Conversational recommender systems (CRSs) provide users with an interactive means to express preferences and receive real-time personalized recommendations. The success of these systems is heavily influenced by the preference elicitation process. While existing research mainly focuses on what questions to ask during preference elicitation, there is a notable gap in understanding what role broader interaction patterns - including tone, pacing, and level of proactiveness - play in supporting users in completing a given task. This study investigates the impact of different conversational styles on preference elicitation, task performance, and user satisfaction with CRSs. We conducted a controlled experiment in the context of scientific literature recommendation, contrasting two distinct conversational styles - high involvement (fast-paced, direct, and proactive with frequent prompts) and high considerateness (polite and accommodating, prioritizing clarity and user comfort) - alongside a flexible experimental condition where users could switch between the two. Our results indicate that adapting conversational strategies based on user expertise and allowing flexibility between styles can enhance both user satisfaction and the effectiveness of recommendations in CRSs. Overall, our findings hold important implications for the design of future CRSs.

The use of simulation techniques is not foreign to information retrieval. In the past, simulation has been employed, for example, for constructing test collections and for model performance prediction and analysis in a broad array of information access scenarios. Nevertheless, a standardized methodology for performance evaluation via simulation has not yet been developed. The goal of this workshop is to create a forum for researchers and practitioners to promote methodology development and more widespread use of simulation for evaluation by: (1) identifying problem settings and application scenarios; (2) sharing tools, techniques, and experiences; (3) characterizing potentials and limitations; and (4) developing a research agenda.