Explainable Recommendation

Despite the adoption of large language models (LLMs) in recommendation systems, prevailing approaches mostly model single-type behaviors (e.g., views or purchases). Even when incorporating multiple behaviors, existing methods flatten heterogeneous actions into homogeneous token sequences, ignoring their distinct decision-making roles. This flattening fails to capture semantic hierarchies and contextual nuances in complex decision-making, such as trade-offs between price and quality. Consequently, performance degrades in critical ``difficult-choice'' scenarios involving highly similar items. To bridge this gap, we propose MARI (Memory-Augmented Recommendation with Interpretability), which grounds predictions in explicit, structured decision evidence. MARI maintains a Decision Memory Bank (DMB) that archives users' past rationales as Structured Decision Memories (SDMs): concise records of goals, constraints, and trade-offs. These SDMs are generated offline via Post-Hoc Decision Distillation from heterogeneous behaviors and user-generated content. By retrieving relevant SDMs to augment LLM reasoning, MARI achieves interpretability and scalability without the prohibitive cost of processing long raw sequences. Extensive experiments show MARI significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on standard next-item prediction and a newly introduced Difficult Choice Prediction task, incurring low latency overhead by decoupling memory construction from online inference. Qualitative analyses reveal actionable, human-readable insights into user decision-making, marking a concrete step toward reasoning-aware recommendation systems.

Sequential RecSys are central to modern personalization, exploiting user's historical interaction sequences to drive next-step decisions. Deep learning models, particularly CNN and Transformer-based architectures, have proven highly effective at capturing temporal dependencies in these histories. For transparency and trust, understanding which past interactions drive a given recommendation is increasingly important --- both for developers auditing model behavior and for users seeking a rationale. However, the non-linearities that give these models their predictive power also render them black boxes, making it difficult to attribute decisions to specific interactions. While gradient-based, perturbation-based, and attention-based explainability methods exist, a systematic benchmark of their faithfulness for sequential recommendation is missing. We address this gap by introducing a dual-model masking metric in which one model supplies per-timestep attribution scores and a separately trained, masking-robust probe measures the resulting change in predicted probability. Using this metric, we benchmark ten XAI methods across CNN, Transformer, SASRec, and BERT4Rec backbones on KuaiRand and MovieLens, complemented by analyses of temporal attribution patterns, item popularity confounding, and robustness to input corruption. Our key findings are: (1) gradient-based methods, particularly GradientSHAP and Integrated Gradients, yield the most faithful and robust attributions; (2) raw attention weights are unreliable, but gradient-weighted attention restores faithfulness on shorter sequences, with degradation on longer horizons as softmax attention probabilities converge toward uniform importance scores, diminishing the method's ability to identify informative interactions; and (3) temporal attribution patterns in faithful methods reflect genuine task structure rather than recency or popularity bias.

In this reproducibility study, we investigate the transparency and scrutability of recommender systems enhanced by incorporating generated natural-language user profiles that represent user preferences. The original paper explores the synthesis of user profiles from raw user-generated review text across domains such as movies and accommodations (Amazon Movies & TV, TripAdvisor). Crucially, these natural-language user profiles enable direct user interaction and intervention, allowing users to customize recommendations by correcting misattributed preferences or addressing cold-start settings. We successfully reproduce the core findings of the original study. Additionally, we extend the evaluation by conducting systematic context ablation experiments, multi-seed stability across five distinct random seeds to establish statistical reliability, and a mechanistic interpretability analysis using the nnsight framework to probe internal model representations under counterfactual profile perturbations. Our findings verify the original paper's claim that User Profile Recommendation (UPR) achieves competitive performance under its test-set reranking protocol and makes recommendations more transparent. Perturbing the natural-language profiles does change predictions, but it shifts predicted ratings uniformly across genres with no detectable genre-selective effect, leaving rankings unchanged even under direct activation steering. We trace this back to the rating-regression objective rather than the profile interface, with ranking-objective models clearly exceeding in this task.

