Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 90 references

Learning to Ask: Conversational Product Search via Representation Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ConvPS jointly learns user, query, item, and conversation embeddings in one generative model, and with five clarifying questions it ranks target products far above four baselines on three e-commerce categories.

desk verdict A genuinely unified generative model for conversational product search with a sensible question-strategy comparison, but the offline simulator discards out-of-vocabulary answers, which inflates the reported gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14466 v1 pith:PQFXVCNX submitted 2024-11-18 cs.CL cs.AIcs.IR

Jie Zou , Jimmy Xiangji Huang , Zhaochun Ren , Evangelos Kanoulas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.IR
keywords conversationalproductsearchrepresentationlearningtoaskslot-valuepairsquestionselectionexplore-exploitpersonalizede-commerceretrieval
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

This paper tries to show that a shopping assistant can zero in on a desired product by asking a sequence of clarifying questions, provided the system jointly learns what users, queries, products, and conversations mean. The proposed model, ConvPS, embeds all four in the same latent space through a single generative objective, so each answer moves the target item up the ranking. With several question-selection strategies, one greedy and three explore-exploit, the paper reports that five questions roughly double retrieval quality on three product categories and beat both static product-search baselines and earlier conversational models. The underlying claim is that conversation itself carries retrieval value that static personalized search leaves on the table.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the joint training objective of Equation 13, a log-likelihood that sums six terms: the initial non-conversational item probability, the conversational item probability given user, query, and current slot-value feedback, item and user language models over words, and item and user language models over slot-value pairs. Conversation is represented as slot-value embeddings; positive answers add (q+a)/2 to the ranking sum, while negative answers add a separately learned slot embedding q−. On top of this, four question selectors decide which slot to ask next: GBS splits the estimated preference mass, and LinRel, GP+UCB, and GP+EI use upper-confidence or expected-improvement criteria to balance exploring new slots against exploiting known ones. The machinery works by making every piece of evidence, who is asking, the initial query, and each answer, comparable in the same vector space, so updating the ranking is a simple addition in that space.

What would settle it

Re-run the Cell Phones & Accessories evaluation with human-like answers that are correct only 77 percent of the time, the accuracy the paper's own user study observed, and map off-vocabulary values to a random training value instead of discarding them; if ConvPS no longer beats AVLEM at five questions, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that treating a user's answers as another embedding term in a unified generative model, rather than modeling conversations separately or relying on lexical overlap, lets retrieval improve sharply as questions accumulate. The probability of an item given the user, the initial query, and accumulated slot-value feedback is a softmax over the sum of their embeddings, and all embeddings are trained together from item descriptions, reviews, and historical slot-value feedback. The reported numbers show the LinRel question-selection variant, which balances exploration and exploitation, reaching the best overall results, and the gains grow as more questions are asked. The same pattern appears in a small online user study with real crowd workers, where users answered an average of nine questions and most said they were willing to answer at least five.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes an oracle user who has a specific target item in mind, answers each question with the exact slot value taken from that item, and says 'not relevant' when the slot is missing, while answers outside the training vocabulary are discarded rather than interpreted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, conversational product search can be built by extending a static embedding retriever with a trainable conversation term, without needing a separate dialogue policy or heavy natural-language understanding.
  • Asking questions selected by explore-exploit strategies should outperform random or purely greedy question orderings, and the gap should widen as conversation length grows.
  • Negative feedback expressed as 'not relevant' is not wasted signal: learning a dedicated embedding for it contributes to ranking quality.
  • The same jointly learned embeddings can serve both retrieval and question choice, so the two modules can be trained once and used together.
  • The reported gains across large and small catalogs suggest the method transfers to product collections of different scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The oracle-answer simulator likely inflates the reported gains, because answers outside the training vocabulary are dropped instead of interpreted; with noisy or open-vocabulary human answers, the advantage of learned question selection may shrink.
  • The representation-learning recipe could be reused for any structured item metadata, such as facets, categories, or price ranges, not only aspect-value pairs extracted from reviews, a possibility the paper itself notes.
  • A testable extension is to replace the additive slot-value composition in Equation 7 with a learned combiner or nonlinear projection and measure whether retrieval gains persist.
  • The paper's own user study, where users were correct 77 percent of the time, suggests that modeling answer uncertainty rather than only binary positive or negative feedback is the next bottleneck.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ConvPS, a conversational product search model in which user, query, item, and conversation (slot-value pair) embeddings are learned jointly by maximizing a factorized generative likelihood with negative sampling. At test time, item ranking is a softmax over a linear combination of user, query, and conversation embeddings (Eq. 24), and clarifying questions are selected by one of four strategies: GBS, LinRel, GP+EI, and GP+UCB. Experiments on three Amazon categories report that the learned strategies substantially outperform static and conversational baselines after five questions, with ablations and a small online user study supporting the main claims.

