Adherence and Constancy in LIME-RS Explanations for Recommendation

Explainable Recommendation has attracted a lot of attention due to a renewed interest in explainable artificial intelligence. In particular, post-hoc approaches have proved to be the most easily applicable ones to increasingly complex recommendation models, which are then treated as black boxes. The most recent literature has shown that for post-hoc explanations based on local surrogate models, there are problems related to the robustness of the approach itself. This consideration becomes even more relevant in human-related tasks like recommendation. The explanation also has the arduous task of enhancing increasingly relevant aspects of user experience such as transparency or trustworthiness. This paper aims to show how the characteristics of a classical post-hoc model based on surrogates is strongly model-dependent and does not prove to be accountable for the explanations generatedThe authors acknowledge partial support of PID2019-108965GB-I00, PONARS01_00876BIO-D,CasadelleTecnologie mergenti della Cittàdi Matera, PONARS01_00821FLET4.0, PIAServiziLocali2.0,H2020Passapartout-Grantn. 101016956, PIAERP4.0,andIPZS-PRJ4_IA_NORMATIV

Reproducibility of experiments in recommender systems evaluation

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018 Published by Springer International Publishing AG 2018. All Rights Reserved. Recommender systems evaluation is usually based on predictive accuracy metrics with better scores meaning recommendations of higher quality. However, the comparison of results is becoming increasingly difficult, since there are different recommendation frameworks and different settings in the design and implementation of the experiments. Furthermore, there might be minor differences on algorithm implementation among the different frameworks. In this paper, we compare well known recommendation algorithms, using the same dataset, metrics and overall settings, the results of which point to result differences across frameworks with the exact same settings. Hence, we propose the use of standards that should be followed as guidelines to ensure the replication of experiments and the reproducibility of the results

Mutation in GDP-fucose synthesis genes of Sinorhizobium fredii alters nod factors and significantly decreases competitiveness to nodulate soybeans

Microbial Biotechnolog

Effect of pH and soybean cultivars on the quantitative analyses of soybean rhizobia populations

Microbial Biotechnolog

A unifying and general account of fairness measurement in recommender systems

Fairness is fundamental to all information access systems, including recommender systems. However, the landscape of fairness definition and measurement is quite scattered with many competing definitions that are partial and often incompatible. There is much work focusing on specific – and different – notions of fairness and there exist dozens of metrics of fairness in the literature, many of them redundant and most of them incompatible. In contrast, to our knowledge, there is no formal framework that covers all possible variants of fairness and allows developers to choose the most appropriate variant depending on the particular scenario. In this paper, we aim to define a general, flexible, and parameterizable framework that covers a whole range of fairness evaluation possibilities. Instead of modeling the metrics based on an abstract definition of fairness, the distinctive feature of this study compared to the current state of the art is that we start from the metrics applied in the literature to obtain a unified model by generalization. The framework is grounded on a general work hypothesis: interpreting the space of users and items as a probabilistic sample space, two fundamental measures in information theory (Kullback–Leibler Divergence and Mutual Information) can capture the majority of possible scenarios for measuring fairness on recommender system outputs. In addition, earlier research on fairness in recommender systems could be viewed as single-sided, trying to optimize some form of equity across either user groups or provider/procurer groups, without considering the user/item space in conjunction, thereby overlooking/disregarding the interplay between user and item groups. Instead, our framework includes the notion of statistical independence between user and item groups. We finally validate our approach experimentally on both synthetic and real data according to a wide range of state-of-the-art recommendation algorithms and real-world data sets, showing that with our framework we can measure fairness in a general, uniform, and meaningful way