Clara Siepmann

IR
3papers
42citations
Novelty13%
AI Score15

3 Papers

IRJun 9, 2023
Interactive Explanation with Varying Level of Details in an Explainable Scientific Literature Recommender System

Mouadh Guesmi, Mohamed Amine Chatti, Shoeb Joarder et al.

Explainable recommender systems (RS) have traditionally followed a one-size-fits-all approach, delivering the same explanation level of detail to each user, without considering their individual needs and goals. Further, explanations in RS have so far been presented mostly in a static and non-interactive manner. To fill these research gaps, we aim in this paper to adopt a user-centered, interactive explanation model that provides explanations with different levels of detail and empowers users to interact with, control, and personalize the explanations based on their needs and preferences. We followed a user-centered approach to design interactive explanations with three levels of detail (basic, intermediate, and advanced) and implemented them in the transparent Recommendation and Interest Modeling Application (RIMA). We conducted a qualitative user study (N=14) to investigate the impact of providing interactive explanations with varying level of details on the users' perception of the explainable RS. Our study showed qualitative evidence that fostering interaction and giving users control in deciding which explanation they would like to see can meet the demands of users with different needs, preferences, and goals, and consequently can have positive effects on different crucial aspects in explainable recommendation, including transparency, trust, satisfaction, and user experience.

IRApr 17, 2023
Trust and Transparency in Recommender Systems

Clara Siepmann, Mohamed Amine Chatti

Trust is long recognized to be an important factor in Recommender Systems (RS). However, there are different perspectives on trust and different ways to evaluate it. Moreover, a link between trust and transparency is often assumed but not always further investigated. In this paper we first go through different understandings and measurements of trust in the AI and RS community, such as demonstrated and perceived trust. We then review the relationsships between trust and transparency, as well as mental models, and investigate different strategies to achieve transparency in RS such as explanation, exploration and exploranation (i.e., a combination of exploration and explanation). We identify a need for further studies to explore these concepts as well as the relationships between them.

IRMay 26, 2023
Justification vs. Transparency: Why and How Visual Explanations in a Scientific Literature Recommender System

Mouadh Guesmi, Mohamed Amine Chatti, Shoeb Joarder et al.

Significant attention has been paid to enhancing recommender systems (RS) with explanation facilities to help users make informed decisions and increase trust in and satisfaction with the RS. Justification and transparency represent two crucial goals in explainable recommendation. Different from transparency, which faithfully exposes the reasoning behind the recommendation mechanism, justification conveys a conceptual model that may differ from that of the underlying algorithm. An explanation is an answer to a question. In explainable recommendation, a user would want to ask questions (referred to as intelligibility types) to understand results given by the RS. In this paper, we identify relationships between Why and How explanation intelligibility types and the explanation goals of justification and transparency. We followed the Human-Centered Design (HCD) approach and leveraged the What-Why-How visualization framework to systematically design and implement Why and How visual explanations in the transparent Recommendation and Interest Modeling Application (RIMA). Furthermore, we conducted a qualitative user study (N=12) to investigate the potential effects of providing Why and How explanations together in an explainable RS on the users' perceptions regarding transparency, trust, and satisfaction. Our study showed qualitative evidence confirming that the choice of the explanation intelligibility types depends on the explanation goal and user type.