context — specifically, reviews written by other users about the same items a target user has reviewed — can personalize large language model outputs even when the target user's own history is nearly empty. To this end it introduces PGraphRAG, a retrieval-augmented generation framework that builds a bipartite user–item graph, defines each user's profile as their own interactions plus neighbor interactions on shared items, and retrieves the most relevant entries to condition generation. It also releases a twelve-task benchmark spanning long-form generation, short-form generation, and rating classification, constructed from four real-world review datasets. Across these tasks, PGraphRAG reports consistent gains over a user-history-only baseline, with the largest gains on hotel review generation. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's contribution to be evidence that neighbor information from a graph can substitute for missing personal history in cold-start settings.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the user-centric bipartite graph $G = (U, V, E)$, where $U$ is the set of users, $V$ is the set of items, and an edge $(i,j)$ is a review with text, title, and rating. The load-bearing identity is Eq. (3), the profile definition $P_i = \{(i,j) \in E\} \cup \{(k,j) \in E \mid (i,j) \in E\}$, which extends a user's own sparse history with neighboring users' reviews of the same items. The retrieval pipeline of query function, top-$k$ graph retrieval, and prompt construction turns this profile into a context-augmented prompt $\tilde{x} = \phi_p(x, R(\phi_q(x), G, k))$ used for inference or fine-tuning. Ablations show that the neighbor-only variant (PGraphRAG-N) achieves scores on par with the full method, while the user-only variant (PGraphRAG-U) falls behind, indicating that the graph-neighbor expansion is what carries the reported gains.

What would settle it

Run the framework on the users the benchmark excludes from gold-label evaluation—users whose items have no co-reviewing neighbors—and compare against the user-history-only baseline; if the graph-based gains disappear or shrink sharply, the benefit comes from item-level context rather than personalized voice. Equivalently, replace neighbor reviews with non-personal item descriptions and observe whether the ROUGE gains persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that retrieving context from a user-centric bipartite graph—rather than only from the user's own past texts—yields better personalized generation in sparse-profile regimes. The profile of user $i$ is defined as $P_i = \{(i,j) \in E\} \cup \{(k,j) \in E \mid (i,j) \in E\}$, i.e., the user's own reviews plus all reviews by other users $k$ of the same items $j$. The framework then applies a query function, a graph-based retriever (BM25 or Contriever) that selects the top-$k$ entries from this profile, and a prompt constructor that inserts the retrieved entries into a template; the resulting prompt conditions the LLM on both the input and the retrieved context. The paper reports that this approach outperforms the LaMP baseline on nearly all of the twelve benchmark tasks, and that a neighbor-only variant (excluding the target user's own reviews) performs on par with the full method—evidence, in the authors' interpretation, that community signals across shared items carry much of the personalization value when direct history is thin.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that other people's reviews of the same product or hotel reflect the target user's own voice and preferences, rather than merely supplying facts about the item.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Neighbor-only retrieval, which excludes the target user's own history, matches the full method on most tasks, so a user with a single review can still receive personalized generation through the community of users who reviewed the same items.
  • The ranking of retrieved entries matters: randomly sampling the same number of profile entries instead of ranking them drops ROUGE-1 by 2.29% on long-text and 3.18% on short-text tasks relative to ranked retrieval.
  • Performance is robust to the choice of retriever, with BM25 and Contriever yielding comparable results, which suggests the gains come from the graph-based profile structure and prompt construction rather than from a specific retrieval model.
  • Increasing retrieval depth from $k=1$ to $k=4$ generally improves long-text generation with diminishing returns, but the benefit is capped by profile sparsity because many users have fewer than four qualifying interactions.
  • The released benchmark includes users with average profile sizes around 1.05–1.14 reviews, simulating cold-start conditions that prior personalized-generation benchmarks filtered out.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If neighbor reviews carry item facts rather than user voice, the method is better described as collaborative item-context augmentation, and the 'personalization' framing may overstate what is learned about the user; a controlled test that swaps user identities on the same retrieved reviews would distinguish the two interpretations.
  • The strong performance of the neighbor-only variant in review-generation tasks suggests that genre conventions and item attributes dominate what looks like personal style; applying the method to tasks with genuinely idiosyncratic outputs, such as email tone or creative writing, would test the personalization claim more sharply.
  • The benchmark's filtering rule—requiring every evaluated user to share at least one item with another user—means the truly isolated cold-start population is absent from the gold labels; an evaluation on that excluded population would clarify the real-world deployment value.
  • Because the method needs no parametric user embeddings and retrieval is scoped to a localized subgraph, it could be adapted to privacy-preserving settings where user histories cannot leave the device, provided the shared-item graph can be constructed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes PGraphRAG, a retrieval-augmented generation framework that builds a bipartite user-item graph, defines a user profile as the union of the user's own interactions and other users' interactions on shared items (Eq. 3), retrieves the top-k entries with BM25 or Contriever, and conditions an LLM on the retrieved context. It also introduces a 12-task benchmark constructed from four review corpora, spanning long-text generation, short-text generation, and ordinal rating classification, and reports zero-shot experiments with LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct and GPT-4o-mini against No-Retrieval, Random-Retrieval, and LaMP baselines. The paper claims consistent state-of-the-art performance, with average ROUGE-1 gains of 14.8% on long-text and 4.6% on short-text generation, and argues that graph-based neighbor context addresses cold-start and sparse-profile settings.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would contribute a useful public benchmark for personalized text generation under sparse profiles and a modular retrieval framework that goes beyond raw user history. The benchmark spans four domains, three task families, two LLM backbones, and multiple retrievers, and the ablation matrix is more extensive than is typical. The public release of the benchmark and code is also a concrete strength. However, the paper's own evidence undermines the central attribution claim: the neighbor-only ablation performs on par with or better than the full method, so the user-specific component of Eq. (3) is not shown to drive the reported gains; the ordinal-classification tables show the method losing to LaMP on most rating tasks; and the benchmark construction excludes users without shared-item neighbors, so true cold-start performance is not measured. The 'personalized graph-based retrieval' contribution therefore collapses, in the current experiments, into item-context augmentation, and the headline claim of consistent outperformance is not supported by the reported tables.

major comments (4)
  1. [A.4 (Tables 9 and 10)] The neighbor-only ablation undermines the central claim that PGraphRAG's user-specific profile is the source of the gains. In Table 9, PGraphRAG-N achieves ROUGE-1 0.272 for Hotel Experiences Generation with LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct and 0.268 with GPT-4o-mini, versus 0.263 and 0.265 for the full PGraphRAG; across nearly all long- and short-text tasks PGraphRAG-N matches or exceeds the full model, while PGraphRAG-U is consistently worse. This shows that the component of Eq. (3) specific to the target user contributes little or nothing, and that the improvement over LaMP is attributable to adding item-relevant neighbor reviews. Since those neighbor reviews are not user-specific, the 'personalized' framing is not supported; a non-personalized item-context retriever reproduces the results.
  2. [4.1 (Tables 8 and 18)] The abstract's claim of consistent outperformance is contradicted by the paper's own rating-task results. For ordinal classification, PGraphRAG outperforms LaMP on only 1 of 4 tasks with LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct and 2 of 4 tasks with GPT-4o-mini; for example, on Task 9 User Product Review Ratings, LaMP achieves MAE 0.3132 versus PGraphRAG's 0.3400 with LLaMA and 0.3480 versus 0.3832 with GPT. Even among text-generation tasks, Table 4 shows that on Task 8 with GPT-4o-mini, LaMP is ahead on ROUGE-1, ROUGE-L, and METEOR, and No-Retrieval is ahead on ROUGE-1. The paper's own Section 4.1 acknowledges partial results in the rating tasks, but the abstract, introduction, and conclusion do not qualify the 'consistent' claim.
  3. [A.1] The benchmark does not evaluate the cold-start regime that motivates the paper. The construction requires each selected user to have at least one interaction with an entity also associated with another user, and gold-label selection is performed at the edge level, so users without any neighbor-compatible interactions are excluded from the evaluated test instances. Thus the test set consists only of users who already have at least one shared-item neighbor in the graph, which is not the 'sparse or unavailable' user history setting emphasized in the introduction and limitations. The paper should report the fraction of users excluded by this filter and evaluate a true cold-start split, where the target user has no history or no shared items, with appropriate baselines.
  4. [4 (Evaluation)] No statistical significance testing or confidence intervals are reported for any comparison, despite the abstract's 'significantly outperforms' and the precise average gains of 14.8% and 4.6%. Many headline differences are very small (e.g., Table 4, Task 6 with LLaMA: ROUGE-1 0.127 versus 0.126 for LaMP; Table 3, Task 1 with LLaMA: ROUGE-1 0.178 versus 0.173 for LaMP), and some metric comparisons favor baselines (e.g., Table 3, Task 1 METEOR: No-Retrieval 0.154 versus PGraphRAG 0.151). Without paired significance tests, per-user variance, or confidence intervals, the claimed consistent gains are not established. This is load-bearing for the central claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [4 (Ranking and Retrieval) vs A.5/A.7] The main text states that retrieval uses k=5, but Appendix A.5 reports ablations for k=1,2,4 and Appendix A.7 uses k=4; the default value should be reconciled across the paper.
  2. [A.2 (Table 6)] The caption says the table shows gains across Tasks 1–7, but the table includes columns for Task 8; the caption or table should be corrected.
  3. [A.2 (Table 7)] The text says the table shows 'review density per product,' but the table reports counts of reviews per product; the wording should be aligned with the actual content.
  4. [A.2] The phrase 'Muito bom” (Very good)' contains mismatched quotation marks and should be normalized typographically.
  5. [Tables 3, 9, and 16] Table 3 reports Task 1 PGraphRAG ROUGE-1 0.178 for LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct on the test set, while the corresponding validation row in Table 16 and the ablation row in Table 9 show 0.173; the paper should clarify which configuration is reported in each table.
  6. [3, Eq. (3)] The quantifiers '∀j∈V, k∈U, k≠i' are placed after the set definition; moving them inside or before the definition would make the notation clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity; the main issue is an evaluation-attribution confound, not a reduction of predictions to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: PGraphRAG outperforms LaMP, No-Retrieval, and Random-Retrieval on a newly constructed benchmark. The reported numbers are test-set measurements against external gold labels (real user reviews, titles, ratings), and the method's hyperparameters (k, retriever, output length) are selected on validation splits in the standard, non-circular way described in A.9 and A.10. Equation 3 defines the user profile as the union of the user's own interactions and same-item neighbors' interactions; this is a design assumption, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper's own ablation (Tables 9 and 10) shows that the neighbor-only variant PGraphRAG-N performs on par with or better than the full method, meaning the reported gains over LaMP are largely attributable to item-relevant neighbor context rather than to user-specific voice. That is a serious validity and attribution concern for the 'personalization' framing, but it is not circular: the neighbor reviews are not the target labels, and the comparison is not forced by definition. The benchmark's requirement in A.1 that each selected user share an entity with another user likewise weakens the cold-start claim but does not make the outcome an algebraic consequence of the inputs. The self-citations to LongLaMP (Kumar et al., 2024) and the personalization survey (Zhang et al., 2024), which include overlapping authors, are background/motivation citations and are not load-bearing for any experimental result. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggled by citation, or fitted-input-called-prediction step appears. Overall, no step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the paper is not significantly circular.

