Visual or Textual: Effects of Explanation Format and Personal Characteristics on the Perception of Explanations in an Educational Recommender System

Educational recommender systems (ERSs) are becoming increasingly important in enhancing educational outcomes and personalizing learning experiences by providing recommendations of personalized resources and activities to learners, tailored to their individual learning needs. While user control is widely assumed to improve user experience, the effects of different levels of control in ERSs remain underexplored. To address this gap, we designed and evaluated an interactive ERS within the MOOC platform CourseMapper, where learners could interact with the input (i.e., user profile), process (i.e., recommendation algorithm), and output (i.e., recommendations) of the system. We conducted a between-subjects user study (N=184) to examine how varying levels of user control in an ERS influenced users' perceptions of the recommendation goals of perceived control, transparency, trust, satisfaction, and perceived quality. Our results show that enabling users to build and refine their profile is sufficient to promote positive perceptions of the ERS, while additional control options mainly reinforce these impressions. Moreover, perceived control is the only goal significantly affected by providing different levels of user control in the ERS, with input control exerting the strongest influence. Furthermore, different levels of control affect transparency, trust, satisfaction, and perceived quality in distinct yet interconnected ways. Overall, the findings provide empirical evidence that user control positively shapes transparency, trust, satisfaction, and perceived quality, though to varying extents.

Traditional recommender systems are typically trained to predict what item users will interact with next, but not why. However, offering personalized evidence for why a user might like the predicted item is an important way to enhance the service and to raise the likelihood that the user will be genuinely interested in the recommendation. This service can be delivered by integrating a frontier-model call into the member-facing pipeline, but it will add extra cost and latency. In this paper, we train a recommender LLM to generate personalized explanations for its reccomendation, based on the user's watching history at a large video streaming service. We impose two requirements on the generated explanation: it must be faithful to the elements of the shows it links, and it must be strictly non-harmful to the user. To this end, we first train two LLM-judge reward models covering three specific criteria, and propose constrained GRPO to incorporate these different criteria. On a held-out real-world testing set, our fine-tuned model improves the all-three-criteria PASS rate rises from 0.649 to 0.956 under our own judges and from 0.677 to 0.931 under an independent judge, where as the frontier generator performs similar to the untuned recommender baseline. We conduct further experiments to show that the model's language and recommendation abilities remain unchanged. Based on these results, we conclude that an LLM-based recommender can be fine-tuned on other complex tasks without compromising its original recommendation performance, thus provide insights for further agentic user interface powered by a single model.

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) provide an intuitive way to understand recommender systems by identifying minimal modifications to user-item interactions that alter recommendation outcomes. Existing CE methods for recommender systems, however, have been evaluated under heterogeneous protocols, using different datasets, recommenders, metrics, and even explanation formats, which hampers reproducibility and fair comparison. Our paper systematically reproduces, re-implement, and re-evaluate eleven state-of-the-art CE methods for recommender systems, covering both native explainers (e.g., LIME-RS, SHAP, PRINCE, ACCENT, LXR, GREASE) and specific graph-based explainers originally proposed for GNNs. Here, a unified benchmarking framework is proposed to assess explainers along three dimensions: explanation format (implicit vs. explicit), evaluation level (item-level vs. list-level), and perturbation scope (user interaction vectors vs. user-item interaction graphs). Our evaluation protocol includes effectiveness, sparsity, and computational complexity metrics, and extends existing item-level assessments to top-K list-level explanations. Through extensive experiments on three real-world datasets and six representative recommender models, we analyze how well previously reported strengths of CE methods generalize across diverse setups. We observe that the trade-off between effectiveness and sparsity depends strongly on the specific method and evaluation setting, particularly under the explicit format; in addition, explainer performance remains largely consistent across item level and list level evaluations, and several graph-based explainers exhibit notable scalability limitations on large recommender graphs. Our results refine and challenge earlier conclusions about the robustness and practicality of CE generation methods in recommender systems: https://github.com/L2R-UET/CFExpRec.