Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 99 references

Display Content, Display Methods and Evaluation Methods of the HCI in Explainable Recommender Systems: A Survey

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A survey of explainable recommender systems puts the HCI layer into one four-stage lifecycle framework—data input, recommendation algorithms, explanation display, and evaluation—and argues that video-based explanations are a newly…

desk verdict Useful taxonomy-driven survey with a wobbly literature sample; the 'first video explanations' claim is not established but the framework itself is worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.09065 v1 pith:CDTOM3OM submitted 2025-05-14 cs.HC cs.IR

Weiqing Li , Yue Xu , Yuefeng Li , Yinghui Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.IR
keywords explainablerecommendersystemshuman-computerinteractionexplanationdisplaycontenttaxonomymethodsvideo-basedevaluationlifecycleframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Explainable recommender systems are usually surveyed from the algorithm side, leaving the ways explanations are actually shown to users scattered across inconsistent taxonomies. This paper tries to fix that by proposing a unified, lifecycle-scale framework with four stages: data input, recommendation algorithms, explanation display, and evaluation. Within that framework it organizes the HCI layer into display content (user-based, item-based, feature-based, logical-based, hybrid), display methods (text, visualization, hybrid-element, multimedia), and both qualitative and quantitative evaluation. It also argues that video-based explanations are a distinct and promising display direction that prior reviews have neglected. A reader should care because the framework promises a common vocabulary for designing, comparing, and testing explanations across different recommender systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the four-stage lifecycle framework: data input, recommendation algorithms, explanation display, and evaluation. It does not replace algorithm taxonomies; it relocates them inside a process, so an explanation is described by what data feeds it, which algorithm generates it, how it is displayed, and how it is measured. The display-content taxonomy (user-, item-, feature-, logical-, hybrid-based) is carried by the intermediary-entity idea—the user, item, or feature that links the current user to the recommended item—while the display-method taxonomy is carried by presentation format: text, visualization, hybrid-element, and multimedia. The evaluation stage is carried by quantitative metrics such as explainability precision and recall, feature matching, coverage, diversity, fidelity, and confidence, together with qualitative criteria anchored in the seven classic explanation goals plus dimensions such as stability and cognitive load.

What would settle it

A broader search that includes non-English publications, industry interfaces, and demo systems could settle the taxonomy's completeness: if it finds an explanation display that fits none of the five content types or none of the four method types, the proposed framework is incomplete. Likewise, locating a published video-based explainable recommendation method would directly contradict the paper's novelty claim about video explanations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the HCI layer of explainable recommender systems is not a jumble of interface tricks but a structured space, and that this space is best described as a process rather than a static taxonomy. The proposed four-stage framework traces explanation content from user, item, feature, review, and process data through the recommendation or explanation algorithm into a display stage and then an evaluation stage. Display content is classified into user-, item-, feature-, logical-, and hybrid-based explanations; display methods into textual, visualization, hybrid-element, and multimedia explanations; and evaluation into quantitative methods (online and offline, with item-based or feature-based metrics) and qualitative methods (user-perception criteria such as transparency, trust, effectiveness, persuasiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, and newer dimensions like stability). The paper further claims that multimedia, especially video, is an underused but viable explanation method supported by existing video summarization, highlight detection, and captioning techniques, and that responsiveness and cognitive load are the clearest gaps in current evaluation practice.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's completeness rests on the assumption that the 102-paper sample covers the range of HCI display and evaluation work in explainable recommender systems; if relevant displays or evaluation studies were missed, the unified categories and the video-explanation novelty claim would be unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A designer can use the framework to choose a data input, an algorithm family, an explanation content type, a display format, and an evaluation dimension from one coherent map instead of from competing taxonomies.
  • Video-based explanations become a fourth display method, with video summarization, highlight detection, and captioning as concrete technical pathways and content availability, relevance, and scalability as the open problems.
  • Using the evaluation stage, a researcher can choose between offline metrics (explainability precision and recall, feature matching and coverage, fidelity) and user-perception criteria (transparency, trust, effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction), which is the paper's recommended way to test an XRS.
  • Because overly detailed explanations can reintroduce the cognitive burden that recommender systems were meant to remove, future hybrid and multimedia explanation designs should prioritize relevant information and clear presentation, and should measure cognitive load directly.
  • Qualitative evaluation remains organized around the seven classic explanation criteria, but the paper identifies responsiveness and cognitive load as dimensions that still lack standardized measurement methods.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If display content and display method are truly independent axes, then video explanations could be attached to any content type; testing all cells of that content-by-method matrix would be a natural next design exercise.
  • The paper's offline metrics could be extended to video by scoring whether the temporal segment a video highlights corresponds to the item feature named in the explanation; the paper does not propose such temporal metrics.
  • Because the underlying sample is English-language and full-text only, a broader corpus including non-English work, industry interfaces, or demo tracks might reveal display formats that do not fit the four method classes; that is a testable completeness check rather than a settled conclusion.
  • Video explanations may have a double effect: richer information for novices but higher cognitive load; the paper flags cognitive load generally but does not tie it to user expertise, so an A/B study split by user expertise would fill that gap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a survey of the human-computer interaction (HCI) layer of explainable recommender systems (XRS). Following a PRISMA-style literature selection that reportedly yields 102 primary studies, the authors propose a four-stage lifecycle framework (data input, recommendation algorithms, explanation display, and evaluation) and organize the surveyed work along three axes: display content (user-, item-, feature-, logical-, and hybrid-based explanations), display methods (textual, visualization, hybrid-element, and multimedia explanations), and evaluation methods (quantitative and qualitative). The paper claims to be the first to highlight video-based explanations as a distinct research direction for XRS, and it offers a structured overview of evaluation criteria, including a table of user-study items based on Tintarev's criteria. It concludes with future-work directions covering multimedia explanations, evaluation standardization, and cognitive load.