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

The central claim rests on a collaborative-filtering assumption about same-item neighbors, a benchmark construction that restricts evaluation to users with shared items, and hyperparameters tuned on validation. No new theoretical entities or physical quantities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • retrieval depth k = varies; 5 in main experiments, 1/2/4 in ablations
    Top-k retrieved context size; the best configuration per task is selected on the validation set (Section 4, Appendix A.10), so the reported test numbers depend on a validation-chosen hyperparameter.
  • retriever type = BM25 or Contriever
    The best retriever per task is chosen based on validation performance (Section 4, Table footnotes). The central results use this selected retriever, making comparison of methods dependent on per-task tuning.
  • short-text output length = 5 words
    For short-text generation, a 5-word output constraint is chosen after validation comparisons of 3, 5, and 10 words (Appendix A.9). This affects ROUGE/METEOR scores.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Users who reviewed the same item have transferable preferences, so neighbor reviews can stand in for the target user's own personalization signal.
    Defines Pi in Eq. (3) to include (k,j) edges for the same item j; the entire method assumes this collaborative-filtering signal improves personalization.
  • domain assumption Evaluating only on users with at least one shared-item neighbor is a valid test of cold-start and sparse-profile personalization.
    Appendix A.1 restricts selected gold interactions to those with a neighbor-compatible shared item; this excludes genuinely isolated cold-start users.
  • domain assumption ROUGE-1, ROUGE-L, and METEOR gains on this benchmark translate to meaningful improvements in personalized text quality.
    The claims of state-of-the-art performance rest on automatic n-gram overlap metrics without human evaluation or significance testing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Personalized Graph-Based Retrieval for Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NW7IKFIO

@misc{pith2026250102157,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Personalized Graph-Based Retrieval for Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NW7IKFIO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02157}
}
read the original abstract

As large language models (LLMs) evolve, their ability to deliver personalized and context-aware responses offers transformative potential for improving user experiences. Existing personalization approaches, however, often rely solely on user history to augment the prompt, limiting their effectiveness in generating tailored outputs, especially in cold-start scenarios with sparse data. To address these limitations, we propose Personalized Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (PGraphRAG), a framework that leverages user-centric knowledge graphs to enrich personalization. By directly integrating structured user knowledge into the retrieval process and augmenting prompts with user-relevant context, PGraphRAG enhances contextual understanding and output quality. We also introduce the Personalized Graph-based Benchmark for Text Generation, designed to evaluate personalized text generation tasks in real-world settings where user history is sparse or unavailable. Experimental results show that PGraphRAG significantly outperforms state-of-the-art personalization methods across diverse tasks, demonstrating the unique advantages of graph-based retrieval for personalization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02157 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed PGraphRAG frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of user profile sizes in the Ama [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example of a bipartite user-centric graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Prompt configurations used for each task type. Teletype placeholders (e.g., [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of different output length constraints (3, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of GPT-4o-mini and GPT-o1- preview on the test set across Tasks 1–4 using BM25 retriever with k = 4. A.9 Impact of Length Constraints in GPT Model In short-text generation tasks, controlling output length is essential to balance informativeness and concisene…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Personalized Conversational Benchmark: Towards Simulating Personalized Conversations

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PERSONACONVBENCH is a new Reddit-based benchmark showing that LLMs predict sentiment, community scores, and next replies better when given a user's multi-turn conversation history, and it releases public data and code.

  2. Network-informed Prompt Engineering against Organized Astroturf Campaigns under Extreme Class Imbalance

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Frozen LLMs with balanced retrieval-augmented prompting detect astroturf campaigns better than GNN baselines on a 2016 US election dataset, but the reported margins are overstated.

  3. Matching Game Preferences Through Dialogical Large Language Models: A Perspective

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    This perspective paper proposes the D-LLM framework, which couples the authors' GRAPHYP knowledge graphs with LLMs to personalize AI responses and make reasoning traceable, but no empirical validation is presented.

  4. AI4Research: A Survey of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Research

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes AI-for-research work into five tasks, comprehension, survey, discovery, writing, and peer review, and compiles associated tools and benchmarks.

  5. SymbioticRAG: Enhancing Document Intelligence Through Human-LLM Symbiotic Collaboration

    cs.IR 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A human-in-the-loop RAG system that lets users select relevant document blocks and later uses their interaction logs to improve retrieval, with small user studies showing gains over baseline RAG.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    URL: " 'urlintro :=

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Bashar Alhafni, Vivek Kulkarni, Dhruv Kumar, and Vipul Raheja. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.personalize-1.8 Personalized text generation with fine-grained linguistic control . In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Personalization of Generative AI Systems (PERSONALIZE 2024), pages 88--101, St. Julians, Malta. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2024

  4. [4]

    Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. https://aclanthology.org/W05-0909 METEOR : An automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments . In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization , pages 65--72, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Association for Comput...

    2005

  5. [5]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin...

    2020

  6. [6]

    Cortes, Ana Luiza Vianna, Mikaela Martins, Sandro Rigo, and Rafael Kunst

    Eduardo G. Cortes, Ana Luiza Vianna, Mikaela Martins, Sandro Rigo, and Rafael Kunst. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.propor-1.5 LLM s and translation: different approaches to localization between B razilian P ortuguese and E uropean P ortuguese . In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computational Processing of Portuguese - Vol. 1, pa...

