Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3240323.3240362acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesrecsysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Providing explanations for recommendations in reciprocal environments

Published: 27 September 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Automated platforms which support users in finding a mutually beneficial match, such as online dating and job recruitment sites, are becoming increasingly popular. These platforms often include recommender systems that assist users in finding a suitable match. While recommender systems which provide explanations for their recommendations have shown many benefits, explanation methods have yet to be adapted and tested in recommending suitable matches. In this paper, we introduce and extensively evaluate the use of "reciprocal explanations" - explanations which provide reasoning as to why both parties are expected to benefit from the match. Through an extensive empirical evaluation, in both simulated and real-world dating platforms with 287 human participants, we find that when the acceptance of a recommendation involves a significant cost (e.g., monetary or emotional), reciprocal explanations outperform standard explanation methods, which consider the recommendation receiver alone. However, contrary to what one may expect, when the cost of accepting a recommendation is negligible, reciprocal explanations are shown to be less effective than the traditional explanation methods.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (p22-kleinerman.mp4)

References

[1]
Jacob Benesty, Jingdong Chen, Yiteng Huang, and Israel Cohen. 2009. Pearson correlation coefficient. In Noise reduction in speech processing. Springer, 1--4.
[2]
Henriette Cramer, Vanessa Evers, Satyan Ramlal, Maarten Van Someren, Lloyd Rutledge, Natalia Stash, Lora Aroyo, and Bob Wielinga. 2008. The effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a content-based art recommender. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 18, 5 (2008), 455--496.
[3]
Tal Eyal and Nicholas Epley. 2010. How to seem telepathic: Enabling mind reading by matching construal. Psychological Science 21, 5 (2010), 700--705.
[4]
David Gale and Lloyd S Shapley. 1962. College admissions and the stability of marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly 69, 1 (1962), 9--15.
[5]
Fatih Gedikli, Dietmar Jannach, and Mouzhi Ge. 2014. How should I explain? A comparison of different explanation types for recommender systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 72, 4 (2014), 367--382.
[6]
Bryce Goodman and Seth Flaxman. 2016. European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation". Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning at the International Conference on Machine Learning (2016).
[7]
Robert Goodman. 2001. Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 40, 11 (2001), 1337--1345.
[8]
David Gunning. 2017. Explainable artificial intelligence (xai). Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), nd Web (2017).
[9]
Ido Guy, Inbal Ronen, and Eric Wilcox. 2009. Do you know?: recommending people to invite into your social network. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. ACM, 77--86.
[10]
Mark Andrew Hall. 1999. Correlation-based feature selection for machine learning. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Waikato Hamilton.
[11]
James Hartley. 2014. Some thoughts on Likert-type scales. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 14, 1 (2014), 83--86.
[12]
Jonathan L Herlocker, Joseph A Konstan, and John Riedl. 2000. Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 241--250.
[13]
Gunter J Hitsch, Ali Hortaçsu, and Dan Ariely. 2010. Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review 100, 1 (2010), 130--63.
[14]
Günter J Hitsch, Ali Hortaçsu, and Dan Ariely. 2010. What makes you click?-Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative marketing and Economics 8, 4 (2010), 393--427.
[15]
Akiva Kleinerman, Ariel Rosenfeld, Francesco Ricci, and Sarit Kraus. 2018. Optimally Balancing Receiver and Recommended Users' Importance in Reciprocal Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM.
[16]
Bart P Knijnenburg, Martijn C Willemsen, Zeno Gantner, Hakan Soncu, and Chris Newell. 2012. Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 22, 4-5 (2012), 441--504.
[17]
Sherrie YX Komiak and Izak Benbasat. 2006. The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS quarterly (2006), 941--960.
[18]
National Science and Technology Council. 2016. The National Artificial Intelligence Research And Development Strategic Plan. (2016).
[19]
Luiz Pizzato, Tomek Rej, Thomas Chung, Irena Koprinska, and Judy Kay. 2010. RECON: a reciprocal recommender for online dating. In Proceedings of the fourth ACM conference on Recommender systems. ACM, 207--214.
[20]
Pearl Pu and Li Chen. 2006. Trust building with explanation interfaces. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. ACM, 93--100.
[21]
Pearl Pu and Li Chen. 2007. Trust-inspiring explanation interfaces for recommender systems. Knowledge-Based Systems 20, 6 (2007), 542--556.
[22]
Pearl Pu, Li Chen, and Rong Hu. 2011. A user-centric evaluation framework for recommender systems. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM conference on Recommender systems. ACM, 157--164.
[23]
Nornadiah Mohd Razali, Yap Bee Wah, et al. 2011. Power comparisons of shapirowilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and anderson-darling tests. Journal of statistical modeling and analytics 2, 1 (2011), 21--33.
[24]
Ariel Rosenfeld and Sarit Kraus. 2018. Predicting Human Decision-Making: From Prediction to Action. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning 12, 1 (2018), 1--150.
[25]
Amit Sharma and Dan Cosley. 2013. 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. ACM, 1133--1144.
[26]
Rashmi Sinha and Kirsten Swearingen. 2002. The role of transparency in recommender systems. In CHI'02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 830--831.
[27]
Steven C Sutherland, Casper Harteveld, and Michael E Young. 2016. Effects of the Advisor and Environment on Requesting and Complying With Automated Advice. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 6, 4 (2016), 27.
[28]
Panagiotis Symeonidis, Alexandros Nanopoulos, and Yannis Manolopoulos. 2009. MoviExplain: a recommender system with explanations. In Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Recommender systems. ACM, 317--320.
[29]
Kun Tu, Bruno Ribeiro, David Jensen, Don Towsley, Benyuan Liu, Hua Jiang, and Xiaodong Wang. 2014. Online dating recommendations: matching markets and learning preferences. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 787--792.
[30]
Peng Xia, Benyuan Liu, Yizhou Sun, and Cindy Chen. 2015. Reciprocal recommendation system for online dating. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015. ACM, 234--241.
[31]
Hongtao Yu, Chaoran Liu, and Fuzhi ZHANG. 2011. Reciprocal recommendation algorithm for the field of recruitment. JOURNAL OF INFORMATION AND COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE 8, 16 (2011), 4061--4068.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)User‐Centered Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Systematic Literature ReviewHuman Behavior and Emerging Technologies10.1155/2024/46288552024:1Online publication date: 15-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Fourth Workshop on Recommender Systems for Human Resources (RecSys in HR 2024)Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3640457.3687109(1222-1226)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
  • (2023)Third Workshop on Recommender Systems for Human Resources (RecSys in HR 2023)Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3604915.3608755(1244-1247)Online publication date: 14-Sep-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Providing explanations for recommendations in reciprocal environments

