Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Muse: A Multimodal Conversational Recommendation Dataset with Scenario-Grounded User Profiles

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 MUSE introduces the first multimodal conversational recommendation dataset, synthesizing 7,000 clothing-domain conversations from scenario-grounded user profiles, and closes the text-only gap in conversational recommendation research.

desk verdict MUSE is a genuinely new synthetic multimodal CR resource with measurable fine-tuning gains, but the design guarantees every conversation ends in successful delivery of a pre-selected target, so the realism claims need serious hedging. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18416 v2 pith:SJG5GNBM submitted 2024-12-24 cs.MM

Zihan Wang , Xiaocui Yang , Yongkang Liu , Shi Feng , Daling Wang , Yifei Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MM
keywords multimodalconversationalrecommendationdatasetscenario-groundeduserprofilesmulti-agentframeworklargelanguagemodelssyntheticdialoguedataclothingdomainLLM-basedevaluation
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

MUSE is the first conversational recommendation dataset whose conversations carry real images alongside text, bridging a gap between research, which has been text-only, and real shopping, where seeing the product matters. The dataset contains 83,148 utterances in 7,000 clothing-domain conversations, generated automatically by a multi-agent framework powered by multimodal large language models: user profiles are built from real-world scenarios such as attending a graduation or a book launch, each profile is matched to a real product from the Amazon Clothing, Shoes, and Jewelry collection, and simulated users and assistants then talk through acceptances, rejections, and chit-chat. The scenario grounding is the proposed answer to a scalability problem: because earlier LLM-based CR datasets build profiles from user history, they cannot cover new users, cold starts, or privacy-restricted settings, whereas scenarios are effectively unbounded. The paper reports that human and LLM judges score MUSE conversations above existing CR and multimodal dialogue datasets on naturalness, coherence, informativeness, product-context relevance, and image-text alignment, and that fine-tuning three open multimodal LLMs on MUSE improves both recommendation retrieval and response quality.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Scenario-Grounded User Profile Generator, which expands seed shopping situations into 593 basic scenarios, then assembles each profile from three parts—basic user information, a target product from the local multimodal product database, and a purchase backstory—while an MLLM screens each (user, scenario, product) triple for plausibility and BLEU-based deduplication removes repeats. This mechanism carries the scalability argument: user and item coverage grows from the near-infinite space of real-world situations rather than from collected history, and each scenario profile provides the conversational grounding that the Simulated Conversation Generator (user, chatter, querier, and manager agents) turns into dialogue, after which the Rewriter and Reviewer agents diversify and filter the output.

What would settle it

Take real customer-service transcripts from an online clothing retailer, match them to MUSE conversations on the same scenarios and needs, and have blind judges rate naturalness and realism: if MUSE consistently loses, the user-simulation premise fails. Alternatively, fine-tune the same three models on MUSE and evaluate on an independent real multimodal conversational recommendation setting; if the learned patterns show no benefit over text-only training, the claim that MUSE offers learnable recommendation behavior would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that MUSE establishes the first multimodal conversational recommendation benchmark and that its scenario-grounded synthesis method removes the history-data bottleneck limiting earlier LLM-based datasets such as Pearl and LLM-Redial. Each conversation is anchored to a real product with an image and a description, and to a scenario-grounded profile that explains why the user is shopping, so the resulting dialogues weave together visual features, scenario requirements, and natural social talk. The paper reports consistent gains from fine-tuning three open multimodal LLMs—Qwen2-VL-7B, LLaVA-Next-LLaMA-8B, and Yi-VL-6B—on MUSE, including Qwen2-VL-7B lifting Recall@10 from 0.20 to 0.34, and blind human judges preferring fine-tuned responses over zero-shot responses at an 88% win rate, which the authors read as evidence that MUSE contains learnable recommendation and response patterns.

