Group accommodation booking forces travelers to coordinate externally through messaging apps and informal voting, missing opportunities for transparent preference alignment. We present PRISM, an interactive group recommender system that transforms opaque recommendation processes into transparent collaborative visual experiences. PRISM employs a two-phase interaction paradigm: individual preference elicitation through conversational AI, followed by collaborative decision-making via bivariate map preference visualization. A controlled user study with 6 pairs shows PRISM enhances transparency (+1.83 on 5-point scale), consensus building (+2.0), and reduces conformity pressure compared to traditional approaches and interfaces.

Norm-aware recommender systems have gained increased attention, especially for diversity optimization. The recommender systems community has well-established experimentation pipelines that support reproducible evaluations by facilitating models' benchmarking and comparisons against state-of-the-art methods. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is currently no reproducibility framework to support thorough norm-driven experimentation at the pre-processing, in-processing, post-processing, and evaluation stages of the recommender pipeline. To address this gap, we present Informfully Recommenders, a first step towards a normative reproducibility framework that focuses on diversity-aware design built on Cornac. Our extension provides an end-to-end solution for implementing and experimenting with normative and general-purpose diverse recommender systems that cover 1) dataset pre-processing, 2) diversity-optimized models, 3) dedicated intrasession item re-ranking, and 4) an extensive set of diversity metrics. We demonstrate the capabilities of our extension through an extensive offline experiment in the news domain.

This paper introduces Diversity-Driven Random Walks (D-RDW), a lightweight algorithm and re-ranking technique that generates diverse news recommendations. D-RDW is a societal recommender, which combines the diversification capabilities of the traditional random walk algorithms with customizable target distributions of news article properties. In doing so, our model provides a transparent approach for editors to incorporate norms and values into the recommendation process. D-RDW shows enhanced performance across key diversity metrics that consider the articles’ sentiment and political party mentions when compared to state-of-the-art neural models. Furthermore, D-RDW proves to be more computationally efficient than existing approaches.

Adding explanations to recommender systems is said to have multiple benefits, such as increasing user trust or system transparency. Previous work from other application areas suggests that specific user characteristics impact the users’ perception of the explanation. However, we rarely find this type of evaluation for recommender systems explanations. This paper addresses this gap by surveying 124 papers in which recommender systems explanations were evaluated in user studies. We analyzed their participant descriptions and study results where the impact of user characteristics on the explanation effects was measured. Our findings suggest that the results from the surveyed studies predominantly cover specific users who do not necessarily represent the users of recommender systems in the evaluation domain. This may seriously hamper the generalizability of any insights we may gain from current studies on explanations in recommender systems. We further find inconsistencies in the data reporting, which impacts the reproducibility of the reported results. Hence, we recommend actions to move toward a more inclusive and reproducible evaluation.

QUARE1—measuring the QUality of explAnations in REcommender systems—is the second workshop which focuses on evaluation methodologies for explanations in recommender systems. We bring together researchers and practitioners from academia and industry to facilitate discussions about the main issues and best practices in the respective areas, identify possible synergies, and outline priorities regarding future research directions. Additionally, we want to stimulate reflections around methods to systematically and holistically assess explanation approaches, impact, and goals, at the interplay between organisational and human values. To that end, this workshop aims to co-create a research agenda for evaluating the quality of explanations for recommender systems.

Research in the area of human information interaction (HII) typically represents viewpoints on debated topics in a binary fashion, as either against or in favor of a given topic (e.g., the feminist movement). This simple taxonomy, however, greatly reduces the latent richness of viewpoints and thereby limits the potential of research and practical applications in this field. Work in the communication sciences has already demonstrated that viewpoints can be represented in much more comprehensive ways, which could enable a deeper understanding of users’ interactions with debated topics online. For instance, a viewpoint’s stance usually has a degree of strength (e.g., mild or strong), and, even if two viewpoints support or oppose something to the same degree, they may use different logics of evaluation (i.e., underlying reasons). In this paper, we draw from communication science practice to propose a novel, two-dimensional way of representing viewpoints that incorporates a viewpoint’s stance degree as well as its logic of evaluation. We show in a case study of tweets on debated topics how our proposed viewpoint label can be obtained via crowdsourcing with acceptable reliability. By analyzing the resulting data set and conducting a user study, we further show that the two-dimensional viewpoint representation we propose allows for more meaningful analyses and diversification interventions compared to current approaches. Finally, we discuss what this novel viewpoint label implies for HII research and how obtaining it may be made cheaper in the future.

QUARE - measuring the QUality of explAnations in REcommender systems - is the first workshop that aims to promote discussion upon future research and practice directions around evaluation methodologies for explanations in recommender systems. To that end, we bring together researchers and practitioners from academia and industry to facilitate discussions about the main issues and best practices in the respective areas, identify possible synergies, and outline priorities regarding future research directions. Additionally, we want to stimulate reflections around methods to systematically and holistically assess explanation approaches, impact, and goals, at the interplay between organisational and human values. The homepage of the workshop is available at: https://sites.google.com/view/quare-2022/.

Recent research has demonstrated that cognitive biases such as the confirmation bias or the anchoring effect can negatively affect the quality of crowdsourced data. In practice, however, such biases go unnoticed unless specifically assessed or controlled for. Task requesters need to ensure that task workflow and design choices do not trigger workers’ cognitive biases. Moreover, to facilitate the reuse of crowdsourced data collections, practitioners can benefit from understanding whether and which cognitive biases may be associated with the data. To this end, we propose a 12-item checklist adapted from business psychology to combat cognitive biases in crowdsourcing. We demonstrate the practical application of this checklist in a case study on viewpoint annotations for search results. Through a retrospective analysis of relevant crowdsourcing research that has been published at HCOMP in 2018, 2019, and 2020, we show that cognitive biases may often affect crowd workers but are typically not considered as potential sources of poor data quality. The checklist we propose is a practical tool that requesters can use to improve their task designs and appropriately describe potential limitations of collected data. It contributes to a body of efforts towards making human-labeled data more reliable and reusable.

Event detection is still a difficult task due to the complexity and the ambiguity of such entities. On the one hand, we observe a low inter-annotator agreement among experts when annotating events, disregarding the multitude of existing annotation guidelines and their numerous revisions. On the other hand, event extraction systems have a lower measured performance in terms of F1-score compared to other types of entities such as people or locations. In this paper we study the consistency and completeness of expert-annotated datasets for events and time expressions. We propose a data-agnostic validation methodology of such datasets in terms of consistency and completeness. Furthermore, we combine the power of crowds and machines to correct and extend expert-annotated datasets of events. We show the benefit of using crowd-annotated events to train and evaluate a state-of-the-art event extraction system. Our results show that the crowd-annotated events increase the performance of the system by at least 5.3%.

Information Retrieval systems rely on large test collections to measure their effectiveness in retrieving relevant documents. While the demand is high, the task of creating such test collections is laborious due to the large amounts of data that need to be annotated, and due to the intrinsic subjectivity of the task itself. In this paper we study the topical relevance from a user perspective by addressing the problems of subjectivity and ambiguity. We compare our approach and results with the established TREC annotation guidelines and results. The comparison is based on a series of crowdsourcing pilots experimenting with variables, such as relevance scale, document granularity, annotation template and the number of workers. Our results show correlation between relevance assessment accuracy and smaller document granularity, i.e., aggregation of relevance on paragraph level results in a better relevance accuracy, compared to assessment done at the level of the full document. As expected, our results also show that collecting binary relevance judgments results in a higher accuracy compared to the ternary scale used in the TREC annotation guidelines. Finally, the crowdsourced annotation tasks provided a more accurate document relevance ranking than a single assessor relevance label. This work resulted is a reliable test collection around the TREC Common Core track.

A viewpoint is a triple consisting of an entity, a topic related to this entity and sentiment towards this topic. In time-aware multi-viewpoint summarization one monitors viewpoints for a running topic and selects a small set of informative documents. In this paper, we focus on time-aware multi-viewpoint summarization of multilingual social text streams. Viewpoint drift, ambiguous entities and multilingual text make this a challenging task. Our approach includes three core ingredients: dynamic viewpoint modeling, cross-language viewpoint alignment, and, finally, multi-viewpoint summarization. Specifically, we propose a dynamic latent factor model to explicitly characterize a set of viewpoints through which entities, topics and sentiment labels during a time interval are derived jointly; we connect viewpoints in different languages by using an entity-based semantic similarity measure; and we employ an update viewpoint summarization strategy to generate a time-aware summary to reflect viewpoints. Experiments conducted on a real-world dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed method for time-aware multi-viewpoint summarization of multilingual social text streams.