skip to main content

Title: Rethinking Conversational Recommendations: Is Decision Tree All You Need?
Conversational recommender systems (CRS) dynamically obtain the users' preferences via multi-turn questions and answers. The existing CRS solutions are widely dominated by deep reinforcement learning algorithms. However, deep reinforcement learning methods are often criticized for lacking interpretability and requiring a large amount of training data to perform.In this paper, we explore a simpler alternative and propose a decision tree based solution to CRS. The underlying challenge in CRS is that the same item can be described differently by different users. We show that decision trees are sufficient to characterize the interactions between users and items, and solve the key challenges in multi-turn CRS: namely which questions to ask, how to rank the candidate items, when to recommend, and how to handle user's negative feedback on the recommendations. Firstly, the training of decision trees enables us to find questions which effectively narrow down the search space. Secondly, by learning embeddings for each item and tree nodes, the candidate items can be ranked based on their similarity to the conversation context encoded by the tree nodes. Thirdly, the diversity of items associated with each tree node allows us to develop an early stopping strategy to decide when to make recommendations. Fourthly, when the user rejects a recommendation, we adaptively choose the next decision tree to improve subsequent questions and recommendations. Extensive experiments on three publicly available benchmark CRS datasets show that our approach provides significant improvement to the state of the art CRS methods.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2007492 1553568 2128019
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management
Page Range / eLocation ID:
686 to 695
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    Regret minimization has proved to be a versatile tool for tree- form sequential decision making and extensive-form games. In large two-player zero-sum imperfect-information games, mod- ern extensions of counterfactual regret minimization (CFR) are currently the practical state of the art for computing a Nash equilibrium. Most regret-minimization algorithms for tree-form sequential decision making, including CFR, require (i) an exact model of the player’s decision nodes, observation nodes, and how they are linked, and (ii) full knowledge, at all times t, about the payoffs—even in parts of the decision space that are not encountered at time t. Recently, there has been growing interest towards relaxing some of those restric- tions and making regret minimization applicable to settings for which reinforcement learning methods have traditionally been used—for example, those in which only black-box access to the environment is available. We give the first, to our knowl- edge, regret-minimization algorithm that guarantees sublinear regret with high probability even when requirement (i)—and thus also (ii)—is dropped. We formalize an online learning setting in which the strategy space is not known to the agent and gets revealed incrementally whenever the agent encoun- ters new decision points. We give an efficient algorithm that achieves O(T 3/4) regret with high probability for that setting, even when the agent faces an adversarial environment. Our experiments show it significantly outperforms the prior algo- rithms for the problem, which do not have such guarantees. It can be used in any application for which regret minimization is useful: approximating Nash equilibrium or quantal response equilibrium, approximating coarse correlated equilibrium in multi-player games, learning a best response, learning safe opponent exploitation, and online play against an unknown opponent/environment. 
    more » « less
  2. Decision Forests are popular machine learning techniques that assist scientists to extract knowledge from massive data sets. This class of tool remains popular because of their interpretability and ease of use, unlike other modern machine learning methods, such as kernel machines and deep learning. Decision forests also scale well for use with large data because training and run time operations are trivially parallelizable allowing for high inference throughputs. A negative aspect of these forests, and an untenable property for many real time applications, is their high inference latency caused by the combination of large model sizes with random memory access patterns. We present memory packing techniques and a novel tree traversal method to overcome this deficiency. The result of our system is a grouping of trees into a hierarchical structure. At low levels, we pack the nodes of multiple trees into contiguous memory blocks so that each memory access fetches data for multiple trees. At higher levels, we use leaf cardinality to identify the most popular paths through a tree and collocate those paths in contiguous cache lines. We extend this layout with a re-ordering of the tree traversal algorithm to take advantage of the increased memory throughput provided by out-of-order execution and cache-line prefetching. Together, these optimizations increase the performance and parallel scalability of classification in ensembles by a factor of ten over an optimized C++ implementation and a popular R-language implementation. 
    more » « less
  3. Discretization-based approaches to solving online reinforcement learning problems are studied extensively on applications such as resource allocation and cache management. The two major questions in designing discretization-based algorithms are how to create the discretization and when to refine it. There are several experimental results investigating heuristic approaches to these questions but little theoretical treatment. In this paper, we provide a unified theoretical analysis of model-free and model-based, tree-based adaptive hierarchical partitioning methods for online reinforcement learning. We show how our algorithms take advantage of inherent problem structure by providing guarantees that scale with respect to the “zooming” instead of the ambient dimension, an instance-dependent quantity measuring the benignness of the optimal [Formula: see text] function. Many applications in computing systems and operations research require algorithms that compete on three facets: low sample complexity, mild storage requirements, and low computational burden for policy evaluation and training. Our algorithms are easily adapted to operating constraints, and our theory provides explicit bounds across each of the three facets. Funding: This work is supported by funding from the National Science Foundation [Grants ECCS-1847393, DMS-1839346, CCF-1948256, and CNS-1955997] and the Army Research Laboratory [Grant W911NF-17-1-0094]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at . 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    In this paper, we address the difficulty of solving large-scale multi-dimensional knapsack instances (MKP), presenting a novel deep reinforcement learning (DRL) framework. In this DRL framework, we train different agents compatible with a discrete action space for sequential decision-making while still satisfying any resource constraint of the MKP. This novel framework incorporates the decision variable values in the 2D DRL where the agent is responsible for assigning a value of 1 or 0 to each of the variables. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first DRL model of its kind in which a 2D environment is formulated, and an element of the DRL solution matrix represents an item of the MKP. Our framework is configured to solve MKP instances of different dimensions and distributions. We propose a K-means approach to obtain an initial feasible solution that is used to train the DRL agent. We train four different agents in our framework and present the results comparing each of them with the CPLEX commercial solver. The results show that our agents can learn and generalize over instances with different sizes and distributions. Our DRL framework shows that it can solve medium-sized instances at least 45 times faster in CPU solution time and at least 10 times faster for large instances, with a maximum solution gap of 0.28% compared to the performance of CPLEX. Furthermore, at least 95% of the items are predicted in line with the CPLEX solution. Computations with DRL also provide a better optimality gap with respect to state-of-the-art approaches.

    more » « less
  5. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. 
    more » « less