Explain What You Mean: Intent Augmented Knowledge Graph Recommender Built With LLM

Interaction sparsity is the primary obstacle for recommendation systems. Sparsity manifests in environments with disproportional cardinality of groupings of entities, such as users and products in an online marketplace. It also is found for newly introduced entities, described as the cold-start problem. Recent efforts to mitigate this sparsity issue shifts the performance bottleneck to other areas in the computational pipeline. Those that focus on enriching sparse representations with connectivity data from other external sources propose methods that are resource demanding and require careful domain expert aided addition of this newly introduced data. Others that turn to Large Language Model (LLM) based recommenders will quickly encounter limitations surrounding data quality and availability. 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 learns 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.

The Disagreement Problem in Faithfulness Metrics

The field of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to explain how black-box machine learning models work. Much of the work centers around the holy grail of providing post-hoc feature attributions to any model architecture. While the pace of innovation around novel methods has slowed down, the question remains of how to choose a method, and how to make it fit for purpose. Recently, efforts around benchmarking XAI methods have suggested metrics for that purpose -- but there are many choices. That bounty of choice still leaves an end user unclear on how to proceed. This paper focuses on comparing metrics with the aim of measuring faithfulness of local explanations on tabular classification problems -- and shows that the current metrics don't agree; leaving users unsure how to choose the most faithful explanations.