Counterfactual Profile Perturbations for Recommendation Explanations: A Reproducibility Study

The topic of explanation in recommender systems has seen steady research attention since the earliest days of the field. With some exceptions, this work has focused on the explanation of single items in a recommendation list and, especially recently, has emphasized approaches that are decoupled from the logic of the recommendation algorithm itself. Based on findings in the psychology of interpersonal communication, we propose a new task, pairwise interpretation of item rankings, asking the comparative question ``Why is item A ranked higher than item B?''. An effective solution to this task, we argue, is inherently grounded in the operation of the recommendation algorithm. We propose a class of techniques based on counterfactual learning to uncover the items in a user's profile that have contributed to the relative ranking of items. Using multiple datasets, we show that it is possible to identify such items as potential basis for comparative explanation.

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.

LLM-based explainable recommenders can produce fluent explanations that are factually correct, yet still justify items using attributes that conflict with a user's historical preferences. Such preference-inconsistent explanations yield logically valid but unconvincing reasoning and are largely missed by standard hallucination or faithfulness metrics. We formalize this failure mode and propose PURE, a preference-aware reasoning framework following a select-then-generate paradigm. Instead of only improving generation, PURE intervenes in evidence selection, it selects a compact set of multi-hop item-centric reasoning paths that are both factually grounded and aligned with user preference structure, guided by user intent, specificity, and diversity to suppress generic, weakly personalized evidence. The selected evidence is then injected into LLM generation via structure-aware prompting that preserves relational constraints. To measure preference inconsistency, we introduce a feature-level, user-centric evaluation metric that reveals misalignment overlooked by factuality-based measures. Experiments on three real-world datasets show that PURE consistently reduces preference-inconsistent explanations and factual hallucinations while maintaining competitive recommendation accuracy, explanation quality, and inference efficiency. These results highlight that trustworthy explanations require not only factual correctness but also justification aligned with user preferences.