arXiv:2609.01627v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Explanations play a crucial role in creating trustworthy recommender systems (RS), yet choosing a good explanation method presents challenges. Many explanation methods exist, but little guidance exists on which is best for which setting. Existing explanation generation methods often produce abstract outputs that require further formatting to become user-friendly, with a seemingly endless pool of options. Running user-based evaluations of all possible options is usually unfeasible, while automated evaluation metrics often either assess only the explainer's abstract output or require comparison with a ground truth, which is generally unavailable. Recent studies have shown that large language models (LLMs) can serve as “judges'' for explanation evaluation, but their reliability has not yet been thoroughly explored. This paper studies the utility of LLMs in selecting an effective explanation method for a given application. We first explore their ability to generate explanation prototypes given varying information about the RS and the user. Specifically, we generate 18 distinct explanation prototypes, which are subsequently evaluated by 14 LLMs of varying sizes across two temperature settings. We compare these against human ratings derived from a user study. Our results show that while LLMs exhibit human-like rating patterns and achieve moderate rank correlation with human raters, their absolute rating agreement is low and varies substantially by model size and evaluation construct. We derive four practical recommendations: keep explanation-generation prompts concise, prefer larger models for evaluation, pre-test evaluation constructs, and audit explanations for factual accuracy, as neither humans nor LLMs reliably detect non-factual content.
Abstract: Explanations play a crucial role in creating trustworthy recommender systems (RS), yet choosing a good explanation method presents challenges. Many explanation methods exist, but little guidance exists on which is best for which setting. Existing explanation generation methods often produce abstract outputs that require further formatting to become user-friendly, with a seemingly endless pool of options. Running user-based evaluations of all possible options is usually unfeasible, while automated evaluation metrics often either assess only the explainer's abstract output or require comparison with a ground truth, which is generally unavailable. Recent studies have shown that large language models (LLMs) can serve as “judges'' for explanation evaluation, but their reliability has not yet been thoroughly explored. This paper studies the utility of LLMs in selecting an effective explanation method for a given application. We first explore their ability to generate explanation prototypes given varying information about the RS and the user. Specifically, we generate 18 distinct explanation prototypes, which are subsequently evaluated by 14 LLMs of varying sizes across two temperature settings. We compare these against human ratings derived from a user study. Our results show that while LLMs exhibit human-like rating patterns and achieve moderate rank correlation with human raters, their absolute rating agreement is low and varies substantially by model size and evaluation construct. We derive four practical recommendations: keep explanation-generation prompts concise, prefer larger models for evaluation, pre-test evaluation constructs, and audit explanations for factual accuracy, as neither humans nor LLMs reliably detect non-factual content.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: