The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has redefined the AI landscape, particularly due to their ability to encode factual and commonsense knowledge, and their outstanding performance in tasks requiring reasoning. Despite these advances, hallucinations and reasoning errors remain a significant barrier to their deployment in high-stakes settings. In this work, we observe that even the most prominent LLMs, such as OpenAI-o1, suffer from high rates of reasoning errors and hallucinations on tasks requiring commonsense reasoning over obscure, long-tail entities. To investigate this limitation, we present a new dataset for Commonsense reasoning over Long-Tail entities (CoLoTa), that consists of 3,300 queries from question answering and claim verification tasks and covers a diverse range of commonsense reasoning skills. We remark that CoLoTa can also serve as a Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) dataset since the support of knowledge required to answer its queries is present in the Wikidata knowledge graph. However, as opposed to existing KGQA benchmarks that merely focus on factoid questions, our CoLoTa queries also require commonsense reasoning. Our experiments with strong LLM-based KGQA methodologies indicate their severe inability to answer queries involving commonsense reasoning. Hence, we propose CoLoTa as a novel benchmark for assessing both (i) LLM commonsense reasoning capabilities and their robustness to hallucinations on long-tail entities and (ii) the commonsense reasoning capabilities of KGQA methods.

Designing preference elicitation (PE) methodologies that can quickly ascertain a user’s top item preferences in a cold-start setting is a key challenge for building effective and personalized conversational recommendation (ConvRec) systems. While large language models (LLMs) enable fully natural language (NL) PE dialogues, we hypothesize that monolithic LLM NL-PE approaches lack the multi-turn, decision-theoretic reasoning required to effectively balance the exploration and exploitation of user preferences towards an arbitrary item set. In contrast, traditional Bayesian optimization PE methods define theoretically optimal PE strategies, but cannot generate arbitrary NL queries or reason over content in NL item descriptions – requiring users to express preferences via ratings or comparisons of unfamiliar items. To overcome the limitations of both approaches, we formulate NL-PE in a Bayesian Optimization (BO) framework that seeks to actively elicit NL feedback to identify the best recommendation. Key challenges in generalizing BO to deal with natural language feedback include determining: (a) how to leverage LLMs to model the likelihood of NL preference feedback as a function of item utilities, and (b) how to design an acquisition function for NL BO that can elicit preferences in the infinite space of language. We demonstrate our framework in a novel NL-PE algorithm, PEBOL, which uses: 1) Natural Language Inference (NLI) between user preference utterances and NL item descriptions to maintain Bayesian preference beliefs, and 2) BO strategies such as Thompson Sampling (TS) and Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) to guide LLM query generation. We numerically evaluate our methods in controlled simulations, finding that after 10 turns of dialogue, PEBOL can achieve an MRR@10 of up to 0.27 compared to the best monolithic LLM baseline’s MRR@10 of 0.17, despite relying on earlier and smaller LLMs.1

Users may demand recommendations with highly personalized requirements involving logical operations, e.g., the intersection of two requirements, where such requirements naturally form structured logical queries on knowledge graphs (KGs). To date, existing recommender systems lack the capability to tackle users' complex logical requirements. In this work, we formulate the problem of recommendation with users' logical requirements (LogicRec) and construct benchmark datasets for LogicRec. Furthermore, we propose an initial solution for LogicRec based on logical requirement retrieval and user preference retrieval, where we face two challenges. First, KGs are incomplete in nature. Therefore, there are always missing true facts, which entails that the answers to logical requirements can not be completely found in KGs. In this case, item selection based on the answers to logical queries is not applicable. We thus resort to logical query embedding (LQE) to jointly infer missing facts and retrieve items based on logical requirements. Second, answer sets are under-exploited. Existing LQE methods can only deal with query-answer pairs, where queries in our case are the intersected user preferences and logical requirements. However, the logical requirements and user preferences have different answer sets, offering us richer knowledge about the requirements and preferences by providing requirement-item and preference-item pairs. Thus, we design a multi-task knowledge-sharing mechanism to exploit these answer sets collectively. Extensive experimental results demonstrate the significance of the LogicRec task and the effectiveness of our proposed method.

Conversational recommender systems (CRS) enhance the expressivity and personalization of recommendations through multiple turns of user-system interaction. Critiquing is a well-known paradigm for CRS that allows users to iteratively refine recommendations by providing feedback about attributes of recommended items. While existing critiquing methodologies utilize direct attributes of items to address user requests such as 'I prefer Western movies', the opportunity of incorporating richer contextual and side information about items stored in Knowledge Graphs (KG) into the critiquing paradigm has been overlooked. Employing this substantial knowledge together with a well-established reasoning methodology paves the way for critique-based recommenders to allow for complex knowledge-based feedback (e.g., 'I like movies featuring war side effects on veterans') which may arise in natural user-system conversations. In this work, we aim to increase the flexibility of critique-based recommendation by integrating KGs and propose a novel Bayesian inference framework that enables reasoning with relational knowledge-based feedback. We study and formulate the framework considering a Gaussian likelihood and evaluate it on two well-known recommendation datasets with KGs. Our evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in leveraging indirect KG-based feedback (i.e., preferred relational properties of items rather than preferred items themselves), often improving personalized recommendations over a one-shot recommender by more than 15%. This work enables a new paradigm for using rich knowledge content and reasoning over indirect evidence as a mechanism for critiquing interactions with CRS.