Significance. If the synthesis is reliable, this survey is a useful contribution because it consolidates several previously fragmented taxonomies (Vig et al., Papadimitriou et al., Nunes and Jannach, Mohamed et al.) into one lifecycle-oriented framework, and it draws attention to multimedia and video-based explanations as an underexplored HCI direction. The evaluation overview, especially Table 2, provides a practical checklist for designing user studies of explanation interfaces. The paper is also candid about open evaluation gaps such as responsiveness and cognitive load. However, the scientific value of the survey depends heavily on the completeness and reproducibility of the 102-paper corpus, and the manuscript does not currently make that corpus verifiable. The descriptive claims about individual systems are generally consistent with the cited references, but the central framework's status as a faithful synthesis rests on methodological transparency that is not yet provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2] The PRISMA procedure as reported is not reproducible. The manuscript states that 489 articles were retrieved from four databases, 9 from other sources, 272 remained after duplicate removal, and 102 were ultimately included, but it reports no search date range, no per-database query adaptations, no list of the 102 included studies, and no coding protocol or inter-rater reliability for applying EC1-EC4 and IC1-IC5. Because the four-stage framework and the claimed novelty of video-based explanations are generalizations over this corpus, the completeness of the sample is load-bearing. Please provide the search date range, the exact queries used per database, an appendix listing the included studies, and a description of how the eligibility criteria were applied and by how many reviewers.
  2. [Section 2.2, EC4 vs. IC4] The screening rules are internally in tension. EC4 excludes papers 'focused solely on algorithms without addressing explanation presentation,' while IC4 admits 'classic papers on explainable recommendation algorithms and models.' Without a screening log, it is impossible to determine whether algorithm-only papers entered the corpus through IC4, which could bias the reported display-content and display-method categories. Please clarify how the two criteria were reconciled in practice and report the number of papers admitted through each inclusion criterion.
  3. [Section 5.4 and Conclusion] The novelty claim about video-based explanations is unsupported as stated. The paragraph beginning 'Therefore, although no scholars have explicitly proposed video-based explainable recommendation methods...' appears twice verbatim, once after the discussion of reference [20] and again after Fig. 28, and the surrounding text reviews [19], [20], and [40] as video-related recommendation techniques. Either these works are not explanation methods and should be explicitly distinguished from explanation, or the claim that 'no scholars' have proposed such methods is contradicted by the cited literature. The claim also cannot be verified without the search date and study list requested above. Please replace the assertion with a precise, evidence-backed statement about what existing video-based work does and does not cover.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] The LinkedVis system is attributed to 'Stetlin et al.' but reference [85] is Bostandjiev et al.; the author name is incorrect and should be fixed.
  2. [Section 6.1] The text refers to 'the Fidelity formula, as Eq. (1)' but no equation is shown in the manuscript; the formula is missing and must be inserted.
  3. [Section 5.4] The paragraph beginning 'Therefore, although no scholars have explicitly proposed video-based explainable recommendation methods' is duplicated verbatim; one copy should be removed.
  4. [Section 3.2.1] The abbreviation EMF is introduced for 'Explicit Factor Model,' which is nonstandard and may be confused with Expectation-Maximization-based factorization; consider using a less overloaded abbreviation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation-level circularity: the framework synthesizes external taxonomies and systems; the only self-citation is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a literature survey, so its claimed outputs are organizational: a four-stage lifecycle framework, a display-content taxonomy, a display-method typology, and a qualitative/quantitative evaluation structure. None of these is fitted to a numerical quantity or derived from a formal model, so there is no equation-level reduction of a prediction to an input. The display-content categories (user-, item-, feature-, logical-, and hybrid-based) are explicitly assembled in Section 3.3 from the prior taxonomies of Vig et al., Papadimitriou et al., Friedrich and Zanker, Nunes and Jannach, and Mohamed et al., and then illustrated with concrete systems in Sections 4 through 6; the categories are not defined by the paper's own conclusions. The 'for the first time' claim about video-based explanations is a novelty assertion contingent on the PRISMA search; the paper reports its databases, query, and inclusion/exclusion criteria, but not a search date range, an included-study list, or a coding protocol, so the completeness of the 102-paper corpus cannot be independently audited. That is a methodological verifiability limitation, not circularity: the corpus was not constructed by requiring the absence of video-explainability work, nor is the novelty conclusion used to define the search. The only self-citation is reference [76], used to distinguish ML-oriented from HCI-oriented explanations in the 'Who' level of Fig. 4; that distinction is independently present in the external surveys [8], [15], [16], and [75], so the citation is supplementary rather than load-bearing. Overall, no structural circularity; the score of 2 reflects only the minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the completeness of the literature sample and on author-defined category boundaries. No numerical parameters are fitted. The proposed lifecycle framework and the five content classes are conceptual inventions rather than measured entities, and they lack an external falsifiable benchmark. The axioms above capture the assumptions needed for the survey's conclusions to hold.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The 102 primary works selected by the PRISMA-style search are representative of the XRS HCI literature.
    Section 2.2: four databases, one query, inclusion and exclusion criteria, no date range, no full study list, and no coding protocol, so the completeness of the taxonomy depends on this sample.
  • domain assumption Display content categories (user, item, feature, logical, hybrid) are exhaustive and mutually exclusive.
    Section 4: the classification is inferred from cited systems, not demonstrated against a benchmark or through inter-rater coding; the logical-based category is introduced as an author decision in Section 4's preamble.
  • ad hoc to paper Multimedia and video explanations should be treated as a distinct display method even though no effectiveness evidence exists.
    Section 5.4 and Conclusion (2): the paper argues for this category as a research direction and explicitly states no scholar has yet proposed video-based explainable recommendation methods.
invented entities (1)
  • Unified four-stage XRS lifecycle framework (data input, recommendation algorithms, explanation display, evaluation)
    purpose: Organizes the surveyed literature and positions video explanations as a distinct display method within XRS.
    Introduced in Section 3.4 and finalized in Figure 29; it is a classification device, not a measured or experimentally validated entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Display Content, Display Methods and Evaluation Methods of the HCI in Explainable Recommender Systems: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CDTOM3OM