Significance. If the reported comparisons were clean, the paper would make a solid contribution: it provides a unified generative training objective for conversational product search, a tractable negative-sampling approximation, and a systematic comparison of question-selection strategies, including bandit/GP approaches, with an online sanity check. The strengths are the explicit likelihood factorization, the inclusion of negative feedback through separate slot embeddings, and the attention to explore-exploit trade-offs. However, the headline empirical claims rest on an offline simulation whose invalid-answer rule creates unequal effective feedback across strategies, and this currently tempers the significance of the gains.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1.4 and Table 5] In the offline protocol, answers whose values are outside the training vocabulary are marked 'invalid' and ignored for ranking updates. Table 5 shows the asymmetry this creates: ConvPS_random receives only 5.0% positive and 0.9% negative feedback, with 94.1% invalid, whereas ConvPS_LinRel receives 71.0% positive and 26.0% negative, with 3.0% invalid. After five questions, random therefore gets about 0.3 effective feedback rounds and LinRel about 4.85. The comparison in Table 4 and Figure 2 is thus not at equal effective feedback, and the random control is not a clean null model of question selection; the learned strategies may be rewarded for selecting slots whose target-item values are in-vocabulary rather than for asking more informative questions. Please report the comparison conditioned on equal effective feedback (e.g., as a function of number of valid answers), or handle OOV answers with a fallback embedding, and report the OOV rate in the online study (Section 4.6).
  2. [Section 3.4.2, Eqs. (17)-(18)] The LinRel update is dimensionally inconsistent as written. With x_q a 1xN row and X an FxN matrix, h_q = x_q (X^T X + lambda I)^{-1} X^T is a 1xF vector, while r is defined as an (l-1)-dimensional vector of received feedback; the inner product h_q . r in Eq. 18 is undefined unless l-1 = F. Moreover, the term c||h_q||/2 is not the LinRel confidence bound, which should be based on x_q^T (X^T X + lambda I)^{-1} x_q. Since ConvPS_LinRel is the best or second-best strategy in Table 4, please correct the equations or state the exact computation used for the reported results.
  3. [Table 4 and Figure 2] No variance estimates are reported anywhere in the main comparison, and the Fisher random test mentioned in Table 4's footnote is not described (randomization unit, number of permutations, whether it is over test user-query pairs or over re-training runs). The gains on Movies & TV are numerically small (e.g., ConvPS_LinRel MAP 0.044 vs best baseline 0.029), so without error bars the reader cannot assess stability. Please add standard deviations or confidence intervals over multiple runs or bootstrap over test pairs, and describe the significance test.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4 footnote] The footnote refers to 'significant differences between ConvNF and ConvPS_init', but no model named ConvNF appears in the paper; the intended variant should be identified.
  2. [Section 4.2, first paragraph] The sentence claiming that ConvPS_random outperforms the baselines on all three metrics is contradicted by Table 4: on Movies & TV, ConvPS_random achieves 0.022 MAP and 0.023 MRR, below every baseline on those metrics, and its NDCG 0.024 exceeds only PMMN's 0.023. The claim should be restricted to the learned question-selection strategies.
  3. [Figure 3] The y-axis label shown for panels (b) and (c) is 'MAP' even though the captions identify those panels as MRR and NDCG; the axis labels should be corrected.
  4. [Section 4.1.6] The batch-size tuning list is given as '[64, 128, 256, 612]', while Figure 5 shows 512 as the largest value; one of these is a typo and should be fixed.
  5. [Section 4.6] The claim that the online user study results are 'in agreement' with Table 4 is hard to verify because Table 6 aggregates over categories and does not report the distribution of target categories or the OOV rate for user answers; please provide these details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the model's objective and ranking rule are self-contained; the simulated user and OOV filtering are evaluation validity concerns, not tautologies.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The training objective (Eq. 13) maximizes the likelihood of observed user-query-conversation-item quadruples through the item generation model and language models, with negative sampling (Eq. 14); no parameter is fitted to test labels or to the evaluation metrics. The ranking rule at test time (Eq. 24) is exactly the scoring function induced by the learned embeddings, so there is no fitted input renamed as a prediction. GBS, LinRel, and the two GP acquisition functions are standard externally established algorithms (Nowak; Auer; GP-UCB/EI), and the authors' self-citations to [84, 86] are application pointers rather than load-bearing derivations. The offline simulation in Section 4.1.4 does construct user answers from the target item's slot values and ignores out-of-vocabulary answers as invalid, and Section 5 explicitly acknowledges the OOV limitation; this is a legitimate threat to the external validity of the simulated comparison, especially because Table 5 shows very different invalid-question ratios across strategies. It is not, however, a circular step in the model's derivation: the ranking update from revealed slot-value feedback is the intended mechanism of any conversational product search system, and the random-question control performs worse while the small online user study provides independent evidence for LinRel. Hence there is no constructed equivalence between inputs and conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 16 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on standard math (softmax, negative sampling, GP bandits) plus several domain assumptions. The most consequential are the oracle-user simulation, the dropping of invalid answers, and the independence decomposition in Eq. 11, all of which are acknowledged in the paper but make the offline evaluation more favorable than real deployment.

free parameters (16)
  • lambda_u_Q_c (combination weights in Eq. 2) = 1 for each
    Hand-chosen weights for user, query, and conversation terms in item ranking; not tuned in reported runs.
  • lambda_I (LinRel ridge) = 0.1
    Regularization for LinRel regression matrix in Eq. 17.
  • e_i (GP noise) = 0.1
    Assumed Gaussian noise level for GP relevance observations in Section 3.4.3.
  • RBF kernel amplitude sigma_squared = not reported
    Required by the RBF kernel in Section 3.4.3 but its value is not specified.
  • gamma (L2 strength) = tuned in [0, 0.01]
    Regularization strength in Eq. 15, optimized by validation.
  • alpha (negative samples) = 5
    Number of negative samples in Eq. 14.
  • c (LinRel explore-exploit) = 4
    Exploration constant in Eq. 18, tuned from [0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10].
  • beta (GP-UCB explore-exploit) = 2
    Exploration weight in Eq. 21, tuned from [0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10].
  • embedding_size = 200
    Dimension t of user, item, word, and slot embeddings, chosen from 100 to 500.
  • batch_size = 64
    Mini-batch size, tuned from [64, 128, 256, 512].
  • initial_learning_rate = 0.5
    SGD initial learning rate, decreased to 0 over 20 epochs.
  • gradient_clip_norm = 5
    Global norm clip for stable training.
  • subsampling_rate_Movies_TV = 1e-6
    Word subsampling rate for the Movies & TV category.
  • subsampling_rate_Cell_Phones = 1e-5
    Word subsampling rate for the Cell Phones & Accessories category.
  • cqa_combine_weight = 0.5 for slot, 0.5 for value
    Eq. 7 defines the slot-value embedding as the unweighted average; the paper calls this ad hoc and notes other functions are possible.
  • epochs = 20
    Number of SGD epochs used for training.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Users answer as if they hold a known target item and reveal its true slot values.
    Section 4.1.4 constructs both training and test answers from the target item's aspect values; without this the offline gains in Table 4 would shrink.
  • domain assumption Out-of-vocabulary answers can be ignored without changing the measured ranking quality.
    Section 4.1.4 drops mismatched answers as 'invalid questions'; this removes hard cases from the evaluation.
  • domain assumption S_u, S_v, and S_uQv are mutually independent, and textual descriptions are independent of conversations.
    Eq. 11 decomposes the joint likelihood under these independence assumptions, stated 'for simplicity' in Section 3.3.5.
  • domain assumption Subcategory titles are a valid proxy for real user queries.
    Section 4.1.1 constructs queries from subcategory titles following prior work, rather than from logged user queries.
  • domain assumption Aspect-value pairs extracted by the external toolkit accurately capture purchase-relevant item attributes.
    All conversations and item and user language models rely on this extraction in Section 3.2 and Section 4.1.4.
  • domain assumption The softmax item-generation model with additive user, query, and conversation embeddings is an appropriate generative model for purchase behavior.
    Eq. 2 and Eq. 24 assume items are generated by the dot product between the item embedding and the weighted sum of context embeddings.
  • standard math Negative sampling with noise distributions P_w, P_c, and P_v approximates the softmax denominators.
    Section 3.3.5 uses standard negative sampling from Mikolov et al. to make training tractable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning to Ask: Conversational Product Search via Representation Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PQFXVCNX