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    RecSys '18: Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems
    September 2018
    600 pages
    ISBN:9781450359016
    DOI:10.1145/3240323
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 27 September 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. explanations
    2. online-dating application
    3. reciprocal recommender systems

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    RecSys '18
    Sponsor:
    RecSys '18: Twelfth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems
    October 2, 2018
    British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

    Acceptance Rates

    RecSys '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 32 of 181 submissions, 18%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 254 of 1,295 submissions, 20%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)48
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8
    Reflects downloads up to 20 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)User‐Centered Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Systematic Literature ReviewHuman Behavior and Emerging Technologies10.1155/2024/46288552024:1Online publication date: 15-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Fourth Workshop on Recommender Systems for Human Resources (RecSys in HR 2024)Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3640457.3687109(1222-1226)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
    • (2023)Third Workshop on Recommender Systems for Human Resources (RecSys in HR 2023)Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems10.1145/3604915.3608755(1244-1247)Online publication date: 14-Sep-2023
    • (2023)Much Ado About GenderProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval10.1145/3576840.3578316(269-279)Online publication date: 19-Mar-2023
    • (2023)XAI to Increase the Effectiveness of an Intelligent Pedagogical AgentProceedings of the 23rd ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents10.1145/3570945.3607301(1-9)Online publication date: 19-Sep-2023
    • (2023)Generating Popularity-Aware Reciprocal Recommendations Using Siamese Bi-Directional Gated Recurrent Units NetworkVietnam Journal of Computer Science10.1142/S219688882350004510:03(273-301)Online publication date: 31-May-2023
    • (2023)Empowering reciprocal recommender system using contextual bandits and argumentation based explanationsWorld Wide Web10.1007/s11280-023-01173-z26:5(2969-3000)Online publication date: 29-May-2023
    • (2023)A Co-design Study for Multi-stakeholder Job Recommender System ExplanationsExplainable Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-44067-0_30(597-620)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2023
    • (2022)Justifying Social-Choice Mechanism Outcome for Improving Participant SatisfactionProceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3535850.3535989(1246-1255)Online publication date: 9-May-2022
    • (2022)Building Contrastive Explanations for Multi-agent Team FormationProceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3535850.3535909(516-524)Online publication date: 9-May-2022
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media