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Datafiniti. 2017. Hotel reviews, version 5. Retrieved September 15, 2024 from https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/datafiniti/hotel-reviews/data

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Datafiniti. 2018. Grammar and online product reviews, version 1. Retrieved September 15, 2024 from https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/datafiniti/grammar-and-online-product-reviews

    work page 2018

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Figueiredo

    Gladson de Araujo, Tiago de Melo, and Carlos Maur \' cio S. Figueiredo. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.propor-1.2 Is C hat GPT an effective solver of sentiment analysis tasks in P ortuguese? a preliminary study . In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Comp...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Li Dong, Shaohan Huang, Furu Wei, Mirella Lapata, Ming Zhou, and Ke Xu. 2017. https://aclanthology.org/E17-1059 Learning to generate product reviews from attributes . In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the E uropean Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistic...

    2017

  3. [11]

    Jakob Fehle, Leonie M \"u nster, Thomas Schmidt, and Christian Wolff. 2023. https://aclanthology.org/2023.konvens-main.21 Aspect-based sentiment analysis as a multi-label classification task on the domain of G erman hotel reviews . In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Natu...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Andrew Fowler, Kurt Partridge, Ciprian Chelba, Xiaojun Bi, Tom Ouyang, and Shumin Zhai. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702503 Effects of language modeling and its personalization on touchscreen typing performance . In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Hu...

    2015

  5. [13]

    Sebastian Gehrmann, Tosin Adewumi, Karmanya Aggarwal, Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, Anuoluwapo Aremu, Antoine Bosselut, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, Miruna-Adriana Clinciu, Dipanjan Das, Kaustubh Dhole, Wanyu Du, Esin Durmus, Ond r ej Du s ek, Chris Chinenye Emezue, Varun Gangal, Cri...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Yupeng Hou, Jiacheng Li, Zhankui He, An Yan, Xiusi Chen, and Julian McAuley. 2024. Bridging language and items for retrieval and recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03952

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Xiaolei Huang, Lucie Flek, Franck Dernoncourt, Charles Welch, Silvio Amir, Ramit Sawhney, and Diyi Yang. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3487553.3524879 Usernlp’22: 2022 international workshop on user-centered natural language processing . In Companion Proceedings of the Web Con...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Hayate Iso, Xiaolan Wang, and Yoshi Suhara. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.inlg-main.2 Noisy pairing and partial supervision for stylized opinion summarization . In Proceedings of the 17th International Natural Language Generation Conference, pages 13--23, Tokyo, Japan. A...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Srinivas Ramesh Kamath, Fahime Same, and Saad Mahamood. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.inlg-main.23 Generating hotel highlights from unstructured text using LLM s . In Proceedings of the 17th International Natural Language Generation Conference, pages 280--288, Tokyo, Jap...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Shin Kanouchi, Masato Neishi, Yuta Hayashibe, Hiroki Ouchi, and Naoaki Okazaki. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.aacl-main.89 You may like this hotel because ...: Identifying evidence for explainable recommendations . In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Paci...

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Natthawut Kertkeidkachorn and Kiyoaki Shirai. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.547 Sentiment analysis using the relationship between users and products . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 8611--8618, Toronto, Canad...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Jihyeok Kim, Seungtaek Choi, Reinald Kim Amplayo, and Seung-won Hwang. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.coling-main.207 Retrieval-augmented controllable review generation . In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 2284--2295...

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Rossi, Franck Dernoncourt, Hanieh Deilamsalehy, Xiang Chen, Ruiyi Zhang, Shubham Agarwal, Nedim Lipka, Chien Van Nguyen, Thien Huu Nguyen, and Hamed Zamani

    Ishita Kumar, Snigdha Viswanathan, Sushrita Yerra, Alireza Salemi, Ryan A. Rossi, Franck Dernoncourt, Hanieh Deilamsalehy, Xiang Chen, Ruiyi Zhang, Shubham Agarwal, Nedim Lipka, Chien Van Nguyen, Thien Huu Nguyen, and Hamed Zamani. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.11016 Longlam...

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Yibin Lei, Liang Ding, Yu Cao, Changtong Zan, Andrew Yates, and Dacheng Tao. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.695 Unsupervised dense retrieval with relevance-aware contrastive pre-training . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2...

