Cited by 27Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Recommender Systems and TechniquesInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Explainable Recommendations in Intelligent Systems: Delivery Methods, Modalities and Risks

Open access
Naiseh, Mohammad, Jiang, Nan, Ma, Jianbing, Ali, Raian·2020·Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-50316-1_13

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Explanations did not improve trust calibration because explanations were perceived as information overload by human decision-makers.

    “Indeed, several studies discussed reasons and situations where explanations did not improve trust calibration, e.g., explanations were perceived as an information overload by the humans’ decision-makers [55].”

    From Explainable recommendation: when design meets trust calibration (2021) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Information overload section says explanations can overwhelm end-users and become confusing. The Under-trust section says more explanation detail may not increase trust, but the paper does not establish that perceived information overload caused a failure to improve trust calibration. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Hu, J., Zhang, Z., Liu, J., Shi, C., Yu, P.S., Wang, B.: Recexp: A semantic recom- mender system with explanation based on heterogeneous information network. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. pp. 401-402. ACM (2016)
  2. Krause, J., Perer, A., Bertini, E.: A user study on the effect of aggregating ex- planations for interpreting machine learning models. In: ACM KDD Workshop on Interactive Data Exploration and Analytics (2018)
  3. Kroll, J.A., Barocas, S., Felten, E.W., Reidenberg, J.R., Robinson, D.G., Yu, H.: Accountable algorithms. U. Pa. L. Rev. 165, 633 (2016)
  4. Lamche, B., Adıgüzel, U., Wörndl, W.: Interactive explanations in mobile shop- ping recommender systems. In: Joint Workshop on Interfaces and Human Decision Making in Recommender Systems. p. 14 (2014)
  5. Lepri, B., Oliver, N., Letouzé, E., Pentland, A., Vinck, P.: Fair, transparent, and ac- countable algorithmic decision-making processes. Philosophy & Technology 31(4), 611-627 (2018)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naiseh, M., Jiang, N., Ma, J., & Ali, R.
Affiliations
  • Bournemouth University (GB)
  • Chengdu University of Information Technology (CN)
  • Hamad bin Khalifa University (QA)
Corresponding author
Naiseh, Mohammad
Venue
Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing
Published
2020
Pages
212-228
ISSN
  • 1865-1348 (ISSN-L)
  • 1865-1356
OpenAlex
W3037100559
Cited by
27
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.53
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Locations
  • Lecture notes in business information processing (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
explainable recommendation, user trust, user experience, decision-making, transparency, human-AI interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review