Next-basket repurchase recommendation is commonly formulated as a ranking task: given a customer's purchase history, the system ranks previously purchased items that may be needed again. In production settings, however, ranking accuracy is only one component of recommendation quality. Customers may also benefit from concise evidence about why an item is recommended now. Large language models (LLMs) offer a potential way to surface such evidence through feature-based, human-readable rationales grounded in interpretable behavioral signals. We construct repurchase features spanning cadence, frequency, recency, user behavior, and item popularity, and evaluate LLMs on two public grocery datasets and one proprietary retail dataset. We investigate (1) whether off-the-shelf LLMs can use these features as next-basket scorers relative to heuristic and supervised rankers, and (2) whether LLM-cited features carry outcome-grounded ranking signal. For the latter, we compare LLM-cited features with model-specific attribution methods under a cross-model feature-masking protocol that measures ranking degradation after masking selected features. Our results show that LLM scores are not competitive with supervised rankers, suggesting that off-the-shelf LLMs should not be used as standalone repurchase recommenders. However, changes in prompt and evidence representation can improve outcome-grounded feature-masking results in some settings even when ranking performance does not improve; the effect is dataset-dependent and does not consistently match attribution baselines. These findings suggest a practical role for LLMs as validated explanation components rather than primary rankers, with rationale quality evaluated separately from ranking accuracy.

LLM-as-a-Judge, which leverages a large language model to evaluate natural language generated by another AI application or model, has become a standard, scalable approach for accelerating and extending costly human evaluation. Yet most work treats a judge as a static artifact, evaluating it once at construction or against a fixed benchmark. We argue instead that an LLM judge operating in a deployed system is better understood as having a lifecycle. It must be built, trained, deployed, and continuously maintained as the surrounding data evolves, and each phase poses distinct technical and operational challenges. We present such a lifecycle for the LLM judges that evaluate recommendation explanations at Netflix. Everything we report comes out of a series of controlled online member-facing experiments, in which our pipeline generated and the judges assessed hundreds of thousands of distinct show-level explanations per week across a changing catalog. Our framework has four phases. (I) Birth defines the evaluation criteria and builds curated benchmark datasets with human labels and rationales. (II) Training refines the judges' rubrics via Reasoning-Aligned Rubric Tuning (RART), which uses a meta-judge over reasoning output as the learning signal. (III) Deployment puts one judge in two online roles, quality gating and reflective generation. (IV) Monitoring runs a continuous Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) alignment process that detects drift and triggers re-tuning behind a human review gate. We report results from a five-week online A/B test over tens of millions of members on the Netflix mobile app, in which judge-aligned explanations shifted member viewing toward novel content (previously unwatched) and increased successful browse-to-play sessions relative to a no-explanation control, with no quality-related escalations.

Foundation models are increasingly reused as software components, making model selection a critical software-engineering decision. Current model hubs primarily support discovery through popularity metrics, often neglecting functional capabilities, operational constraints, and community-perceived quality. We argue that foundation-model selection should be treated as an explicit, auditable software-component selection task rather than as keyword search, popularity ranking, or opaque conversational advice. This paper proposes HugSelect, an explainable decision-support framework for foundation-model selection. HugSelect builds a knowledge base of 71,274 models by combining repository metadata, extracted functional capabilities, and perceived quality attributes derived from community discussions into a unified pipeline. It ranks candidate models using a weighted additive model that exposes criterion-level score decompositions. We evaluated HugSelect through pipeline validation, comparative case studies against four commercial LLM-based recommendation systems (44 scenarios), fine-grained ablation, and an exploratory user study (n = 10). Extraction pipelines achieved an F1 score of 0.801 for functional features and an accuracy of 0.84 for quality-attribute mapping. HugSelect achieved a model-level Coverage@10 of 0.61 and family-level Coverage@10 of 0.91, showing recommendation quality comparable to that of the evaluated commercial systems, with no significant overall differences in ranking quality, while providing stable, traceable, and inspectable reasoning. Ablation confirmed that functional features were the main driver of retrieval accuracy, and preliminary user feedback suggests that the framework is useful and intuitive.