@misc{pith2026241114466,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning to Ask: Conversational Product Search via Representation Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PQFXVCNX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14466}
}
read the original abstract

Online shopping platforms, such as Amazon and AliExpress, are increasingly prevalent in society, helping customers purchase products conveniently. With recent progress in natural language processing, researchers and practitioners shift their focus from traditional product search to conversational product search. Conversational product search enables user-machine conversations and through them collects explicit user feedback that allows to actively clarify the users' product preferences. Therefore, prospective research on an intelligent shopping assistant via conversations is indispensable. Existing publications on conversational product search either model conversations independently from users, queries, and products or lead to a vocabulary mismatch. In this work, we propose a new conversational product search model, ConvPS, to assist users in locating desirable items. The model is first trained to jointly learn the semantic representations of user, query, item, and conversation via a unified generative framework. After learning these representations, they are integrated to retrieve the target items in the latent semantic space. Meanwhile, we propose a set of greedy and explore-exploit strategies to learn to ask the user a sequence of high-performance questions for conversations. Our proposed ConvPS model can naturally integrate the representation learning of the user, query, item, and conversation into a unified generative framework, which provides a promising avenue for constructing accurate and robust conversational product search systems that are flexible and adaptive. Experimental results demonstrate that our ConvPS model significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14466 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The research framework of our ConvPS model. (1) We first construct a question pool via slot-value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance of different question selection strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The performance of ConvPS with different components removed. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of embedding sizes. 64 128 256 512 Batch size 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 MAP ConvPSinit ConvPS (a) MAP 64 128 256 512 Batch size 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 MRR ConvPSinit ConvPS (b) MRR 64 128 256 512 Batch size 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of batch sizes. 0 2 4 6 8 10 Explore-exploit trade-off 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 MAP ConvPSLinRel ConvPSGP + UCB (a) MAP 0 2 4 6 8 10 Explore-exploit trade-off 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 MRR ConvPSLinRel ConvPSGP + UCB (b) MRR 0 2 4 6 8 10 Explore-exploit…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of explore-exploit trade-off. size from 64 to 512. The ConvPS model after 5 questions asked always leads to higher performance compared with ConvPS𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡, and the performance gap between them becomes smaller in the case of a bigger batch size. 4.5.4 Impact of Expl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aman Ahuja, Nikhil Rao, Sumeet Katariya, Karthik Subbian, and Chandan K Reddy. 2020. Language-Agnostic Representation Learning for Product Search on E-Commerce Platforms. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 7–15

    2020

  2. [2]

    Qingyao Ai, Daniel N Hill, SVN Vishwanathan, and W Bruce Croft. 2019. A zero attention model for personalized product search. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 379–388

    2019

  3. [3]

    Qingyao Ai, Yongfeng Zhang, Keping Bi, Xu Chen, and W Bruce Croft. 2017. Learning a hierarchical embedding model for personalized product search. In Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 645–654

