[AISWorld] Extended deadline 10 May 2022 – CfP: QUARE 2022 The 1st workshop on Measuring the Quality of Explanations in Recommender Systems, at SIGIR 2022

Alessandro Piscopo alessandro.piscopo at bbc.co.uk
Fri Apr 29 16:08:49 EDT 2022 

[apologies for double posting]



QUARE 2022: The 1st workshop on Measuring the Quality of Explanations in Recommender Systems, co-located with SIGIR 2022 (https://sigir.org/sigir2022/), July 11-15, 2022, in Madrid, Spain and Online


Workshop website: https://sites.google.com/view/quare-2022/home

Location: Hybrid - Madrid, Spain and Online



IMPORTANT DATES:

-----------------------------

Extended paper submission deadline: 10 May 2022
Author notification: 17 May 2022

Final version deadline: 15 June 2022

Workshop date: 15 July 2022




WORKSHOP ORGANISERS:

----------------------------------------

- Alessandro Piscopo (BBC, UK) <alessandro.piscopo at bbc.co.uk<mailto:alessandro.piscopo at bbc.co.uk>>

- Oana Inel (University of Zurich, CH) <inel at ifi.uzh.ch<mailto:inel at ifi.uzh.ch>>

- Sanne Vrijenhoek (University of Amsterdam, NL) <s.vrijenhoek at uva.nl<mailto:s.vrijenhoek at uva.nl>>

- Martijn Millecamp (AE NV, BE) <martijn.millecamp at hotmail.com<mailto:martijn.millecamp at hotmail.com>>

- Krisztian Balog (Google Research) <krisztianb at google.com<mailto:krisztianb at google.com>>


CALL FOR PAPERS:

----------------------------

Recommendations are ubiquitous in many contexts and domains due to a continuously growing adoption of decision-support systems. Explanations may be provided along with recommendations with the reasoning behind suggesting a particular item. However, explanations may also significantly affect a user's decision-making process by serving a number of different goals, such as transparency, persuasiveness, scrutability, among others. While there is a growing body of research studying the effect of explanations, the relationship between their quality and their effect has not been investigated in depth yet.


For instance, at an institutional level, organisational values may require a different combination of explanation goals; also, within the same organisation some combinations of goals may be more appropriate for some use cases and less for others. Conversely, end-users of a recommender system may be bearers of different values, and explanations can affect them differently. Therefore, understanding whether explanations are fit for their intended goals is key to subsequently implementing them in a production stage.


Furthermore, the lack of established, actionable methodologies to evaluate explanations for recommendations, as well as evaluation datasets, hinders cross-comparison between different explainable recommendations approaches, and is one of the issues hampering widespread adoption of explanations in industry settings.


This workshop aims to extend existing work in the field by bringing together and facilitating the exchange of perspectives and solutions from industry and academia, and aims to bridge the gap between academic design guidelines and the best practices in the industry regarding the implementation and evaluation of explanations in recommender systems, with respect to their goals, impact, potential biases, and informativeness. With this workshop, we provide a platform for discussion among scholars, practitioners, and other interested parties.


TOPICS AND THEMES:

--------------------------------

The motivation of the workshop is to promote discussion upon future research and practice directions of evaluating explainable recommendations, by bringing together academic and industry researchers and practitioners in the area. We focus in particular on real-world use cases, diverse organisational values and purposes, and different target users. We encourage submissions that study different explanation goals and combinations of those, how they fit various organisation values and different use cases. Furthermore, we welcome submissions that propose and make available for the community high-quality datasets and benchmarks.


Topics include, but are not limited to:

  *   Evaluation
     *   Relevance of explanation goals for different use cases;
     *   Soliciting user feedback on explanations;
     *   Implicit vs. explicit evaluation of explanations and goals;
     *   Reproducible and replicable evaluation methodologies;
     *   Online vs. offline evaluations.
  *   Personalisation
     *   User-modelling for explanation generation;
     *   Evaluation approaches for personalised explanations (e.g., content, style);
     *   Evaluation approaches for context-aware explanations (e.g., place, time, alone/group setting, exploratory/transaction mode).
  *   Presentation
     *   Evaluation of different explanation modalities (e.g., text, graphics, audio, hybrid);
     *   Evaluation of interactive explanations.
  *   Datasets
     *   Generation of datasets for evaluation of explanations;
     *   Evaluation benchmarks.
  *   Values
     *   Evaluation of explanations in relation to organisational values;
     *   Evaluation of explanations in relation to personal values.


SUBMISSIONS:

----------------------

We welcome three types of submissions:

  *   position or perspective papers (up to 4 pages in length, plus unlimited pages for references): original ideas, perspectives, research vision, and open challenges in the area of evaluation approaches for explainable recommender systems;
  *   featured papers (title and abstract of the paper, plus the original paper): already published papers or papers summarizing existing publications in leading conferences and high-impact journals that are relevant for the topic of the workshop
  *   demonstration papers (up to 2 pages in length, plus unlimited pages for references): original or already published prototypes and operational evaluation approaches in the area of explainable recommender systems.


Page limits include diagrams and appendices. Submissions should be single-blind, written in English, and formatted according to the current ACM two-column conference format. Suitable LaTeX, Word, and Overleaf<https://www.overleaf.com/gallery/tagged/acm-official> templates are available from the ACM Website<https://www.acm.org/publications/proceedings-template> (use “sigconf” proceedings template for LaTeX and the Interim Template for Word).

Submit papers electronically via EasyChair: https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=quare22.

All submissions will be peer-reviewed by the program committee and accepted papers will be published on the website of our workshop: https://sites.google.com/view/quare-2022/home.

At least one author of each accepted paper is required to register for the workshop (attendance may be either remote or in-person) and present the work.


________________________________
Dr Alessandro Piscopo
Principal Data Scientist

[Shape  Description automatically generated]

[signature_729725404]

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 72503 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.aisnet.org/pipermail/aisworld_lists.aisnet.org/attachments/20220429/8b2f2074/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8454 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://lists.aisnet.org/pipermail/aisworld_lists.aisnet.org/attachments/20220429/8b2f2074/attachment-0001.png>

More information about the AISWorld mailing list