Modern recommender systems produce predictions that users cannot interrogate. The two dominant improvements, collaborative filtering and LLM-based reasoning, each fall short: collaborative filtering captures behavioural signals but offers no reasoning, while large language models (LLMs) generate fluent explanations but hallucinate and are poorly grounded in a user's history. We present X-KGRank, a knowledge graph retrieval augmented framework that unifies structural collaborative filtering with LLM-based explanation. From the MovieLens-1M dataset (6,040 users, 3,704 items, 988,129 interactions) we construct a heterogeneous knowledge graph of 9,762 nodes and 999,264 edges spanning three relation types (RATED, HAS_GENRE, and CO_RATED) persisted in Neo4j. We train a LightGCN ranker with content-aware SBERT initialization and a rating weighted BPR objective, and apply a popularity selective routing strategy that grounds long-tail items (1,855 of 3,704) in knowledge-graph paths while serving popular items from pre-trained knowledge, reducing KG-augmented generations by roughly 50%. On the MovieLens-1M test set under a 99-sample protocol, X-KGRank achieves NDCG@10 = 0.2956 and Recall@10 = 0.5371, improving over a strong popularity baseline by 17.1% on both metrics, by 15.6% on NDCG@20 (0.3449 vs. 0.2983), and by 14.6% on MRR (0.2435 vs. 0.2124). Across three LLM backbones evaluated on 16 cases, a 1.5-billion-parameter model (Qwen2.5-1.5B) matches a 7-billion-parameter model (Mistral-7B) on heuristic explanation quality (0.97 vs. 0.94), yet qualitative analysis shows the smaller model is more prone to factual fabrication.

Recommender systems mediate everyday consumption, offering a promising channel for encouraging sustainable choices. Prior research shows that explanations influence users' perceptions of recommendations and can support more informed decisions. We argue that explanations can also serve as behavioral nudges by foregrounding sustainability information at the moment of choice. This study investigates how different behavioral framings of sustainability information in recommendation explanations affect user choices and perceptions. Using generative AI, we generate sustainability-aware explanations by drawing on nudge theory and validate them through human evaluation and LLM-as-a-judge audits. Building on this foundation, we conduct two randomized studies (N = 529) in a low involvement domain (instant coffee) and a high involvement domain (hotel bookings), in which participants choose among preference matched recommendations accompanied by these explanations. Our results show that, across both domains, merely disclosing sustainability information in explanations does not change choices, whereas framing that information or invoking a descriptive social norm significantly increases sustainable selections and eases decision-making. Notably, perception and behavior diverge, as plain disclosure improves explanation evaluations without translating into more sustainable selection behavior. Our work demonstrates how LLMs can generate theory-grounded explanations at scale, pointing toward practical explanation-based interventions for social good. We conclude by discussing implications for adaptive explanation design with generative AI.

Traditional conversational recommenders entangle retrieval and response generation within a single text interface, so exact entity cues fade as the dialogue's intent evolves, which compromises explanation credibility. We address this within the ACM RecSys Challenge 2026, which mandates both top-20 ranking and evidence-grounded response generation. This paper presents the third-place solution by team "swyoo" for the Blind-B industry track. We decouple retrieval and response into separate pipelines connected strictly via ranked tracks and metadata. Retrieval combines a hybrid lexical-dense pool for exact matching with a task-adapted pool driven by fine-tuned Qwen 8B adapters. Candidates are calibrated via LightGBM, then routed to an evidence-grounded propose-assign-select (PAS) framework to structure responses. This system also ranked second on the explanation-quality leaderboard in the final blind evaluation. Our findings demonstrate that: (i) isolating retrieval and response preserves both catalog cues and fluid intent; (ii) structuring generation via explicit evidence assignment is key to this near-best-in-class explanation reliability.

