Explain What You Mean: Intent Augmented Knowledge Graph Recommender Built With An LLM
Authors:
Wenqing Zheng,
Noah Fatsi,
Daniel Barcklow,
Dmitri Kalaev,
Steven Yao,
Owen Reinert,
C. Bayan Bruss,
Daniele Rosa
Abstract:
Interaction sparsity is a long-standing challenge in recommendation systems. Sparsity manifests in environments with disproportional cardinality of groupings of entities, such as users and products in an online marketplace. It is also found for newly introduced entities, described as the cold-start problem. Recent efforts to mitigate this issue either enrich the connectivity data by incorporating…
▽ More
Interaction sparsity is a long-standing challenge in recommendation systems. Sparsity manifests in environments with disproportional cardinality of groupings of entities, such as users and products in an online marketplace. It is also found for newly introduced entities, described as the cold-start problem. Recent efforts to mitigate this issue either enrich the connectivity data by incorporating social networks or external knowledge graphs, or fine-tune LLMs into interaction augmenters or next-item recommenders. However, these techniques tend to be resource demanding, requiring high computational power. They also have several limitations, including data availability, low quality, or synthetic noise issues. In this work, we propose LLM-based Intent Knowledge Graph Recommender (IKGR), a novel framework that leverages retrieval-augmented generation and an encoding approach to construct and densify a knowledge graph. IKGR leverages latent user-item affinities from an interaction knowledge graph and further densifies it through mutual intent connectivity. This addresses sparsity issues and allows the model to make intent-grounded recommendations with an interpretable embedding translation layer. Through extensive experiments on real-world datasets, we demonstrate that IKGR overcomes knowledge gaps and achieves substantial gains over state-of-the-art baselines on both publicly available and our internal recommendation datasets.
△ Less
Submitted 21 May, 2025; v1 submitted 16 May, 2025;
originally announced May 2025.
BASED-XAI: Breaking Ablation Studies Down for Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Authors:
Isha Hameed,
Samuel Sharpe,
Daniel Barcklow,
Justin Au-Yeung,
Sahil Verma,
Jocelyn Huang,
Brian Barr,
C. Bayan Bruss
Abstract:
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods lack ground truth. In its place, method developers have relied on axioms to determine desirable properties for their explanations' behavior. For high stakes uses of machine learning that require explainability, it is not sufficient to rely on axioms as the implementation, or its usage, can fail to live up to the ideal. As a result, there exists act…
▽ More
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods lack ground truth. In its place, method developers have relied on axioms to determine desirable properties for their explanations' behavior. For high stakes uses of machine learning that require explainability, it is not sufficient to rely on axioms as the implementation, or its usage, can fail to live up to the ideal. As a result, there exists active research on validating the performance of XAI methods. The need for validation is especially magnified in domains with a reliance on XAI. A procedure frequently used to assess their utility, and to some extent their fidelity, is an ablation study. By perturbing the input variables in rank order of importance, the goal is to assess the sensitivity of the model's performance. Perturbing important variables should correlate with larger decreases in measures of model capability than perturbing less important features. While the intent is clear, the actual implementation details have not been studied rigorously for tabular data. Using five datasets, three XAI methods, four baselines, and three perturbations, we aim to show 1) how varying perturbations and adding simple guardrails can help to avoid potentially flawed conclusions, 2) how treatment of categorical variables is an important consideration in both post-hoc explainability and ablation studies, and 3) how to identify useful baselines for XAI methods and viable perturbations for ablation studies.
△ Less
Submitted 1 September, 2022; v1 submitted 12 July, 2022;
originally announced July 2022.