Load-bearing premise

The dataset's realism rests on assuming that gpt-4o-mini, given only a scenario-based profile and a pre-selected target product, can act like a genuine shopper with believable needs, rejections, acceptances, and small talk; if that role-play is not convincing, the high quality scores mainly reflect the generator's style rather than real conversational recommendation behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fine-tuning on MUSE lifts recommendation retrieval across all three tested MLLMs — Qwen2-VL-7B's Recall@10 rises from 0.20 to 0.34 — so the dataset carries learnable recommendation logic, not just fluent dialogue.
  • Blind human judges prefer responses from MUSE-fine-tuned models over zero-shot responses at an 88% versus 12% win rate, indicating the conversations encode response patterns that transfer to other models.
  • Because profiles derive from real-world scenarios rather than user history, the same synthesis pipeline can expand to new domains, users, and products without cold-start or privacy constraints.
  • The ranking of the three evaluated models on MUSE matches their ranking on a public multimodal benchmark, giving MUSE discriminative power as a benchmark dataset.
  • The multi-stage automatic quality screening (with manual filtering removing only a small residue) positions the pipeline itself as a reusable template for cost-controlled CR dataset construction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The strongest untested implication is domain transfer: the 593 scenarios encode general situations rather than clothing-specific logic, so the same profile generator could build furniture, food, or gift recommendation conversations by swapping the product database, an extension the authors gesture at in their conclusion.
  • The paper's reported 21.6% profile-qualification rate implies that screening, not generation, is the dominant cost and quality lever; a cheap replication with a weaker MLLM generator would reveal whether the quality scores come from the framework's filters or from the generator's underlying conversational skill.
  • The appendix finding that replacing images with gpt-4o-generated captions loses human preference almost completely (97% vs 3%) implies that the dataset's value lives in the visual grounding itself, so downstream systems should preserve true image inputs rather than caption substitutes.
  • If the scenario-grounded premise generalizes, it offers a privacy-preserving route to personalized CR data: profiles describe situations, not identifiable individuals, sidestepping the history-data regulations the paper cites as a barrier.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MUSE, a synthetic multimodal conversational recommendation (CR) dataset in the Clothing domain, comprising 83,148 utterances from 7,000 conversations. The dataset is generated by a three-module multi-agent framework (Scenario-Grounded User Profile Generator, Simulated Conversation Generator, Conversation Optimizer) powered by gpt-4o-mini with a Claude-3.5-haiku rewriter. The authors claim that MUSE is the first multimodal CR dataset, that its conversations are high quality (validated by LLM and human evaluations), and that fine-tuning three open-source MLLMs on MUSE yields gains in recommendation accuracy and response generation. The paper also proposes scenario-grounded user profiling as a scalable alternative to history-based profile construction.

