Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Yahlly Schein

dblp:410/8082 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
3since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0000-6132-252XORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2 · 2 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers
Recommender systems · 76% Information retrieval · 24%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Recommender systems
explainable recommendation
1.922026
Fidelity-Aware Recommendation Explanations via Stochastic Path Integration · AAAI 2026
Refining Fidelity Metrics for Explainable Recommendations · SIGIR 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › explanation evaluation
explanation faithfulness
1.012026
Fidelity-Aware Recommendation Explanations via Stochastic Path Integration · AAAI 2026
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
1.012026
Fidelity-Aware Recommendation Explanations via Stochastic Path Integration · AAAI 2026
Information retrieval
evaluation
0.912025
Refining Fidelity Metrics for Explainable Recommendations · SIGIR 2025
Recommender systems › recommender system evaluation
off-policy evaluation
0.912025
Refining Fidelity Metrics for Explainable Recommendations · SIGIR 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

stochastic path integration · 2.0baseline sampling · 2.0counterfactual perturbation metrics · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Fidelity-Aware Recommendation Explanations via Stochastic Path Integration
abstract
Explanation fidelity, which measures how accurately an explanation reflects a model’s true reasoning, remains critically underexplored in recommender systems. We introduce SPINRec (Stochastic Path Integration for Neural Recommender Explanations), a model-agnostic approach that adapts path-integration techniques to the sparse and implicit nature of recommendation data. To overcome the limitations of prior methods, SPINRec employs stochastic baseline sampling: instead of integrating from a fixed or unrealistic baseline, it samples multiple plausible user profiles from the empirical data distribution and selects the most faithful attribution path. This design captures the influence of both observed and unobserved interactions, yielding more stable and personalized explanations. We conduct the most comprehensive fidelity evaluation to date across three models (MF, VAE, NCF), three datasets (ML1M, Yahoo! Music, Pinterest), and a suite of counterfactual metrics, including AUC-based perturbation curves and fixed-length diagnostics. SPINRec consistently outperforms all baselines, establishing a new benchmark for faithful explainability in recommendation.
Oren Barkan, Yahlly Schein, Yehonatan Elisha, Veronika Bogina, Mikhail Baklanov, Noam Koenigstein
AAAI2
2026 LXR: Learning to eXplain Recommendations
abstract
Recommender systems have become integral to many online services, leveraging user data to provide personalized recommendations. However, as these systems grow in complexity, understanding the rationale behind their recommendations becomes increasingly difficult. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has emerged as a crucial field addressing this challenge, particularly in ensuring transparency and trustworthiness in automated decision-making processes. In this article, we introduce Learning to eXplain Recommendations (LXR) , a scalable, model-agnostic framework designed to generate counterfactually correct explanations for recommender systems. LXR generates explanations for recommendations produced by any differentiable recommender system. By leveraging both factual and counterfactual loss terms, LXR offers robust, accurate, and computationally efficient explanations that reflect the model’s internal decision-making process. A key feature of LXR is its focus on the factual correctness of explanations through counterfactual reasoning, bridging the gap between plausible and accurate explanations. Unlike traditional approaches that rely on exhaustive perturbations of user data, LXR uses a self-supervised learning method to generate explanations efficiently, without sacrificing accuracy. LXR operates in two stages: a pre-training step and a novel Inference-Time Fine-tuning (ITF) step that refines explanations at the individual recommendation level, significantly improving accuracy with minimal computational overhead. Additionally, LXR is applied to hybrid recommender models incorporating demographic data, demonstrating its versatility across real-world scenarios. Finally, we also showcase LXR’s ability to explain recommendations at various ranks within a user’s recommendation list. As a secondary contribution, we introduce several novel evaluation metrics, inspired by saliency maps from computer vision, to rigorously assess the counterfactual correctness of explanations in recommender systems. Our results demonstrate that LXR sets a new benchmark for explainability, providing accurate, transparent, and interpretable explanations. The code is available on our GitHub repository: https://github.com/DeltaLabTLV/LXR_ .
Liya Gurevitch, Veronika Bogina, Oren Barkan, Yahlly Schein, Yehonatan Elisha, Noam Koenigstein
Trans. Recomm. Syst.4
2025 Refining Fidelity Metrics for Explainable Recommendations
abstract
Counterfactual evaluation provides a promising framework for assessing explanation fidelity in recommender systems, but perturbation metrics adapted from computer vision suffer three key limitations: (1) they conflate explaining and contradictory features, (2) they average over entire user histories instead of prioritizing concise, high-impact explanations, and (3) they use fixed-percentage perturbations, leading to inconsistencies across users.We introduce refined counterfactual metrics that focus on the most relevant explaining features, exclude contradictory elements, and assess fidelity at a fixed explanation length, ensuring a more consistent and interpretable evaluation.Our code is at: https:// github.com/DeltaLabTLV/FidelityMetrics4XRec
Mikhail Baklanov, Veronika Bogina, Yehonatan Elisha, Yahlly Schein, Liron I. Allerhand, Oren Barkan, Noam Koenigstein
SIGIR4