@misc{pith2026250509065,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Display Content, Display Methods and Evaluation Methods of the HCI in Explainable Recommender Systems: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CDTOM3OM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.09065}
}
read the original abstract

Explainable Recommender Systems (XRS) aim to provide users with understandable reasons for the recommendations generated by these systems, representing a crucial research direction in artificial intelligence (AI). Recent research has increasingly focused on the algorithms, display, and evaluation methodologies of XRS. While current research and reviews primarily emphasize the algorithmic aspects, with fewer studies addressing the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) layer of XRS. Additionally, existing reviews lack a unified taxonomy for XRS and there is insufficient attention given to the emerging area of short video recommendations. In this study, we synthesize existing literature and surveys on XRS, presenting a unified framework for its research and development. The main contributions are as follows: 1) We adopt a lifecycle perspective to systematically summarize the technologies and methods used in XRS, addressing challenges posed by the diversity and complexity of algorithmic models and explanation techniques. 2) For the first time, we highlight the application of multimedia, particularly video-based explanations, along with its potential, technical pathways, and challenges in XRS. 3) We provide a structured overview of evaluation methods from both qualitative and quantitative dimensions. These findings provide valuable insights for the systematic design, progress, and testing of XRS.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [76]

    W. Li, W. Wang, W. Huang, M. Tian and R. Zhang, AReview of Explainable Recommendation, Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information,vol.42,no.07,pp.870-882,2023

    work page 2023

  2. [20]

    Q.Tan, J.Yu, Z

    S.Y.Zhang, Z. Q.Tan, J.Yu, Z. Zhao, K. Kuang, J. Liu, J. R. Zhou, H. X. Yang and F. Wu, Poet: Product-oriented Video Captioner for E-commerce, in Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conferenceon Multimedia,SeattleWAUSA:ACM, pp.1292–1301,2020

    work page 2020

  3. [19]

    C. Y. Lei, Y. Liu, L. Z. Zhang, G. X. Wang, H. H. Tang, H. Q. Li and C.Y. Miao, SEMI:ASequential Multi-Modal Information Transfer Network for E-Commerce Micro-Video Recommendations, in Proceedings of the 27thACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, Virtual EventSingapore:ACM,pp.3161–3171,2021

    2021

  4. [40]

    Yu, TaoHighlight: Commodity-Aware Multi-Modal Video Highlight Detection in E-Commerce, IEEE Trans

    Z.Y.Guo,Z.Zhao,W.K.Jin,D.Z.Wang,R.T.Liu and J. Yu, TaoHighlight: Commodity-Aware Multi-Modal Video Highlight Detection in E-Commerce, IEEE Trans. Multimedia, vol. 24, pp. 2606-2616,2022

    work page 2022

  5. [1]

