Explaining recommendations

Recommender systems such as Amazon, offer uses recommendations, or suggestions of items to try or buy. We propose a novel classification of reasons for including explanations in recommender systems. Our focus is on the aim of effectiveness, or decision support, and we contrast it with other metrics...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Tintarev, Nava
Published: University of Aberdeen 2009
Subjects:
Online Access:http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.509140
id ndltd-bl.uk-oai-ethos.bl.uk-509140
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-bl.uk-oai-ethos.bl.uk-5091402015-03-20T04:06:25ZExplaining recommendationsTintarev, Nava2009Recommender systems such as Amazon, offer uses recommendations, or suggestions of items to try or buy. We propose a novel classification of reasons for including explanations in recommender systems. Our focus is on the aim of effectiveness, or decision support, and we contrast it with other metrics such as satisfaction and persuasion. In user studies, we found that people varied in the features they found important, and composed a short list of features in two domains (movies and cameras). We then built a natural language explanation testbed system, considering these features as well as the limitations of using commercial data. This testbed was used in a series of experiments to test whether personalization of explanations affects effectiveness, persuasion and satisfaction. We chose a simple form of personalization which considers likely constraints of a recommender system (e.g. limited meta-data related to the user) as well as brevity. In these experiments we found that: 1. Explanations help participants to make decisions compared to recommendations without explanations, we saw as a significant decrease in opt-outs in item ratings – participants were more likely to be able to give an initial rating for an item if they were given an explanation, and the likelihood of receiving a rating increased for feature-based explanations compared to a baseline. 2. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, our method of personalization could damage effectiveness for both movies and cameras which are domains that differ with regard to two dimensions which we found affected perceived effectiveness: cost (low vs. high), and valuation type (subjective vs. objective). 3. Participants were more satisfied with feature-based than baseline explanations. If the personalization is perceived as relevant to them, then personalized feature-based explanations were preferred over non-personalized. 4. Satisfaction with explanation was also reflected in the proportion of opt-outs. The opt-out rate for the explanations was highest in the baseline for all experiments. This was the case despite the different types of explanation baselines used in the two domains.300.285Human-computer interaction : User-centered system design : Natural language processing (Computer science) : Web services : User interfaces (Computer systems)University of Aberdeenhttp://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.509140http://digitool.abdn.ac.uk:80/webclient/DeliveryManager?pid=59438Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
collection NDLTD
sources NDLTD
topic 300.285
Human-computer interaction : User-centered system design : Natural language processing (Computer science) : Web services : User interfaces (Computer systems)
spellingShingle 300.285
Human-computer interaction : User-centered system design : Natural language processing (Computer science) : Web services : User interfaces (Computer systems)
Tintarev, Nava
Explaining recommendations
description Recommender systems such as Amazon, offer uses recommendations, or suggestions of items to try or buy. We propose a novel classification of reasons for including explanations in recommender systems. Our focus is on the aim of effectiveness, or decision support, and we contrast it with other metrics such as satisfaction and persuasion. In user studies, we found that people varied in the features they found important, and composed a short list of features in two domains (movies and cameras). We then built a natural language explanation testbed system, considering these features as well as the limitations of using commercial data. This testbed was used in a series of experiments to test whether personalization of explanations affects effectiveness, persuasion and satisfaction. We chose a simple form of personalization which considers likely constraints of a recommender system (e.g. limited meta-data related to the user) as well as brevity. In these experiments we found that: 1. Explanations help participants to make decisions compared to recommendations without explanations, we saw as a significant decrease in opt-outs in item ratings – participants were more likely to be able to give an initial rating for an item if they were given an explanation, and the likelihood of receiving a rating increased for feature-based explanations compared to a baseline. 2. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, our method of personalization could damage effectiveness for both movies and cameras which are domains that differ with regard to two dimensions which we found affected perceived effectiveness: cost (low vs. high), and valuation type (subjective vs. objective). 3. Participants were more satisfied with feature-based than baseline explanations. If the personalization is perceived as relevant to them, then personalized feature-based explanations were preferred over non-personalized. 4. Satisfaction with explanation was also reflected in the proportion of opt-outs. The opt-out rate for the explanations was highest in the baseline for all experiments. This was the case despite the different types of explanation baselines used in the two domains.
author Tintarev, Nava
author_facet Tintarev, Nava
author_sort Tintarev, Nava
title Explaining recommendations
title_short Explaining recommendations
title_full Explaining recommendations
title_fullStr Explaining recommendations
title_full_unstemmed Explaining recommendations
title_sort explaining recommendations
publisher University of Aberdeen
publishDate 2009
url http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.509140
work_keys_str_mv AT tintarevnava explainingrecommendations
_version_ 1716783585636122624