    2017

  4. [4]

    Qingyao Ai, Yongfeng Zhang, Keping Bi, and W Bruce Croft. 2019. Explainable product search with a dynamic relation embedding model. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 38, 1 (2019), 1–29

    2019

  5. [5]

    Mohammad Aliannejadi, Julia Kiseleva, Aleksandr Chuklin, Jeff Dalton, and Mikhail Burtsev. 2020. ConvAI3: Generating Clarifying Questions for Open-Domain Dialogue Systems (ClariQ). arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.11352 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    Peter Auer. 2002. Using confidence bounds for exploitation-exploration trade-offs. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3, Nov (2002), 397–422

    2002

  8. [8]

    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

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    Keping Bi, Choon Hui Teo, Yesh Dattatreya, Vijai Mohan, and W Bruce Croft. 2019. A Study of Context Dependencies in Multi-page Product Search. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 2333–2336

    2019

  3. [11]

    Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Y Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam T Kalai. 2016. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? debiasing word embeddings. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    David Carmel, Elad Haramaty, Arnon Lazerson, Liane Lewin-Eytan, and Yoelle Maarek. 2020. Why do people buy seemingly irrelevant items in voice product search? On the relation between product relevance and customer satisfaction in ecommerce. In Proceedings of the 13th Internati...

    2020

  5. [13]

    Claudio Carpineto and Giovanni Romano. 2013. Semantic search log k-anonymization with generalized k-cores of query concept graph. In European Conference on Information Retrieval . 110–121

    2013

  6. [14]

    Yihong Chen, Bei Chen, Xuguang Duan, Jian-Guang Lou, Yue Wang, Wenwu Zhu, and Yong Cao. 2018. Learning-to-Ask: Knowledge Acquisition via 20 Questions. InProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (London, United Kingdom) (K...

    2018

  7. [15]

    Konstantina Christakopoulou and Arindam Banerjee. 2018. Learning to interact with users: A collaborative-bandit approach. In Proceedings of the 2018 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining . SIAM, 612–620

    2018

  8. [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 . 815–824

    2016

  9. [17]

    Jeffrey Dalton, Chenyan Xiong, Vaibhav Kumar, and Jamie Callan. 2020. Cast-19: A dataset for conversational information seeking. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1985–1988

    2020

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    Huizhong Duan, ChengXiang Zhai, Jinxing Cheng, and Abhishek Gattani. 2013. A probabilistic mixture model for mining and analyzing product search log. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management (San Francisco, California, USA) ...

    2013

  12. [20]

    Huizhong Duan, ChengXiang Zhai, Jinxing Cheng, and Abhishek Gattani. 2013. Supporting Keyword Search in Product Database: A Probabilistic Approach. Proc. VLDB Endow. 6, 14 (Sept. 2013), 1786–1797. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication da...

    2013

  13. [21]

    John C Duchi, Michael I Jordan, and Martin J Wainwright. 2014. Privacy aware learning. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 61, 6 (2014), 1–57

    2014

  14. [22]

    Emma J Gerritse, Faegheh Hasibi, and Arjen P de Vries. 2020. Bias in conversational search: The double-edged sword of the personalized knowledge graph. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGIR on International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval. 133–136

    2020

  15. [23]

    Dorota Glowacka, Tuukka Ruotsalo, Ksenia Konuyshkova, Kumaripaba Athukorala, Samuel Kaski, and Giulio Jacucci

  16. [24]

    Yangyang Guo, Zhiyong Cheng, Liqiang Nie, Yinglong Wang, Jun Ma, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2019. Attentive Long Short-Term Preference Modeling for Personalized Product Search. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 37, 2 (2019), 19

    2019

  17. [25]

    Yangyang Guo, Zhiyong Cheng, Liqiang Nie, Xin-Shun Xu, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2018. Multi-modal Preference Modeling for Product Search. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (MM ’18). 1865–1873

    2018

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Ben He, Jimmy Xiangji Huang, and Xiaofeng Zhou. 2011. Modeling term proximity for probabilistic information retrieval models. Inf. Sci. 181, 14 (2011), 3017–3031