    A. O. Nasraoui and S. Sanders, Mining Semantic Knowledge Graphs to Add Explainability to Black Box Recommender Systems, IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp.110563-110579,2019

    2019

  6. [2]

    L. Chen, D. Yan and F. Wang, User Evaluations on Sentiment-based Recommendation Explanations, ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1–38,2019

    2019

  7. [3]

    Meske, E

    C. Meske, E. Bunde, J. Schneider and M. Gersch, Explainable artificial intelligence: objectives, stakeholders, and future research opportunities, Information Systems Management, vol. 39, no. 1, pp.53-63,2022

    2022

  8. [4]

    K. Taha, P. D.Yoo, C.Yeun andA. Taha, Empirical and Experimental Perspectives on Big Data in Recommendation Systems: A Comprehensive Survey, Big Data Mining and Analytics, vol. 7, no. 3,pp.964-1014,2024

    2024

Show all 99 references
  1. [5]

    T.A. Bach,A. Khan, H. Hallock, G. Beltrao and S. Sousa,Asystematic literature review of user trust in AI-enabled systems: An HCI perspective, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction,vol.40,no.5,pp.1251-1266,2024

    2024

  2. [6]

    Akhmetshin, G

    E. Akhmetshin, G. Meshkova, M. Mikhailova, R. Shichiyakh, G. P. Joshi and W. Cho, Enhancing human computer interaction with coot optimization and deep learning for multi language identification, ScientificReports,vol.14,no.1,pp.22963,2024

    2024

  3. [7]

    P. Shen, D. Wan and J. Li, How human–computer interaction perception affects consumer well-being in the context of online retail: From the perspective ofautonomy,NankaiBusinessReviewInternational, vol.14,no.1,pp.102-127,2023

    2023

  4. [8]

    Zhang and X

    Y. Zhang and X. Chen, Explainable Recommendation: A Survey and New Perspectives, FNT in Information Retrieval, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–101,2020

    2020

  5. [9]

    J. L. Herlocker, J. A. Konstan and J. Riedl, Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations, in Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, Philadelphia PennsylvaniaUSA:ACM,pp.241–250,2000

    2000

  6. [10]

    Y.Zhang,G.Lai,M.Zhang,Y.Zhang,Y.Liuand S. Ma, Explicit factor models for explainable recommendation based on phrase-level sentiment analysis, in Proceedings of the 37th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research & development in information retrieval, Gold Coast Queensland...

    2014

  7. [11]

    N. Wang, H. Wang, Y. Jia and Y. Yin, Explainable Recommendation via Multi-Task Learning in Opinionated Text Data, in the 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, Ann Arbor Big Data Mining and Analytics, xxxxxxx 20xx, x(x): xxx...

    2018

  8. [12]

    Y.Liu, W.Wu, S.Y.Wu, L.Yuan, R

    C. Y.Liu, W.Wu, S.Y.Wu, L.Yuan, R. Ding, F. h. Zhou and Q. H. Wu, Social-Enhanced Explainable Recommendation with Knowledge Graph, in IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 840-853,2024

    2024

  9. [13]

    D. Yu, Q. Li, X. M. Wang, Q. Li and G. d. Xu, Counterfactual explainable conversational recommendation, in IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng, vol.36,no.6,pp.2388-2400,2024

    2024

  10. [14]

    J. S. Zhang, X. Chen, J. k. Tang, W. Q. Shao, Q. Y. Dai, Z. H. Dong and R. Zhang, Recommendation with Causality enhanced Natural Language Explanations, in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, Austin TX USA: ACM, pp. 876–886,2023

    2023

  11. [15]

    Nunes and D

    I. Nunes and D. Jannach. A systematic review and taxonomy of explanations in decision support and recommender systems, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 27, pp. 393–444, 2017

    2017

  12. [16]

    M. A. Chatti, M. Guesmi and A. Muslim. Visualization for RecommendationExplainability:A Survey and New Perspectives,ACM Trans. Interact. Intell.Syst.,vol.14,no.3,Article19,2024

    2024

  13. [17]

    Friedrich and M

    G. Friedrich and M. Zanker. A Taxonomy for Generating Explanations in Recommender Systems, AIMagazine,vol.32,no.3,pp.90-98,2011

    2011

  14. [18]

    Papadimitriou, P

    A. Papadimitriou, P. Symeonidis and Y. Manolopoulos, A generalized taxonomy of explanations styles for traditional and social recommendersystems,DataMin.Knowl.Disc.,vol. 24,no.3,pp.555–583,2012

    2012

  15. [21]

    J.B.Schafer,J.KonstanandJ.Riedl,Recommender systems in e-commerce, in Proceedings of the 1st ACMConferenceonElectronicCommerce,Denver, CO,UnitedStates,pp.158-166,1999

    1999

  16. [22]

    Tintarev and J

    N. Tintarev and J. Masthoff, A Survey of Explanations in Recommender Systems, in 2007 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering Workshop, Istanbul, Turkey: IEEE, pp. 801–810,2007

