Francesco Barile

Roan Schellingerhout, Francesco Barile, Nava Tintarev

Recent legislation proposals have significantly increased the demand for eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in many businesses, especially in so-called `high-risk' domains, such as recruitment. Within recruitment, AI has become commonplace, mainly in the form of job recommender systems (JRSs), which try to match candidates to vacancies, and vice versa. However, common XAI techniques often fall short in this domain due to the different levels and types of expertise of the individuals involved, making explanations difficult to generalize. To determine the explanation preferences of the different stakeholder types - candidates, recruiters, and companies - we created and validated a semi-structured interview guide. Using grounded theory, we structurally analyzed the results of these interviews and found that different stakeholder types indeed have strongly differing explanation preferences. Candidates indicated a preference for brief, textual explanations that allow them to quickly judge potential matches. On the other hand, hiring managers preferred visual graph-based explanations that provide a more technical and comprehensive overview at a glance. Recruiters found more exhaustive textual explanations preferable, as those provided them with more talking points to convince both parties of the match. Based on these findings, we describe guidelines on how to design an explanation interface that fulfills the requirements of all three stakeholder types. Furthermore, we provide the validated interview guide, which can assist future research in determining the explanation preferences of different stakeholder types.

Roan Schellingerhout, Francesco Barile, Nava Tintarev

The increased use of information retrieval in recruitment, primarily through job recommender systems (JRSs), can have a large impact on job seekers, recruiters, and companies. As a result, such systems have been determined to be high-risk in recent legislature. This requires JRSs to be trustworthy and transparent, allowing stakeholders to understand why specific recommendations were made. To fulfill this requirement, the stakeholders' exact preferences and needs need to be determined. To do so, we evaluated an explainable job recommender system using a realistic, task-based, mixed-design user study (n=30) in which stakeholders had to make decisions based on the model's explanations. This mixed-methods evaluation consisted of two objective metrics - correctness and efficiency, along with three subjective metrics - trust, transparency, and usefulness. These metrics were evaluated twice per participant, once using real explanations and once using random explanations. The study included a qualitative analysis following a think-aloud protocol while performing tasks adapted to each stakeholder group. We find that providing stakeholders with real explanations does not significantly improve decision-making speed and accuracy. Our results showed a non-significant trend for the real explanations to outperform the random ones on perceived trust, usefulness, and transparency of the system for all stakeholder types. We determine that stakeholders benefit more from interacting with explanations as decision support capable of providing healthy friction, rather than as previously-assumed persuasive tools.

Mateo Gutierrez Granada, Dina Zilbershtein, Daan Odijk et al.

This paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) can enhance recommender systems, with a specific focus on Conversational Recommender Systems that leverage user preferences and personalised candidate selections from existing ranking models. We introduce VideolandGPT, a recommender system for a Video-on-Demand (VOD) platform, Videoland, which uses ChatGPT to select from a predetermined set of contents, considering the additional context indicated by users' interactions with a chat interface. We evaluate ranking metrics, user experience, and fairness of recommendations, comparing a personalised and a non-personalised version of the system, in a between-subject user study. Our results indicate that the personalised version outperforms the non-personalised in terms of accuracy and general user satisfaction, while both versions increase the visibility of items which are not in the top of the recommendation lists. However, both versions present inconsistent behavior in terms of fairness, as the system may generate recommendations which are not available on Videoland.

Cedric Waterschoot, Nava Tintarev, Francesco Barile

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in recommender systems aimed at both individuals and groups. Previously, Group Recommender Systems (GRS) often used social choice-based aggregation strategies to derive a single recommendation based on the preferences of multiple people. In this paper, we investigate under which conditions language models can perform these strategies correctly based on zero-shot learning and analyse whether the formatting of the group scenario in the prompt affects accuracy. We specifically focused on the impact of group complexity (number of users and items), different LLMs, different prompting conditions, including In-Context learning or generating explanations, and the formatting of group preferences. Our results show that performance starts to deteriorate when considering more than 100 ratings. However, not all language models were equally sensitive to growing group complexity. Additionally, we showed that In-Context Learning (ICL) can significantly increase the performance at higher degrees of group complexity, while adding other prompt modifications, specifying domain cues or prompting for explanations, did not impact accuracy. We conclude that future research should include group complexity as a factor in GRS evaluation due to its effect on LLM performance. Furthermore, we showed that formatting the group scenarios differently, such as rating lists per user or per item, affected accuracy. All in all, our study implies that smaller LLMs are capable of generating group recommendations under the right conditions, making the case for using smaller models that require less computing power and costs.

Roan Schellingerhout, Francesco Barile, Nava Tintarev

The use of recommender systems in the recruitment domain has been labeled as 'high-risk' in recent legislation. As a result, strict requirements regarding explainability and fairness have been put in place to ensure proper treatment of all involved stakeholders. To allow for stakeholder-specific explainability, while also handling highly heterogeneous recruitment data, we propose a novel explainable multi-stakeholder job recommender system using graph neural networks: the Occupational Knowledge-based Recommender using Attention (OKRA). The proposed method is capable of providing both candidate- and company-side recommendations and explanations. We find that OKRA performs substantially better than six baselines in terms of nDCG for two datasets. Furthermore, we find that the tested models show a bias toward candidates and vacancies located in urban areas. Overall, our findings suggest that OKRA provides a balance between accuracy, explainability, and fairness.

Cedric Waterschoot, Nava Tintarev, Francesco Barile

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being implemented as joint decision-makers and explanation generators for Group Recommender Systems (GRS). In this paper, we evaluate these recommendations and explanations by comparing them to social choice-based aggregation strategies. Our results indicate that LLM-generated recommendations often resembled those produced by Additive Utilitarian (ADD) aggregation. However, the explanations typically referred to averaging ratings (resembling but not identical to ADD aggregation). Group structure, uniform or divergent, did not impact the recommendations. Furthermore, LLMs regularly claimed additional criteria such as user or item similarity, diversity, or used undefined popularity metrics or thresholds. Our findings have important implications for LLMs in the GRS pipeline as well as standard aggregation strategies. Additional criteria in explanations were dependent on the number of ratings in the group scenario, indicating potential inefficiency of standard aggregation methods at larger item set sizes. Additionally, inconsistent and ambiguous explanations undermine transparency and explainability, which are key motivations behind the use of LLMs for GRS.