mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

On Faithfulness and Coherence of Language Explanations for Recommendation Systems

arXiv 2209.05409 ↗First posted 12 Sep 2022cs.IR cs.AI cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Reviews contain rich information about product characteristics and user interests and thus are commonly used to boost recommender system performance. Specifically, previous work show that jointly learning to perform review generation improves rating prediction performance. Meanwhile, these model-produced reviews serve as recommendation explanations, providing the user with insights on predicted ratings. However, while existing models could generate fluent, human-like reviews, it is unclear to what degree the reviews fully uncover the rationale behind the jointly predicted rating. In this work, we perform a series of evaluations that probes state-of-the-art models and their review generation component. We show that the generated explanations are brittle and need further evaluation before being taken as literal rationales for the estimated ratings.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Sep 2022.

Builds on

22 of 41 references.

References · 22

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  3. 2015A Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Modelscited by 1,068
  4. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
  5. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 719
  6. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  7. 2016Ups and Downs: Modeling the Visual Evolution of Fashion Trends with One-Class Collaborative Filteringcited by 517
  8. 2021Entity-Based Knowledge Conflicts in Question Answeringcited by 349
  9. 2021Polyjuice: Generating Counterfactuals for Explaining, Evaluating, and Improving Modelscited by 219
  10. 2020Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationalescited by 159
  11. 2017Joint Deep Modeling of Users and Items Using Reviews for Recommendationcited by 84
  12. 2022Personalized Prompt Learning for Explainable Recommendationcited by 79
10 more
  1. 2021Personalized Transformer for Explainable Recommendationcited by 58
  2. 2022Rethinking Explainability as a Dialogue: A Practitioner's Perspectivecited by 52
  3. 2017Neural Rating Regression with Abstractive Tips Generation for Recommendationcited by 50
  4. 2021On the Diversity and Limits of Human Explanationscited by 30
  5. 2018Multi-Pointer Co-Attention Networks for Recommendationcited by 25
  6. 2021What to Learn, and How: Toward Effective Learning from Rationalescited by 25
  7. 2019Towards Controllable and Personalized Review Generationcited by 24
  8. 2020How Useful are Reviews for Recommendation? A Critical Review and Potential Improvementscited by 24
  9. 2022Evaluating Explainable AI on a Multi-Modal Medical Imaging Task: Can Existing Algorithms Fulfill Clinical Requirements?cited by 19
  10. 2021Knowledge-based Review Generation by Coherence Enhanced Text Planningcited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1.

1 paper.