    2007

  17. [23]

    Pu and C

    P. Pu and C. Li, Trust-inspiring explanation interfaces for recommender systems, Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 542-556,2007

    2007

  18. [24]

    J. Vig, S. Sen, and J. Riedl, Tagsplanations: explaining recommendations using tags, in Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, NewYork, NY,USA,pp.47–56,2009

    2009

  19. [25]

    Jannach, and M

    F.Gedikli, D. Jannach, and M. Z. Ge, How should I explain? A comparison of different explanation types for recommender systems, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 72, no. 4, pp.367-382,2014

    2014

  20. [26]

    K. I. Muhammad, A. Lawlor and B. Smyth, A Live-User Study of Opinionated Explanations for Recommender Systems, in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Sonoma California USA: ACM, pp. 256–260,2016

    2016

  21. [27]

    Y.F.Hou, N.Yang,Y.Wuand P.S.Yu,Explainable recommendation with fusion of aspect information, WorldWideWeb,vol.22,pp.221–240,2019

    2019

  22. [28]

    Y. J. Lin, P. J. Ren, Z. M. Chen, Z. C. Ren, J. Ma and M. D. Rijke, Explainable Outfit Recommendation with Joint Outfit Matching and Comment Generation, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.,vol.32,no.8,pp.1502-1516,2020

    2020

  23. [29]

    Y.Y. Tao, Y. L. Jia, N. Wang and H. N. Wang, The FacT: Taming Latent Factor Models for Explainability with Factorization Trees, in Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in 30 Big Data Mining and Analytics, xxxxxxx 20xx, x(x): xx...

    2019

  24. [30]

    Costa, S

    F. Costa, S. Ouyang, P. Dolog and A. Lawlor, Automatic Generation of Natural Language Explanations, in Companion Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces,TokyoJapan:ACM,pp.1–2,2018

    2018

  25. [31]

    Z. H. Xie, S. Singh, J. McAuley and B. P. Majumder, Factual and informative review generation for explainable recommendation, in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence,vol.37,no.11,pp.13816-13824,2023

    2023

  26. [32]

    F. Du, C. Plaisant, N. Spring, K. Crowley and B. Shneiderman, EventAction: A Visual Analytics Approach to Explainable Recommendation for Event Sequences,ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst., vol.9,no.4,pp.21-52,2019

    2019

  27. [33]

    Guesmi, M.A

    M. Guesmi, M.A. Chatti, L. Vorgerd, S. Joarder, S. Zumor, Y. Q. Sun, F. Z. Ji and A. Muslim, On-demand Personalized Explanation for Transparent Recommendation, in Adjunct Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, Utrecht Netherlan...

    2021

  28. [34]

    C. H. Tsai and P. Brusilovsky, Explaining recommendations in an interactive hybrid social recommender, in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Marina del Ray California: ACM, pp. 391–396,2019

    2019

  29. [35]

    A., Joarder, S., Ain, Q

    Guesmi, M., Chatti, M. A., Joarder, S., Ain, Q. U., Alatrash, R., Siepmann, C., and Vahidi, T. Interactive Explanation with Varying Level of Details in an Explainable Scientific Literature Recommender System. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 40, no. 22...

    2024

  30. [36]

    C. H. Tsai and P. Brusilovsky, User Feedback in Controllable and Explainable Social Recommender Systems:ALinguisticAnalysis, inCEURWorkshop Proceedings(IntRS‘20),pp.1-13,2020

    2020

  31. [37]

    Naveed and J

    S. Naveed and J. Ziegler, Featuristic:An interactive hybrid system for generating explainable recommendations – beyond system accuracy, in CEURWorkshopProceedings,pp.14-25,2020

    2020

  32. [38]

    Q. Q. Liang, X. L. Zheng, Y. Wang and M. Y. Zhu, O3ERS: An explainable recommendation system with online learning, online recommendation, and online explanation, Information Sciences, vol. 526, pp.94-115,2021

    2021

  33. [39]

    Jannach, S

    D. Jannach, S. Naveed and M. Jugovac, User Control in Recommender Systems: Overview and Interaction Challenges, in: Bridge, D., Stuckenschmidt, H. (eds) E-Commerce and Web Technologies. EC-Web 2016. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 278, pp. 21-28,2017

    2016

  34. [41]

    Sarkar, D

    A. Sarkar, D. Vijaykeerthy, A. Sarkar and V. Balasubramanian, A Framework for Learning Ante-hoc Explainable Models via Concepts, 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and PatternRecognition,10276-10285,2022

    2022

  35. [42]

    M. J. Pazzani, A framework for collaborative, content-based and demographic filtering, Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 393-408, 1999

    1999

  36. [43]

    X. W. Zhao,Y. Guo, Y. He, H. Jiang, Y. Wu and X. Li, We know what you want to buy: a demographic-based system for product recommendation on microblogs, KDD '14: Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery andDataMining,pp.1935-1944,2014

    1935

  37. [44]

    P. Do, K. Nguyen, T. N. Vu, T. N. Dung and T. D. Le, Integrating knowledge-based reasoning algorithms and collaborativefiltering into e-learning material recommendation system, In Future Data and Security Engineering: 4th International Conference, FDSE 2017, Ho Chi Minh City, ...

