Cited by 88Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Recommender Systems and TechniquesPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

PRINCE: Provider-side Interpretability with Counterfactual Explanations in Recommender Systems

Open access
Ghazimatin, Azin, Balalau, Oana, Saha Roy, Rishiraj, Weikum, Gerhard·2020·Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining

Abstract

Interpretable explanations for recommender systems and other machine learning models are crucial to gain user trust. Prior works that have focused on paths connecting users and items in a heterogeneous network have several limitations, such as discovering relationships rather than true explanations, or disregarding other users' privacy. In this work, we take a fresh perspective, and present PRINCE: a provider-side mechanism to produce tangible explanations for end-users, where an explanation is defined to be a set of minimal actions performed by the user that, if removed, changes the recommendation to a different item. Given a recommendation, PRINCE uses a polynomial-time optimal algorithm for finding this minimal set of a user's actions from an exponential search space, based on random walks over dynamic graphs. Experiments on two real-world datasets show that PRINCE provides more compact explanations than intuitive baselines, and insights from a crowdsourced user-study demonstrate the viability of such action-based explanations. We thus posit that PRINCE produces scrutable, actionable, and concise explanations, owing to its use of counterfactual evidence, a user's own actions, and minimal sets, respectively.

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 · 10.1145/3336191.3371824

Cites

65 of 65 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?

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: 9

  1. [19][19] Azin Ghazimatin, Rishiraj Saha Roy, and Gerhard Weikum. 2019. FAIRY: A Framework for Understanding Relationships between Users' Actions and their Social Feeds. In WSDM . -
  2. [22][22] Mohsen Jamali and Martin Ester. 2009. TrustWalker: A random walk model for combining trust-based and item-based recommendation. In KDD . -
  3. [35][35] Tim Miller, Rosina Weber, David Aha, and Daniele Magazzeni. 2019. IJCAI 2019 Workshop on Explainable AI (XAI). -
  4. [37][37] Athanasios N. Nikolakopoulos and George Karypis. 2019. Recwalk: Nearly uncoupled random walks for top-n recommendation. In WSDM . -
  5. [41][41] Joy Rimchala, Jineet Doshi, Qiang Zhu, Diane Chang, Nick Hoh, Conrad De Peuter, Shir Meir Lador, and Sambarta Dasgupta. 2019. KDD Workshop on Explainable AI for Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. -
  6. [47][47] Hongwei Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Jialin Wang, Miao Zhao, Wenjie Li, Xing Xie, and Minyi Guo. 2018. Ripplenet: Propagating user preferences on the knowledge graph for recommender systems. In CIKM . -
  7. [55][55] Chuxu Zhang, Ananthram Swami, and Nitesh Chawla. 2019. SHNE: Representation Learning for Semantic-Associated Heterogeneous Networks. In WSDM . -
  8. [57][57] Quanshi Zhang, Lixin Fan, Bolei Zhou, Sinisa Todorovic, Tianfu Wu, and Ying Nian Wu. 2019. CVPR-19 Workshop on Explainable AI. -
  9. [60][60] Yongfeng Zhang, Yi Zhang, Min Zhang, and Chirag Shah. 2019. EARS 2019: The 2nd International Workshop on ExplainAble Recommendation and Search. In SIGIR .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ghazimatin, A., Balalau, O., Saha Roy, R., & Weikum, G.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Informatics (DE)
  • Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies du numérique (FR)
  • Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbruecken, Germany
Venue
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-01-20
Pages
196-204
OpenAlex
W2991380435
Cited by
88
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6
FWCI
3.86
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • DFG Collaborative Research Center 1223
  • ERC Synergy Grant (imPACT) (610150)
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 › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
interpretable explanations, recommender systems, counterfactual explanations, user privacy, random walks, dynamic graphs, heterogeneous networks, user trust, explainable AI

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