ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations
Full text PdfPdf (167 KB)
Source Computer Supported Cooperative Work archive
Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work table of contents
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Pages: 241 - 250  
Year of Publication: 2000
ISBN:1-58113-222-0
Authors
Jonathan L. Herlocker  Dept.of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Joseph A. Konstan  Dept.of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
John Riedl  Dept.of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Sponsors
SIGGROUP: ACM Special Interest Group on Supporting Group Work
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 97,   Downloads (12 Months): 445,   Citation Count: 92
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/358916.358995
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Automated collaborative filtering (ACF) systems predict a person's affinity for items or information by connecting that person's recorded interests with the recorded interests of a community of people and sharing ratings between like-minded persons. However, current recommender systems are black boxes, providing no transparency into the working of the recommendation. Explanations provide that transparency, exposing the reasoning and data behind a recommendation. In this paper, we address explanation interfaces for ACF systems - how they should be implemented and why they should be implemented. To explore how, we present a model for explanations based on the user's conceptual model of the recommendation process. We then present experimental results demonstrating what components of an explanation are the most compelling. To address why, we present experimental evidence that shows that providing explanations can improve the acceptance of ACF systems. We also describe some initial explorations into measuring how explanations can improve the filtering performance of users.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
Graesser,A.C.,Black,J.B.,(Eds.)1985.The Psychology of Qu stions .Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
 
4
Dahlen,B.J.,Konstan,J.A.,Herlocker,J.L.,Good,N.,Borchers,A., Riedl,J.,1998.Jump-starting movielens:User benefits of starting a collaborative filtering system with "dead data". University of Minnesota TR 98-017.
5
 
6
 
7
8
9
10
 
11
Norman,D.A.1989.The D sign of Ev ryday Things .Currency- Doubleday,New York.
12
 
13
 
14
Toulmin S.E.1958.The Uses of Argument .Cambridge University Press

CITED BY  92

Collaborative Colleagues:
Jonathan L. Herlocker: colleagues
Joseph A. Konstan: colleagues
John Riedl: colleagues