Significance. If the realism and learnability claims hold, MUSE would fill a genuine gap: existing CR datasets (ReDial, TG-ReDial, PEARL, LLM-Redial) are text-only, while multimodal dialogue datasets are not CR-oriented. The scenario-grounded user-profile generator is a sensible way to escape the cold-start and privacy limitations of history-based profile synthesis, and the release of the dataset and code is commendable. The fine-tuning experiments (e.g., Qwen2-VL Recall@10 rising from 0.20 to 0.34) are concrete and reproducible in principle. However, the central claim of high-quality, realistic conversations is currently supported mainly by LLM judges scoring LLM-generated text and by a very small, same-institution human evaluation, and the pipeline has a structural property that guarantees every conversation ends with the pre-selected target item. These issues need resolution before the dataset can be trusted as a benchmark for real-world multimodal CR.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3.2, Appendix A.3] The pipeline guarantees that every conversation ends with the user receiving the pre-selected target item: 'If the round limit is reached, the Querier provides the user's target product to end the conversation' (Section 3.3.2). The user simulator also has access to the target item and target requirements, and its accept/reject decisions are generated by comparing each candidate against that known target. Consequently, 'successful recommendation' is true by construction, and there are no conversations in which the user abandons the session, settles for a non-target item, or reveals needs inconsistent with the target. This undermines the interpretation of the fine-tuning gains in Table 4: the models may be learning the structural regularity of forced convergence (e.g., the target is always delivered by the final round) rather than a general ability to infer preferences from dialogue. Please report the fraction of conversations that end via natural acceptance versus round-limit target delivery, and re-run the Table 4 experiments in a condition where the target item is not revealed in the user profile at inference time, or with a control in which a non-target item is delivered at the round limit.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 3, Appendix D.4] The conversation-level quality evaluation uses gpt-4o as the judge to score gpt-4o-mini/Claude-generated dialogues on a 0-2 scale across five dimensions. The evaluation prompt (Appendix D.4) rewards exactly the characteristics the generator was prompted to produce: long, information-rich, visually detailed, and scenario-elaborated responses. The high scores therefore do not independently validate naturalness or realism relative to human-human CR. As a minimal corrective, the authors should (a) report human ratings on the same or a subset of the 200 conversations per dataset, with inter-annotator agreement (e.g., Krippendorff's alpha); (b) include a baseline condition in which the same judge evaluates human-written CR dialogues (e.g., sampled from ReDial or SIMMC 2.0) under the identical rubric; and (c) ablate the Rewriter to show that the improved scores are not simply a reflection of the colloquial rewrite style.
  3. [Sections 4.3, 5, Appendix D.5] The utterance-level human evaluation is based on six annotators from the same institution, with three generating responses and three performing the anonymous 1:1 comparisons. The paper reports only win counts (145/55, 152/48, 111/89, 119/81) without error bars, significance tests, or inter-annotator agreement. The claim that MUSE's utterances are 'superior quality compared to human-authored dialogues' is therefore not statistically supported. The Appendix B.2 replacement experiment (50 conversations, win rate 0.68) has the same limitations. Please report confidence intervals or a significance test (e.g., exact binomial test), and either expand the annotator pool or soften the claim accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section 1] The claim of being the 'first multimodal conversational recommendation dataset' should be qualified relative to SURE (Long et al., 2023) and SIMMC 2.0 (Kottur et al., 2021), which are also multimodal and recommendation-oriented; if the distinction is the shopping-assistant formulation of CR, state that explicitly.
  2. [Section 4.4] The fine-tuning experiments use only 200 conversations for LoRA training; please justify this choice and show sensitivity of the results to training-set size, or at least acknowledge that the reported gains may not transfer to larger training sets.
  3. [Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, Appendix A.5] Several pipeline hyperparameters are not fully specified, including the BLEU deduplication thresholds, the quality screening thresholds for user-scenario-product matching, and the exact temperature schedule; a short table in the appendix would aid reproducibility beyond the released code.
  4. [Table 2] In Table 2, '#Users' for MUSE is reported as 7.0K, but it is unclear how distinct users are determined given that each conversation appears to receive a newly generated profile; please clarify whether 'users' is simply the number of conversations.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

MUSE's recommendation 'success' is baked into the construction: user profiles contain the target item and the Querier ends with it, so fine-tuning gains partly measure the pipeline's forced convergence; the LLM-as-judge quality check reuses generation criteria.

  1. self definitional [Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.2; used as evidence in Sections 4.4 and 4.5]
    "In our design, a complete user profile consists of three key components: basic user information, target products, and the purchase backstory. ... If the round limit is reached, the Querier provides the user’s target product to end the conversation."

    The user profile that drives the User Simulator explicitly contains the target product, and the User Simulator's accept/reject actions are generated by comparing each candidate against the user's requirements, which are derived from that target. The Rec-assistant's Querier is instructed to end the conversation with 'the user's target product.' Therefore every MUSE conversation is guaranteed to converge to a successful recommendation of the pre-selected item; there are no abandoned sessions, substitute purchases, or needs that diverge from the target.

