跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.05900 · v1

Weaver: Weaving Preference Evidence through Incremental Reasoning for Personalized Retrieval-Augmented Generation

首次提交 2026-11-04 11:48
版本更新 2026-11-04 11:48
雷达观测 2026-11-05 10:08
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Personalized retrieval-augmented generation requires extracting and applying user preferences from extended interaction histories. This task is challenging because preference evidence is scattered across past conversations and remains bound to specific temporal and situational contexts. Consequently, isolated fragments rarely provide complete support for a response, while preferences expressed under different conditions are easily conflated. To address these limitations, we propose Weaver, a framework that incrementally weaves memory-conditioned retrieval trajectories with compositional preference reasoning for personalized responses. Weaver operates on a Dual-Layer Retrieval and Reasoning Graph that couples an upper Intent Dependency Graph with a lower Memory-Conditioned Retrieval Trajectory Graph. Dependency Information Gap Tracking represents the information needed to answer the current request and its prerequisite dependencies in the upper graph. Memory-Conditioned Incremental Retrieval uses established premises and clues from retrieved conversations to locate missing evidence, recording the resulting retrieval trajectories in the lower graph. Scope-Aware Compositional Reasoning jointly interprets the accumulated evidence to determine which preferences apply to the request. It identifies complementary and alternative support and distinguishes conflicting claims within the same temporal and situational context. These conclusions iteratively update task premises and remaining information gaps, guiding subsequent retrieval to establish a coherent contextual basis for the final response. Experiments on personalized RAG benchmarks, particularly PersonaMem, demonstrate that Weaver outperforms leading baselines in both evidence completeness and answer quality.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-04 11:48 · 最新观测版本

Weaver: Weaving Preference Evidence through Incremental Reasoning for Personalized Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Personalized retrieval-augmented generation requires extracting and applying user preferences from extended interaction histories. This task is challenging because preference evidence is scattered across past conversations and remains bound to specific temporal and situational contexts. Consequently, isolated fragments rarely provide complete support for a response, while preferences expressed under different conditions are easily conflated. To address these limitations, we propose Weaver, a framework that incrementally weaves memory-conditioned retrieval trajectories with compositional preference reasoning for personalized responses. Weaver operates on a Dual-Layer Retrieval and Reasoning Graph that couples an upper Intent Dependency Graph with a lower Memory-Conditioned Retrieval Trajectory Graph. Dependency Information Gap Tracking represents the information needed to answer the current request and its prerequisite dependencies in the upper graph. Memory-Conditioned Incremental Retrieval uses established premises and clues from retrieved conversations to locate missing evidence, recording the resulting retrieval trajectories in the lower graph. Scope-Aware Compositional Reasoning jointly interprets the accumulated evidence to determine which preferences apply to the request. It identifies complementary and alternative support and distinguishes conflicting claims within the same temporal and situational context. These conclusions iteratively update task premises and remaining information gaps, guiding subsequent retrieval to establish a coherent contextual basis for the final response. Experiments on personalized RAG benchmarks, particularly PersonaMem, demonstrate that Weaver outperforms leading baselines in both evidence completeness and answer quality.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