mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

RecRec: Algorithmic Recourse for Recommender Systems

arXiv 2308.14916 ↗First posted 28 Aug 2023cs.IR cs.AI cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recommender systems play an essential role in the choices people make in domains such as entertainment, shopping, food, news, employment, and education. The machine learning models underlying these recommender systems are often enormously large and black-box in nature for users, content providers, and system developers alike. It is often crucial for all stakeholders to understand the model's rationale behind making certain predictions and recommendations. This is especially true for the content providers whose livelihoods depend on the recommender system. Drawing motivation from the practitioners' need, in this work, we propose a recourse framework for recommender systems, targeted towards the content providers. Algorithmic recourse in the recommendation setting is a set of actions that, if executed, would modify the recommendations (or ranking) of an item in the desired manner. A recourse suggests actions of the form: "if a feature changes X to Y, then the ranking of that item for a set of users will change to Z." Furthermore, we demonstrate that RecRec is highly effective in generating valid, sparse, and actionable recourses through an empirical evaluation of recommender systems trained on three real-world datasets. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to conceptualize and empirically test a generalized framework for generating recourses for recommender systems.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 72 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Aug 2023.

Builds on

24 of 72 references.

References · 24

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2016Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networkscited by 2,976
  3. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  4. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
  5. 2019Theoretically Principled Trade-off between Robustness and Accuracycited by 1,510
  6. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  7. 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,201
  8. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
  9. 2016Adversarial Machine Learning at Scalecited by 934
  10. 2018Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learningcited by 508
  11. 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 368
  12. 2021Interpretable Machine Learning: Fundamental Principles and 10 Grand Challengescited by 364
12 more
  1. 2018Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?cited by 262
  2. 2019InterpretML: A Unified Framework for Machine Learning Interpretabilitycited by 243
  3. 2018Explainable Recommendation: A Survey and New Perspectivescited by 210
  4. 2016Technical Report on the CleverHans v2.1.0 Adversarial Examples Librarycited by 123
  5. 2020Interpretable Machine Learning -- A Brief History, State-of-the-Art and Challengescited by 120
  6. 2019Fine-Grained Spoiler Detection from Large-Scale Review Corporacited by 76
  7. 2021Counterfactual Explainable Recommendationcited by 60
  8. 2019Quantifying Interpretability and Trust in Machine Learning Systemscited by 49
  9. 2019PRINCE: Provider-side Interpretability with Counterfactual Explanations in Recommender Systemscited by 35
  10. 2021Counterfactual Explanations for Neural Recommenderscited by 27
  11. 2019Recommendations and User Agency: The Reachability of Collaboratively-Filtered Informationcited by 21
  12. 2020Learning Post-Hoc Causal Explanations for Recommendationcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2.

3 papers.