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. https://aclanthology.org/W04-1013 ROUGE : A package for automatic evaluation of summaries . In Text Summarization Branches Out, pages 74--81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2004

  16. [24]

    Hanjia Lyu, Song Jiang, Hanqing Zeng, Yinglong Xia, Qifan Wang, Si Zhang, Ren Chen, Chris Leung, Jiajie Tang, and Jiebo Luo. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-naacl.39 LLM -rec: Personalized recommendation via prompting large language models . In Findings of t...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Hanjia Lyu, Song Jiang, Hanqing Zeng, Yinglong Xia, Qifan Wang, Si Zhang, Ren Chen, Christopher Leung, Jiajie Tang, and Jiebo Luo. 2024 b . http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15780 Llm-rec: Personalized recommendation via prompting large language models

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Maxim Naumov, Dheevatsa Mudigere, Hao - Jun Michael Shi, Jianyu Huang, Narayanan Sundaraman, Jongsoo Park, Xiaodong Wang, Udit Gupta, Carole - Jean Wu, Alisson G. Azzolini, Dmytro Dzhulgakov, Andrey Mallevich, Ilia Cherniavskii, Yinghai Lu, Raghuraman Krishnamoorthi, Ansha Yu,...

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Jianmo Ni and Julian McAuley. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-2112 Personalized review generation by expanding phrases and attending on aspect-aware representations . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Sh...

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    OpenAI. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21276 Gpt-4o system card

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Livy Real, Marcio Oshiro, and Alexandre Mafra. 2019. B2w-reviews01: an open product reviews corpus. In STIL-Symposium in Information and Human Language Technology

    2019

  22. [30]

    Chris Richardson, Yao Zhang, Kellen Gillespie, Sudipta Kar, Arshdeep Singh, Zeynab Raeesy, Omar Zia Khan, and Abhinav Sethy. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.20081 Integrating summarization and retrieval for enhanced personalization via large language models

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000019 The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond . Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 3:333--389

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    Alireza Salemi, Surya Kallumadi, and Hamed Zamani. 2024 a . http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05970 Optimization methods for personalizing large language models through retrieval augmentation

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Alireza Salemi, Sheshera Mysore, Michael Bendersky, and Hamed Zamani. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.399 L a MP : When large language models meet personalization . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, p...

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Arthur Scalercio, Maria Finatto, and Aline Paes. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.895 Enhancing sentence simplification in P ortuguese: Leveraging paraphrases, context, and linguistic features . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: A...

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    Azure AI Services. 2023. Openai (gpt-4o-mini-20240718) [large language model]. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-services/openai

    2023

  28. [36]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971 Llama: ...

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019 a . SuperGLUE: a stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA

    2019

  30. [38]

    Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019 b . https://openreview.net/forum?id=rJ4km2R5t7 GLUE : A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  31. [39]

    Hongyan Xu, Hongtao Liu, Zhepeng Lv, Qing Yang, and Wenjun Wang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.684 Pre-trained personalized review summarization with effective salience estimation . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, p...

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Gui-Rong Xue, Jie Han, Yong Yu, and Qiang Yang. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1145/1462198.1462203 User language model for collaborative personalized search . ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 27(2)

    2009

  33. [41]

    Jianfei Yu, Chenggong Gong, and Rui Xia. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.421 Cross-domain review generation for aspect-based sentiment analysis . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 4767--4777, Online. Associ...

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Hongyu Zang and Xiaojun Wan. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-3526 Towards automatic generation of product reviews from aspect-sentiment scores . In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Natural Language Generation, pages 168--177, Santiago de Compostela, Sp...

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    Xin Zhang, Linhai Zhang, and Deyu Zhou. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.446 Sentiment analysis on streaming user reviews via dual-channel dynamic graph neural network . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,...

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Zhehao Zhang, Ryan A. Rossi, Branislav Kveton, Yijia Shao, Diyi Yang, Hamed Zamani, Franck Dernoncourt, Joe Barrow, Tong Yu, Sungchul Kim, Ruiyi Zhang, Jiuxiang Gu, Tyler Derr, Hongjie Chen, Junda Wu, Xiang Chen, Zichao Wang, Subrata Mitra, Nedim Lipka, Nesreen Ahmed, and Yu W...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.