  2. other [Section 4.2, Appendix D.4; cf. Sections 3.4.2 and B.1]
    "we select the LLM-based method for conversational-level evaluation. ... The quality of a multimodal conversational recommendation dataset can be effectively evaluated using the following five aspects. Dialogue Naturalness (Natural) measures how fluent and human-like the conversations are, ensuring realistic and engaging interactions. ... Information Richness (Informative) evaluates the diversity and relevance of details provided, which is critical for generating meaningful and helpful recommendations."

    The conversations are generated by gpt-4o-mini, rewritten by claude-3.5-haiku with probabilistic 'use colloquial expressions' instructions, and pre-filtered by an LLM Reviewer using 'content quality, logical fluency, and user consistency.' The later conversation-level evaluation then asks an LLM to score Naturalness, Logical Coherence, Information Richness, Product-Context Relevance, and Image-Text Alignment, which operationalize the same rich, scenario-grounded, visually detailed style that the generator and Rewriter prompts were designed to produce. The manual screening in B.1 removes only 'a small number of unqualified conversations,' so the LLM evaluation largely re-detects conformance to the generator's own criteria rather than independently validating realism.

full rationale

MUSE is not wholly circular: it is anchored to real Amazon Clothing, Shoes, and Jewelry products; it is compared against external datasets (Redial, PEARL, MMCONV, INSPIRED); and the fine-tuning experiments use external open-source MLLMs. Those are genuine independent reference points. The central circularity is in the construction of the dataset itself: the user profile includes the target item, the user simulator's acceptance decisions are conditioned on that target, and the Querier is explicitly instructed to end with the target product, so every conversation is a forced success story. Consequently, the recommendation gains in Table 4 and response gains in Table 5 partly measure the model's ability to reproduce the generation pipeline's target-convergence regularities, not a general ability to infer preferences from natural multimodal dialogue. A second-order confound is the evaluation loop: the same class of LLMs that generated and rewrote the data also scores it on dimensions that reward the generator's own style, and the paper itself concedes in the Limitation section that 'the data quality is inherently influenced by the model's capabilities.' This does not invalidate MUSE as a useful synthetic resource, but it means the claim that MUSE provides learnable patterns for real multimodal conversational recommendation is only partially established. There is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem, so the score reflects construction-level circularity rather than citation-level circularity.

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

The central claim rests on hand-chosen generation and filtering parameters, domain assumptions about scenario-driven shopping and LLM user simulation, and a design decision that forces conversations to conclude with the pre-selected target item. None of these are fitted to external benchmarks, and the paper provides no real-user validation that would independently confirm the synthetic conversations model actual recommendation behavior.

free parameters (3)
  • MLLM temperature for generation = 0.1-0.2
    Hand-chosen in Appendix A.5 to stabilize agent behavior; affects diversity and naturalness of conversations.
  • BLEU deduplication threshold = unspecified
    Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 use BLEU to remove duplicate scenarios and backstories but never report the threshold; it controls profile diversity.
  • Quality screening thresholds for user-scenario-product matching = unspecified
    Section 3.2.2 and Figure 9 filter profiles and conversations with no stated cutoff; the 21.6% profile pass rate is an outcome, not a calibrated threshold.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Scenario context drives shopping decisions and can ground user profiles.
    Section 3.2 cites Paul et al. (2016) and Piligrimiene et al. (2020); if the scenario-need link is weak, generated profiles may not reflect real purchase drivers.
  • domain assumption LLM user simulation is a faithful proxy for real user behavior.
    Section 3.3.1 cites Zhang et al. (2024) and Wang et al. (2023a); the dataset's validity depends on this proxy.
  • ad hoc to paper At the round limit the Querier delivers the user's pre-selected target item to end the conversation.
    Section 3.3.2; this guarantees apparent recommendation success and inflates acceptance rates by construction.
  • ad hoc to paper gpt-4o-mini with low temperature can accurately summarize product images and text for retrieval.
    Appendix A.1 and A.5; product summaries and retrieval quality depend on this model choice, acknowledged as a cost limitation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Muse: A Multimodal Conversational Recommendation Dataset with Scenario-Grounded User Profiles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SJG5GNBM