    2011

  20. [28]

    Huang Hu, Xianchao Wu, Bingfeng Luo, Chongyang Tao, Can Xu, Wei Wu, and Zhan Chen. 2018. Playing 20 Question Game with Policy-Based Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07645 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Yujing Hu, Qing Da, Anxiang Zeng, Yang Yu, and Yinghui Xu. 2018. Reinforcement learning to rank in e-commerce search engine: Formalization, analysis, and application. InProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining . 368–377

    2018

  22. [30]

    Robertson

    Xiangji Huang, Fuchun Peng, Dale Schuurmans, Nick Cercone, and Stephen E. Robertson. 2003. Applying Machine Learning to Text Segmentation for Information Retrieval. Inf. Retr. 6, 3-4 (2003), 333–362

    2003

  23. [31]

    Andrea Iovine, Pasquale Lops, Fedelucio Narducci, Marco de Gemmis, and Giovanni Semeraro. 2021. An empirical evaluation of active learning strategies for profile elicitation in a conversational recommender system. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems (2021), 1–26

    2021

  24. [32]

    Ruwang Jiao, Sanyou Zeng, Changhe Li, Yuhong Jiang, and Yaochu Jin. 2019. A complete expected improvement criterion for Gaussian process assisted highly constrained expensive optimization. Information Sciences 471 (2019), 80–96

    2019

  25. [33]

    Shubhra Kanti Karmaker Santu, Parikshit Sondhi, and ChengXiang Zhai. 2017. On application of learning to rank for e-commerce search. In Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 475–484

    2017

  26. [34]

    Tom Kenter and Maarten de Rijke. 2017. Attentive memory networks: Efficient machine reading for conversational search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.07229 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kimiya Keyvan and Jimmy Xiangji Huang. 2022. How to Approach Ambiguous Queries in Conversational Search? A Survey of Techniques, Approaches, Tools and Challenges. ACM Comput. Surv. (may 2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Johannes Kiesel, Arefeh Bahrami, Benno Stein, Avishek Anand, and Matthias Hagen. 2018. Toward voice query clarification. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval . 1257–1260

    2018

  29. [37]

    Antonios Minas Krasakis, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Nikos Voskarides, and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2020. Analysing the effect of clarifying questions on document ranking in conversational search. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGIR on International Conference on Theory of Information R...

    2020

  30. [38]

    Hyun-Hwa Lee and Jihyun Kim. 2008. The effects of shopping orientations on consumers’ satisfaction with product search and purchases in a multi-channel environment. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 12, 2 (2008), 193–216

    2008

  31. [39]

    Omer Levy and Yoav Goldberg. 2014. Neural word embedding as implicit matrix factorization. Advances in neural information processing systems 27 (2014), 2177–2185

    2014

  32. [40]

    Dan Li, Zhaochun Ren, and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2021. CrowdGP: a Gaussian Process Model for Inferring Relevance from Crowd Annotations. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 . 1821–1832

    2021

  33. [41]

    Hang Li and Jun Xu. 2014. Semantic matching in search. Foundations and Trends in Information retrieval 7, 5 (2014), 343–469

    2014

  34. [42]

    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. ACM Transactions on Informati...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Soon Chong Johnson Lim, Ying Liu, and Wing Bun Lee. 2010. Multi-facet product information search and retrieval using semantically annotated product family ontology. Information Processing & Management 46, 4 (2010), 479 – 493

    2010

  36. [44]

    Aldo Lipani, Ben Carterette, and Emine Yilmaz. 2021. How am I doing?: Evaluating conversational search systems offline. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 39, 4 (2021), 1–22

    2021

  37. [45]

    Julian McAuley, Christopher Targett, Qinfeng Shi, and Anton Van Den Hengel. 2015. Image-based recommendations on styles and substitutes. In Proceedings of the 38th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 43–52

    2015

  38. [46]

    Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26 (2013), 3111–3119

    2013

  39. [47]

    Tri Nguyen, Mir Rosenberg, Xia Song, Jianfeng Gao, Saurabh Tiwary, Rangan Majumder, and Li Deng. 2016. MS MARCO: A human generated machine reading comprehension dataset. In CoCo@ NIPS

    2016

  40. [48]

    Robert Nowak. 2008. Generalized binary search. In 2008 46th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing. 568–574

    2008

  41. [49]

    Hamid Palangi, Li Deng, Yelong Shen, Jianfeng Gao, Xiaodong He, Jianshu Chen, Xinying Song, and Rabab Ward. 2016. Deep sentence embedding using long short-term memory networks: Analysis and application to information retrieval. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Langu...

