Argument-based generation and explanation of recommendations

0Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In the recommender systems literature, it has been shown that, in addition to improving system effectiveness, explaining recommendations may increase user satisfaction, trust, persuasion and loyalty. In general, explanations focus on the filtering algorithms or the users and items involved in the generation of recommendations. However, on certain domains that are rich on user-generated textual content, it would be valuable to provide justifications of recommendations according to arguments that are explicit, underlying or related with the data used by the systems, e.g., the reasons for customers' opinions in reviews of e-commerce sites, and the requests and claims in citizens' proposals and debates of e-participation platforms. In this context, there is a need and challenging task to automatically extract and exploit the arguments given for and against evaluated items. We thus advocate to focus not only on user preferences and item features, but also on associated arguments. In other words, we propose to not only consider what is said about items, but also why it is said. Hence, arguments would not only be part of the recommendation explanations, but could also be used by the recommendation algorithms themselves. To this end, in this thesis, we propose to use argument mining techniques and tools that allow retrieving and relating argumentative information from textual content, and investigate recommendation methods that exploit that information before, during and after their filtering processes.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Segura-Tinoco, A. (2021). Argument-based generation and explanation of recommendations. In RecSys 2021 - 15th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (pp. 845–850). Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1145/3460231.3473894

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Researcher 3

50%

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

33%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

17%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 4

57%

Design 1

14%

Arts and Humanities 1

14%

Engineering 1

14%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free