@misc{pith2026241218416,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Muse: A Multimodal Conversational Recommendation Dataset with Scenario-Grounded User Profiles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SJG5GNBM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18416}
}
read the original abstract

Current conversational recommendation systems focus predominantly on text. However, real-world recommendation settings are generally multimodal, causing a significant gap between existing research and practical applications. To address this issue, we propose Muse, the first multimodal conversational recommendation dataset. Muse comprises 83,148 utterances from 7,000 conversations centered around the Clothing domain. Each conversation contains comprehensive multimodal interactions, rich elements, and natural dialogues. Data in Muse are automatically synthesized by a multi-agent framework powered by multimodal large language models (MLLMs). It innovatively derives user profiles from real-world scenarios rather than depending on manual design and history data for better scalability, and then it fulfills conversation simulation and optimization. Both human and LLM evaluations demonstrate the high quality of conversations in Muse. Additionally, fine-tuning experiments on three MLLMs demonstrate Muse's learnable patterns for recommendations and responses, confirming its value for multimodal conversational recommendation. Our dataset and codes are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Muse-0086.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18416 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of data cases from Redial and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The multi-agent framework for synthesizing MCR data in M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Workflow of the scenario-grounded user pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of dialogue Elements in MUSE quality. Furthermore, to demonstrate the practical utility of our dataset for the conversational recom￾mendation, we conduct experiments with three rep￾resentative open-source MLLMs, evaluating their performance in both recomme…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Utterance-level comparison: the quality be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Generation of multimodal-open Open￾Dialogues. product retrieval. The local product database con￾tains a subset of the Amazon Cloth, Shoes, and Jew￾elry products. The process is as follows. Due to the extensive volume of products in the initial dataset, we strategically…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of mentioned products in MUSE. A.3 Details of the Open-dialogues Our dataset incorporates two distinct approaches for conversation initiation. The first approach fol￾lows traditional crowdsourcing conversational rec￾ommendation systems, where users articul…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of pass probability of the six [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Word-cloud of top-200 4-grams in Pearl (left) and top-10 4-gram’s frequency in Pearl (Right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Word-cloud of top-200 4-grams in Muse without Rewriter (left) and top-10 4-gram’s frequency in Muse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Word-cloud of top-200 4-grams in Muse with Rewriter (left) and top-10 4-gram’s frequency in Muse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Two cases of the Scenario-Grounded User Profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Text-open conversation case. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Multimodal-open conversation case. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Some prompts of Scenario-Grounded driven User Profile Generator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Some prompts of User Simulator. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Some prompts of Rec-assistant Simulator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The evaluation prompt for LLM-based assessment of conversation-level quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The evaluation rules for manual evaluation of utterance-level quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The evaluation rules for manual evaluation of utterance-level quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. VOGUE: A Multimodal Dataset for Conversational Recommendation in Fashion

    cs.IR 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multimodal fashion recommendation dataset with 60 organic dialogues and full rating distributions shows current MLLMs underperform human recommenders in preference calibration and generalization.

  2. A Literature Review on Simulation in Conversational Recommender Systems

    cs.HC 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A literature review that categorizes 11 studies on simulation methods in conversational recommender systems into dataset construction, algorithm design, system evaluation, and empirical studies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Whether the product can match the user's basici information

    work page

  2. [2]

    Output format:

    Whether the product can match the Scenario. Output format:

    work page

  3. [3]

    No other output is permitted. User Input: Basic User Profile: {user_profile} Scenario: {scenario} Target Item: <Image> {item_description} Purchase Backstory Generation System Instruction: You are scenarios generator for a consumer's purchase backstory. Your goal is to create a scenario that could naturally lead to a online purchase. without explicitly men...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Warning: Do not mention or describe the target item