    2017

  38. [45]

    Q. Guo, F. Zhuang, C. Qin, H. Zhu, X. Xie, H. Xiong and Q. He, A survey on knowledge graph-based recommender systems. IEEE Big Data Mining and Analytics, xxxxxxx 20xx, x(x): xxx-xxx31 Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol.34,no.8,pp.3549-3568,2020

    2020

  39. [46]

    Sunandana, M

    G. Sunandana, M. Reshma, Y. Pratyusha, M. Kommineni and S. Gogulamudi, Movie recommendation system using enhanced content-based filtering algorithm based on user demographic data, International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems (ICCES), Coimbatre,India,pp.1-5,2021

    2021

  40. [47]

    T. K. Nadar, S. S. Athulya, S. S. Rahul and K. Meenakshi, Job Recommendation by Content Filtering using TF-IDF and Cosine Similarity, 2024 8th International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud) (I-SMAC), Kirtipur,Nepal,pp.1585-1590,2024

    2024

  41. [48]

    M. J. Pazzani and D. Billsus, Content-based recommendation systems, In: The Adaptive Web. Springer,pp.325–341,2007

    2007

  42. [49]

    Hasan, S.Ahmed, M.A

    M. Hasan, S.Ahmed, M.A. I. Malik and S.Ahmed, A comprehensive approach towards user-based collaborative filtering recommender system, 2016 International Workshop on Computational Intelligence,Dhaka,Bangladesh,pp.159-164,2016

    2016

  43. [50]

    Sarwar, G

    B. Sarwar, G. Karypis, J. Konstan and J. Riedl, Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW '01). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,USA,pp.285–295,2001

    2001

  44. [51]

    Kumar, K

    P. Kumar, K. N. Manisha and M. Nivetha, Market BasketAnalysis for Retail Sales Optimization, 2024 Second International Conference on Emerging Trends in Information Technology and Engineering, Vellore,India,pp.1-7,2024

    2024

  45. [52]

    W. Lin, S. A. Alvarez and C. Ruiz, Efficient adaptive-support association rule mining for recommender systems, Data Mining & Knowledge Discovery,vol.6,no.1,pp.83-105,2002

    2002

  46. [53]

    Y. A. Ünvan, Market basket analysis with association rules, Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 1615-1628,2021

    2021

  47. [54]

    Z. Cui, X. Sun, L. Pan, S. Liu and G. Xu, Event-based incremental recommendation via factors mixed Hawkes process. Information Sciences,vol.639,pp.119007,2023

    2023

  48. [55]

    Zou and Z

    C. Zou and Z. Chen, Joint latent factors and attributes to discover interpretable preferences in recommendation, Information Sciences, vol. 505, pp.498-512,2019. [56]S.Zhang,H.Chen,H.Yang,X.Sun,P.S.Yuand G. Xu, Graph masked autoencoders with transformers, arXivpreprintarXiv:22...

    2019 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Y. Li, X. Sun, H. Chen, S. Zhang, Y. Yang and G. Xu, Attention Is Not the Only Choice: Counterfactual Reasoning for Path-Based ExplainableRecommendation,inIEEETransactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 36,no. 9, pp.4458-4471,2024

    2024

  50. [59]

    Aghaeipoor, M

    F. Aghaeipoor, M. Sabokrou and A. Fernández, Fuzzy Rule-Based Explainer Systems for Deep Neural Networks: From Local Explainability to Global Understanding, in IEEE Transactions on FuzzySystems,vol.31,no.9,pp.3069-3080,2023

    2023

  51. [60]

    Z. Niu, G. Zhong and H. Yu, A review on the attention mechanism of deep learning, Neurocomputing,vol.452,pp.48-62,2021

    2021

  52. [61]

    X. Wu, H. Wan, Q. Tan, W. Yao, and N. Liu, DIRECT: Dual Interpretable Recommendation with Multi-aspect Word Attribution, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, vol. 15, no. 5,pp.1-21,2024

    2024

  53. [62]

    Klimo, J

    M. Klimo, J. Kopčan and L. Králik, Explainability asaMethod for Learning From Computers, inIEEE Access,vol.11,pp.35853-35865,2023. [63]S. Zhang,Z. Jiang, J.Yao,F.Feng, K.Kuang and Z. Zhou, Causal Distillation for Alleviating Performance Heterogeneity in Recommender Systems, in...

    2023

  54. [64]

    Y. Ding, Y. Sun and J. Feng, The Application of Causal Inference Algorithms in Federated Recommender Systems, in IEEE Access, vol. 12, 32 Big Data Mining and Analytics, xxxxxxx 20xx, x(x): xxx-xxx pp.29748-29758,2024

    2024

  55. [65]

    M. Jian, Y. Bai, X. Fu, J. Guo, G. Shi and L. Wu, Counterfactual Graph Convolutional Learning for Personalized Recommendation, ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, vol. 15, no. 4,pp.67-87,2024

    2024

  56. [66]

    R. Cai, F. Wu, Z. Li, J. Qiao, W. Chen, Y. Hao, and H.Gu,REST:DebiasedSocialRecommendationvia Reconstructing Exposure Strategies, ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, vol.18,no.2,pp.38-62,2024

    2024

  57. [67]

    Slack, A

    D. Slack, A. Hilgard, S. Singh and H. Lakkaraju, Reliable post hoc explanations: Modeling uncertainty in explainability, Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 9391-9404,2021

    2021

  58. [68]

    Madsen, S

    A. Madsen, S. Reddy and S. Chandar, Post-hoc interpretability for neural nlp: A survey. ACM ComputingSurveys,vol.55,no.8,pp.1-42,2022

    2022

  59. [69]

    Hooshyar and Y. Yang, Problems With SHAP and LIME in Interpretable AI for Education: A Comparative Study of Post-Hoc Explanations and Neural-Symbolic Rule Extraction, in IEEE Access, vol.12,pp.137472-137490,2024

    2024

  60. [70]

    Ouyang and A

    S. Ouyang and A. Lawlor, Improving Explainable Recommendations by Deep Review-Based Explanations, in IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 67444-67455,2021. [71]F.Zafari,I.MoserandT.Sellis,ReEx:Anintegrated architecture for preference model representation and explanation, Expert Systems wi...

    2021

  61. [72]

    J.Xie, F.Zhu, X. Li, S. Huang and S. Liu,Attentive preference personalized recommendation with sentence-level explanations, Neurocomputing, vol. 426,pp.235-247,2021

    2021

  62. [73]

    G. Shi, X. Deng, L. Luo, L. Xia, L. Bao, B. Ye, F. Du, S. Pan and Y. Li, Llm-powered explanations: Unraveling recommendations through subgraph reasoning,arXivpreprintarXiv:2406.15859,2024

    2024 arXiv

  63. [74]

    Balog, F

    K. Balog, F. Radlinski and S. Arakelyan, Transparent,ScrutableandExplainableUserModels for Personalized Recommendation, in Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval,ParisFrance:ACM,pp.265–274,2019

    2019

  64. [75]

    Roberto,L

    C. Roberto,L. Coba,B.Wagner and T.R. Besold,A historical perspective of explainable Artificial Intelligence, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.e1391,2021

    2021

  65. [77]

    Y. Wei, X. Wang, L. Nie, S. Li, D. Wang and T. S. Chua,CausalInferenceforKnowledgeGraphBased Recommendation, in IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 35, no. 11, pp.11153-11164,2023. [78]W.X.Zhao,S.Li,Y.He,L.Wang,J.R.Wen and X. Li, Exploring demographic inf...

    2023

  66. [79]

    K. K and S.T,Enhanced ProductRecommendations based on Seasonality and Demography in Ecommerce, 2020 2nd International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication Control and Networking, Greater Noida, India, pp. 721-723, 2020

    2020

  67. [80]

    Sharma and D

    A. Sharma and D. Cosley, Do social explanations work? studying and modeling the effects of social explanations in recommender systems, in Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web, Rio de Janeiro Brazil: ACM, pp. 1133–1144,2013

    2013

  68. [81]

    Y. Li, J. Liu and J. Ren, Social recommendation model based on user interaction in complex social networks, PloS one, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. e0218957, 2019

    2019

  69. [82]

    Ji and H

    K. Ji and H. Shen, Jointly modeling content, social network and ratings for explainable and cold-start recommendation, Neurocomputing, vol. 218, pp. 1-12,2016

    2016

  70. [83]

    H. Park, H. Jeon, J. Kim, B. Ahn and U. Kang, UniWalk: Explainable and Accurate Recommendation for Rating and Network Data, arXive-prints,2017,ArticlearXiv:1710.07134. Big Data Mining and Analytics, xxxxxxx 20xx, x(x): xxx-xxx33

    2017 arXiv

  71. [84]

    James, T

    S. James, T. Hollerer and J. O'Donovan, Hypothetical recommendation: A study of interactive profile manipulation behavior for recommender systems, The twenty-eighth internationalflairsconference,2015

    2015

  72. [85]

    Bostandjiev, J

    S. Bostandjiev, J. O'Donovan and T. Höllerer, LinkedVis: exploring social and semantic career recommendations, in Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, SantaMonica California USA:ACM, pp. 107–116,2013

    2013

  73. [86]

    V. W. Zheng, Y. Zheng, X. Xie and Q. Yang, Collaborative location and activity recommendations with GPS history data, in Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, Raleigh North Carolina USA: ACM,pp.1029–1038,2010

    2010

  74. [87]

    Bakalov, M

    F. Bakalov, M. J. Meurs, B. K. Ries, B. Sateli, R. Witte, G. Butler and A. Tsang, An approach to controlling user models and personalization effects in recommender systems, in Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, SantaMonica Californ...

