BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Claudio Pomo

Claudio Pomo contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Information RetrievalArtificial IntelligenceComputation and LanguageComputational ComplexityComputer Vision

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Do Composed Image Retrieval Benchmarks Require Multimodal Composition?

Composed Image Retrieval (CIR) is a multimodal retrieval task where a query consists of a reference image and a textual modification, and the goal is to retrieve a target image satisfying both. In principle, strong performance on CIR benchmarks is assumed to require multimodal composition, i.e., combining complementary information from reference image and textual modification. In this work, we show that this assumption does not always hold. Across four widely used CIR benchmarks and eleven Generalist Multimodal Embedding models, a large fraction of queries can be solved using a single modality (from 32.2% to 83.6%), revealing pervasive unimodal shortcuts. Thus, high CIR performance can arise from unimodal signals rather than true multimodal composition. To better understand this issue, we perform a two-stage audit. First, we identify shortcut-solvable queries through cross-model analysis. Second, we conduct human validation on 4,741 shortcut-free queries, of which only 1,689 are well-formed, with common issues including ambiguous edits and mismatched targets. Re-evaluating models on this validated subset reveals qualitatively different behaviour: queries can no longer be solved with a single modality, and successful retrieval requires combining both inputs. While accuracy decreases, reliance on multimodal information increases. Overall, current CIR benchmarks conflate shortcut-solvable, noisy, and genuinely compositional queries, leading to an overestimation of model capability in multimodal composition.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Conversational Recommendation: Theoretical Model and Complexity Analysis

Recommender systems are software applications that help users find items of interest in situations of information overload in a personalized way, using knowledge about the needs and preferences of individual users. In conversational recommendation approaches, these needs and preferences are acquired by the system in an interactive, multi-turn dialog. A common approach in the literature to drive such dialogs is to incrementally ask users about their preferences regarding desired and undesired item features or regarding individual items. A central research goal in this context is efficiency, evaluated with respect to the number of required interactions until a satisfying item is found. This is usually accomplished by making inferences about the best next question to ask to the user. Today, research on dialog efficiency is almost entirely empirical, aiming to demonstrate, for example, that one strategy for selecting questions is better than another one in a given application. With this work, we complement empirical research with a theoretical, domain-independent model of conversational recommendation. This model, which is designed to cover a range of application scenarios, allows us to investigate the efficiency of conversational approaches in a formal way, in particular with respect to the computational complexity of devising optimal interaction strategies. Through such a theoretical analysis we show that finding an efficient conversational strategy is NP-hard, and in PSPACE in general, but for particular kinds of catalogs the upper bound lowers to POLYLOGSPACE. From a practical point of view, this result implies that catalog characteristics can strongly influence the efficiency of individual conversational strategies and should therefore be considered when designing new strategies. A preliminary empirical analysis on datasets derived from a real-world one aligns with our findings.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Top-N Recommendation Algorithms: A Quest for the State-of-the-Art

Research on recommender systems algorithms, like other areas of applied machine learning, is largely dominated by efforts to improve the state-of-the-art, typically in terms of accuracy measures. Several recent research works however indicate that the reported improvements over the years sometimes "don't add up", and that methods that were published several years ago often outperform the latest models when evaluated independently. Different factors contribute to this phenomenon, including that some researchers probably often only fine-tune their own models but not the baselines. In this paper, we report the outcomes of an in-depth, systematic, and reproducible comparison of ten collaborative filtering algorithms - covering both traditional and neural models - on several common performance measures on three datasets which are frequently used for evaluation in the recent literature. Our results show that there is no consistent winner across datasets and metrics for the examined top-n recommendation task. Moreover, we find that for none of the accuracy measurements any of the considered neural models led to the best performance. Regarding the performance ranking of algorithms across the measurements, we found that linear models, nearest-neighbor methods, and traditional matrix factorization consistently perform well for the evaluated modest-sized, but commonly-used datasets. Our work shall therefore serve as a guideline for researchers regarding existing baselines to consider in future performance comparisons. Moreover, by providing a set of fine-tuned baseline models for different datasets, we hope that our work helps to establish a common understanding of the state-of-the-art for top-n recommendation tasks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access