    Related to the revealed requirements. Warning: Do not mention or describe the target item. Please generate a backstory suits the case. User Input: Basic User Profile: {user_profile} Scenario: {scenario} Target Item: <Image> {item_description} Figure 16: Some prompts of Scenario-Grounded driven User Profile Generator. 22 AcceptSystem Instruction: You are n...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Output only the summary

    Any specific preferences, limitations, or criteria mentioned by the user Clearly summary the user's main needs for the products. Output only the summary. User Input: Conversation Context: {conversation} Recmmend System Instruction: You are an advanced conversational recommendation assistant. You are talking to a user and your task now is to recommend a pr...

    work page

  6. [9]

    If both criteria are satisfied: output 'Yes'

    work page

  7. [10]

    If either criterion is not met: output 'No'

    work page

  8. [12]

    User information. 2. Basic Scenario for the backstory. 3. Information of the target item. Use the provided information to craft a believable and engaging narrative. The descriptions should:

    work page

Show all 54 references
  1. [13]

    An upcoming event (It can be a significant life event or a minor everyday occurrence.)

  2. [14]

    Include relevant contextual details such as scenarios, emotions

  3. [15]

    Reveal the user's requirements for the product, but only towards two features

  4. [18]

    Based on this information, please response with a concluding statement expressing your feelings about the recommendation experience and your thoughts on the final product choice

    The image and detailed information of the product you finally accepted. Based on this information, please response with a concluding statement expressing your feelings about the recommendation experience and your thoughts on the final product choice. Your response should:

  5. [19]

    Ensure that you are speaking as the user

  6. [20]

    Express gratitude for the recommendation system

  7. [21]

    Explain why you think this product suits you

  8. [22]

    Please ensure your response is natural and authentic

    Mention specific features of the product and relate them to your personal preferences. Please ensure your response is natural and authentic. The length of your response should be between 1-3 sentences. Please generate your response. Output only the personalized response. User ...

  9. [23]

    The content of your conversation with the rec-assistant

  10. [24]

    Your response should:

    The specific reason for declining the recommendation, which includes some of your needs or preferences. Your response should:

  11. [25]

    Avoid repetitive phrasing of rejections in history conversations!

  12. [26]

    Decline the recommendation based the reasons you've been provided

  13. [27]

    Reference relevant parts of the conversation history to maintain context and continuity

  14. [28]

    Warning: Don't mention any brand or prize! Now, based on the given reason for declining (which includes your needs) and the conversation history

    The length is limited to 1-3 sentences. Warning: Don't mention any brand or prize! Now, based on the given reason for declining (which includes your needs) and the conversation history. Craft a response that declines the current recommendation while expressing your needs and k...

  15. [29]

    The user's directly expressed needs or questions

  16. [30]

    The user's implicit needs or areas of interest

  17. [31]

    The user's emotional state and tone

  18. [32]

    The user's feedback on the system's responses

  19. [34]

    The conversation context

  20. [35]

    Your objective is to craft a product recommendation response that:

    The image/text information of the product you need to recommend. Your objective is to craft a product recommendation response that:

  21. [36]

    Seamlessly fits into the current conversation flow

  22. [37]

    Demonstrates understanding of the user's preferences, needs, and previous interactions

  23. [38]

    Highlights the most relevant features of the product based on what you know about the user

  24. [39]

    Incorporates relevant details from the product's text description and visual elements

  25. [40]

    Aiming for a length of 2-3 sentences. Output only the the recommendation sentence for the product! User Input: Conversation Context: {conversation} Recommended Item: <Image> {item_description} Figure 18: Some prompts of Rec-assistant Simulator. 24 Score Conversation-level Qual...

  26. [41]

    The conversation context and required response type (recommend or chit-chat)

  27. [42]

    Product details including images and text descriptions (if applicable for recommend rounds) Please generate your response following these criteria:

  28. [44]

    You will be presented with:

    Based on the response type: For recommendations: Highlight key product features and benefits For chit-chat: Provide emotional support while naturally redirecting attention to previously recommended items Conversation Context: {conversation} and Action Type: {action_type} Recom...

  29. [46]

    Two alternative system responses Please evaluate them following these criteria:

  30. [49]

    (2) Informative: The response provides sufficient, useful, and relevant information

    Compare both responses and select the more appropriate one across four perspectives: (1) Logical: The response follows clear reasoning and demonstrates sound judgment. (2) Informative: The response provides sufficient, useful, and relevant information. (3) Natural: The respons...

  31. [50]

    The conversation context and required response type (reject or accept)

  32. [51]

    Recommended product details including images and text descriptions

  33. [52]

    Target product details including images and text descriptions (for accept) Please generate your response following these criteria:

  34. [53]

    Analyze the conversation context thoroughly to understand the user's primary needs

  35. [54]

    For accept: Please response with a concluding statement expressing your feelings about the recommendation experience and your thoughts on the final product choice

    Based on the response type: For reject: Craft a response that declines the current recommendation while expressing your needs and keeping the conversation flowing naturally. For accept: Please response with a concluding statement expressing your feelings about the recommendati...

  36. [55]

    The existing conversation context between you and the system

  37. [56]

    Two alternative user responses Please evaluate them following these criteria:

  38. [57]

    Review the user profile thoroughly to understand the user's background and needs

  39. [58]

    Examine the conversation context to identify expressed user requirements

  40. [59]

    (2) Informative: The response provides sufficient, useful, and relevant information

    Compare both responses and select the more appropriate one across four perspectives: (1) Logical: The response follows clear reasoning and demonstrates sound judgment. (2) Informative: The response provides sufficient, useful, and relevant information. (3) Natural: The respons...

  41. [1120]

    Satwik Kottur, Seungwhan Moon, Alborz Geramifard, and Babak Damavandi

    Association for Computational Linguistics. Satwik Kottur, Seungwhan Moon, Alborz Geramifard, and Babak Damavandi. 2021. Simmc 2.0: A task- oriented dialog dataset for immersive multimodal conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08667. Jonáš Kulhánek, V ojtˇech Hudeˇcek, Tomáš...

    2021 arXiv

  42. [2017]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, pages 5503–5512

    Guesswhat?! visual object discovery through multi-modal dialogue. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, pages 5503–5512. Yang Deng, Yaliang Li, Fei Sun, Bolin Ding, and Wai Lam. 2021. Unified conversational recommendation policy le...

    2021

  43. [2018]

    Towards deep conversational recommenda- tions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems 2018, NeurIPS 2018, Decem- ber 3-8, 2018, Montréal, Canada, pages 9748–9758. Tingting Liang, Chenxin Jin, Lingzh...

    2018

  44. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on recommender systems, pages 751–753

    Tutorial on conversational recommendation systems. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on recommender systems, pages 751–753. Elizabeth Liz Harding, Jarno J Vanto, Reece Clark, L Hannah Ji, and Sara C Ainsworth. 2019. Un- derstanding the scope and impact of the californi...

    2019 arXiv

  45. [2024]

    Please introduce the red clothes just above the jeans,

    M3-embedding: Multi-linguality, multi- functionality, multi-granularity text embeddings through self-knowledge distillation. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei- Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evalu- ation of machine translation. In Proceedings of ...

    2002 arXiv

  46. [8939]

    Lizi Liao, Le Hong Long, Zheng Zhang, Minlie Huang, and Tat-Seng Chua

    Association for Computational Linguistics. Lizi Liao, Le Hong Long, Zheng Zhang, Minlie Huang, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Mmconv: An environment for multimodal conversational search across multiple domains. In SIGIR ’21: The 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research an...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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