    2013

  75. [88]

    Y. C. Jin, N. Tintarev and K. Verbert, Effects of Individual Traits on Diversity-Aware Music RecommenderUserInterfaces,inProceedingsofthe 26th Conference on User Modeling,Adaptation and Personalization, Singapore Singapore: ACM, pp. 291–299,2018

    2018

  76. [89]

    M. R. Zafar and N. M. Khan, DLIME: A deterministic local interpretable model-agnostic explanations approach for computer-aided diagnosis systems,arXivpreprintarXiv:1906.10263,2019

    1906 arXiv

  77. [90]

    Govea, R

    J. Govea, R. Gutierrez and W. Villegas-Ch, Transparency and precision in the age of AI: evaluation of explainability-enhanced recommendation systems. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence,vol.7,pp.1410790,2024

    2024

  78. [91]

    Basu and R.Ahad, Using a relational database to support explanation in a knowledge-based system, IEEE Trans

    A. Basu and R.Ahad, Using a relational database to support explanation in a knowledge-based system, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 572-581,1992

    1992

  79. [92]

    L. R. Ye and P. E. Johnson, The impact of explanation facilities on user acceptance of expert systemsadvice,MisQuarterly,pp.157-172.1995

    1995

  80. [93]

    Emeksiz,An expert system for the differential diagnosis of erythemato-squamous diseases, Expert Systems withApplications, vol

    H.AGüvenir and N. Emeksiz,An expert system for the differential diagnosis of erythemato-squamous diseases, Expert Systems withApplications, vol. 18, no.1,pp.43-49,2000

    2000

  81. [94]

    N. L. LE, M. H. ABEL and GOUSPILLOU P, Combining Embedding-Based and Semantic-Based Modelsfor Post-Hoc Explanations in Recommender Systems, 2023 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Honolulu, Oahu, HI,USA,pp.4619-4624,2023

    2023

  82. [95]

    Purificato, B.A

    E. Purificato, B.A. Manikandan, P.V.Karanam, M. V. Pattadkal and E. W. D. Luca, Evaluating Explainable Interfaces for a Knowledge Graph-Based Recommender System, in Proceedings oftheCEURWorkshopProceedings(RecSys2021), pp.73-88,2021. [96]H.Zogan,I.Razzak,X.Wang,S.Jameeland G.X...

    2021

  83. [97]

    Colin, Information visualization: perception for design,MorganKaufmann,pp.10-11,2019

    W. Colin, Information visualization: perception for design,MorganKaufmann,pp.10-11,2019

    2019

  84. [98]

    Balog and F

    K. Balog and F. Radlinski, Measuring Recommendation Explanation Quality: The Conflicting Goals of Explanations, in Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Virtual Event China: ACM, pp. 329–338, 2020

    2020

  85. [99]

    P.Kouki, J.Schaffer,J.Pujara,J.O'Donovan and L. Getoor, Personalized explanations for hybrid recommender systems, in Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Marina del Ray California: ACM, pp. 379–390,2019

    2019

  86. [100]

    Peake and J

    G. Peake and J. Wang, Explanation mining: post hoc interpretability of latent factor models for recommendation systems, KDD '18: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference onKnowledgeDiscovery&DataMining,ACM,pp. 2060–2069,2018. 34 Big Data Mining and Analytics...

    2018

  87. [101]

    B.Abdollahi and O.Nasraoui, Using explainability for constrained matrix factorization, In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems.ACM,pp.79–83,2017

    2017

  88. [102]

    L. Li, Y. Zhang and L. Chen, Extra: Explanation ranking datasets for explainable recommendation, Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in InformationRetrieval,pp.2463-2469,2021

    2021

  89. [103]

    Vultureanu-Albişi and C

    A. Vultureanu-Albişi and C. Bădică, A survey on effects of adding explanations to recommender systems, Concurrency and Computation: Practice andExperience,vol.34,no.20,pp.e6834,2022

    2022

  90. [104]

    Zimmermann, D

    R. Zimmermann, D. Mora, D. Cirqueira, M. Helfert, M. Bezbradica, D. Werth, W. J. Weitzl, R. Riedl and A. Auinger, Enhancing brick-and-mortar storeshoppingexperiencewithanaugmentedreality shopping assistant application using personalized recommendations and explainable artifici...

    2023

  91. [105]

    Caro-Martínez, G

    M. Caro-Martínez, G. Jiménez-Díaz and J. A. Recio-García, Conceptual modeling of explainable recommender systems: an ontological formalization to guide their design and development, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 71, pp. 557-589,2021. Big Data Mining and Ana...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.