Music streaming services such as Deezer often recommend personalized playlists to users. Playlist captioning, which involves describing these playlists in natural language, is essential for helping users understand the content behind each recommendation, yet remains challenging at scale. This paper presents the automatic playlist captioning system deployed on Deezer in 2025 to address this challenge. Leveraging recent advances in large language models (LLMs) to generate descriptive captions from diverse data sources in a controlled manner, this system now powers the Daily Mix feature, used by millions of users. This deployment has led to significant improvements in user engagement, highlighting how the semantic framing of an unchanged recommendation shapes user perception in online personalized experiences.

Traditional recommender systems (RecSys) primarily infer user preferences from implicit signals (such as clicks, watches, and purchases), often neglecting the rich explicit contextual feedback users provide through verbal text, like comments and reviews. This explicit context feedback captures the nuanced reasons behind user decisions regarding their preferences. In addition, it offers critical heterogeneous information for user preference alignment and more explainable recommendations. Overlooking such signals can lead to misaligned user preferences and further reinforce filter bubbles, as algorithms fail to understand the "semantic context" behind user choices. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) present new opportunities to harness user-generated content for more accurate and diverse recommendations, yet current LLM-based recommendations still focus on using item meta-data and underutilize this resource. In this paper, we advocate for prioritizing explicit context feedback in the next generation of LLM-based RecSys. We review the evolution of recommendation paradigms, highlight the value of context-rich feedback, call for new benchmarks and metrics, and introduce frameworks for integrating explicit user signals into scalable LLM-driven RecSys. Centering on user-preference modeling, we aim to foster more personalized, transparent, and explainable RecSys online platforms.

Online recruitment platforms require recommendation methods capable of retrieving relevant job opportunities from large and heterogeneous collections of job postings. Keyword-based search is efficient and interpretable, but it may fail to retrieve relevant postings when equivalent roles are expressed using different terminology. This study presents a metadata-driven job recommendation system that combines TF-IDF lexical matching, Sentence-BERT semantic retrieval, query-aware filtering, optional Cross-Encoder re-ranking, and explanation generation. The proposed system utilizes structured metadata fields including job title, company name, location, seniority level, job function, employment type, and industry without relying on full job descriptions or user interaction histories. Experiments conducted on a cleaned LinkedIn job posting dataset containing 31262 records demonstrate that the best hybrid configuration achieved a Precision at 10 score of 0.8032 and an nDCG at 10 score of 0.9496. Under the internal evaluation protocol, Cross-Encoder re-ranking improved Precision at 10 from 0.7896 to 0.7948 and nDCG at 10 from 0.9666 to 0.9739. These findings indicate that lexical and semantic retrieval techniques can be effectively combined to provide explainable job recommendations when only structured metadata is available.

Predictive modelling is important for health data analysis and data-driven clinical decision-making. However, predictive studies are challenging to design optimally by hand when tens or even hundreds of features require selection, transformation, or interaction modelling. While complex machine learning models offer high performance, their "black-box" nature limits the clinical trust, transparency, and interpretability required for decision-making. We developed and evaluated an Exploratory AI Recommender that provides data-driven recommendations to improve predictive performance of existing interpretable statistical models. The developed framework uses flexible AI modelling to capture complex data patterns and explainable AI techniques to translate the patterns into three recommendation types: feature exclusion, non-linear terms, and feature interactions. We evaluated the framework by comparing predictive performance of a baseline (i.e., no interactions or non-linear terms) Cox Proportional Hazards (CPH) model against an augmented CPH incorporating recommendations suggested by our method. The primary analysis predicts the time to the first occurrence of a fall or related injury in 245,614 patients. Our method recommended excluding 23 features, including non-linear terms for two features, and including 221 suggested feature interactions. The C-index improved from 0.805 (95% CI 0.798-0.812) to 0.815 (95% CI 0.809-0.822), and so did calibration (intercept: -0.006 to 0.003; slope: 1.063 to 0.950). All recommendations were supported by existing literature. The method also proved effective on two additional public datasets, demonstrating wider applicability. The proposed Exploratory AI Recommender demonstrates the potential of explainable AI and data-driven study design to improve the process of developing, and the performance of high-dimensional transparent predictive models.

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.