    2016

  42. [50]

    Jay M Ponte and W Bruce Croft. 1998. A language modeling approach to information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval . 275–281

    1998

  43. [51]

    Chen Qu, Liu Yang, W Bruce Croft, Johanne R Trippas, Yongfeng Zhang, and Minghui Qiu. 2018. Analyzing and characterizing user intent in information-seeking conversations. In The 41st international acm sigir conference on research & development in information retrieval . 989–992

    2018

  44. [52]

    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

  45. [53]

    Sudha Rao and Hal Daumé III. 2018. Learning to Ask Good Questions: Ranking Clarification Questions using Neural Expected Value of Perfect Information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04655 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Pengjie Ren, Zhongkun Liu, Xiaomeng Song, Hongtao Tian, Zhumin Chen, Zhaochun Ren, and Maarten de Rijke

  47. [55]

    Xuhui Ren, Hongzhi Yin, Tong Chen, Hao Wang, Zi Huang, and Kai Zheng. 2021. Learning to Ask Appropriate Questions in Conversational Recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04774 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    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). 1160–1170

    2020

  49. [57]

    Jennifer Rowley. 2000. Product search in e-shopping: a review and research propositions.Journal of consumer marketing (2000)

    2000

  50. [58]

    Tuukka Ruotsalo, Jaakko Peltonen, Manuel JA Eugster, Dorota Głowacka, Patrik Floréen, Petri Myllymäki, Giulio Jacucci, and Samuel Kaski. 2018. Interactive intent modeling for exploratory search. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 36, 4 (2018), 1–46

    2018

  51. [59]

    Yueming Sun and Yi Zhang. 2018. Conversational recommender system. In The 41st international acm sigir conference on research & development in information retrieval . 235–244

    2018

  52. [60]

    Shan Suthaharan. 2016. Support vector machine. In Machine learning models and algorithms for big data classification . Springer, 207–235

    2016

  53. [61]

    Simon Tong. 2001. Active learning: theory and applications . Stanford University

    2001

  54. [62]

    Trippas, Damiano Spina, Lawrence Cavedon, and Mark Sanderson

    Johanne R. Trippas, Damiano Spina, Lawrence Cavedon, and Mark Sanderson. 2017. How Do People Interact in Conversational Speech-Only Search Tasks: A Preliminary Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Conference Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (Oslo, Norw...

    2017

  55. [63]

    Christophe Van Gysel, Maarten de Rijke, and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2016. Learning Latent Vector Spaces for Product Search. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (Indianapolis, Indiana, USA) (CIKM ’16). 165–174

    2016

  56. [64]

    Christophe Van Gysel, Maarten de Rijke, and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2018. Mix ’n Match: Integrating Text Matching and Product Substitutability within Product Search. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (Torino, Italy) (CI...

    2018

  57. [65]

    Damir Vandic, Flavius Frasincar, and Uzay Kaymak. 2013. Facet Selection Algorithms for Web Product Search. In Proceedings of the 22Nd ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (San Francisco, California, USA) (CIKM ’13). 2327–2332

    2013

  58. [66]

    Damir Vandic, Jan-Willem van Dam, and Flavius Frasincar. 2012. Faceted product search powered by the Semantic Web. Decision Support Systems 53, 3 (2012), 425 – 437. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: November 2022. Learning to A...

    2012

  59. [67]

    Alexandra Vtyurina, Denis Savenkov, Eugene Agichtein, and Charles LA Clarke. 2017. Exploring conversational search with humans, assistants, and wizards. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2187–2193

    2017

  60. [68]

    Ivan Vulić and Marie-Francine Moens. 2015. Monolingual and cross-lingual information retrieval models based on (bilingual) word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 38th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 363–372

    2015

  61. [69]

    Qi Wang, Xinchen Liu, Wu Liu, An-An Liu, Wenyin Liu, and Tao Mei. 2020. MetaSearch: Incremental Product Search via Deep Meta-Learning. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 29 (2020), 7549–7564

    2020

  62. [70]

    Zhenduo Wang and Qingyao Ai. 2021. Controlling the Risk of Conversational Search via Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 . 1968–1977

    2021

  63. [71]

    Liang Wu, Diane Hu, Liangjie Hong, and Huan Liu. 2018. Turning clicks into purchases: Revenue optimization for product search in e-commerce. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval. 365–374

    2018

  64. [72]

    Teng Xiao, Jiaxin Ren, Zaiqiao Meng, Huan Sun, and Shangsong Liang. 2019. Dynamic bayesian metric learning for personalized product search. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 1693–1702

    2019

  65. [73]

    Jun Yu, Sunil Mohan, Duangmanee Putthividhya, and Weng-Keen Wong. 2014. Latent dirichlet allocation based diversified retrieval for e-commerce search. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. 463–472

    2014

  66. [74]

    Hamed Zamani, Susan Dumais, Nick Craswell, Paul Bennett, and Gord Lueck. 2020. Generating clarifying questions for information retrieval. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 . 418–428

    2020

  67. [75]

    Hamed Zamani, Gord Lueck, Everest Chen, Rodolfo Quispe, Flint Luu, and Nick Craswell. 2020. Mimics: A large-scale data collection for search clarification. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 3189–3196

    2020

  68. [76]

    Hamed Zamani, Bhaskar Mitra, Everest Chen, Gord Lueck, Fernando Diaz, Paul N Bennett, Nick Craswell, and Susan T Dumais. 2020. Analyzing and Learning from User Interactions for Search Clarification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00166 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Xiaoying Zhang, Hong Xie, Hang Li, and John CS Lui. 2020. Conversational contextual bandit: Algorithm and application. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 . 662–672

    2020

  70. [78]

    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

  71. [79]

    Yongfeng Zhang, Guokun Lai, Min Zhang, Yi Zhang, Yiqun Liu, and Shaoping Ma. 2014. Explicit factor models for explainable recommendation based on phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 37th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research & development in informa...

    2014

  72. [80]

    Yuan Zhang, Dong Wang, and Yan Zhang. 2019. Neural IR Meets Graph Embedding: A Ranking Model for Product Search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08286 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Zhiling Zhang and Kenny Q Zhu. 2021. Diverse and Specific Clarification Question Generation with Keywords. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10317 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2018. Global-locally self-attentive encoder for dialogue state tracking. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . 1458–1467

    2018

  75. [83]

    Jie Zou, Mohammad Aliannejadi, Evangelos Kanoulas, Maria Soledad Pera, and Yiqun Liu. 2022. Users Meet Clarifying Questions: Toward a Better Understanding of User Interactions for Search Clarification. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. (mar 2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3524110

    2022 doi

  76. [84]

    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 . 881–890

    2020

  77. [85]

    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 . 369–378

    2019

  78. [86]

    Jie Zou and Evangelos Kanoulas. 2020. Towards Question-Based High-Recall Information Retrieval: Locating the Last Few Relevant Documents for Technology-Assisted Reviews. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 38, 3, Article 27 (May 2020), 35 pages

    2020

  79. [87]

    Jie Zou, Evangelos Kanoulas, and Yiqun Liu. 2020. An Empirical Study on Clarifying Question-Based Systems. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management . 2361–2364

    2020

  80. [88]

    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 Inform...

    2022

  81. [2013]

    In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces

    Directing exploratory search: Reinforcement learning from user interactions with keywords. In Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces . 117–128

    2013

  82. [2021]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.08301 (2021)

    Wizard of Search Engine: Access to Information Through Conversations with Search Engines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.08301 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.