## Review of Explainable Graph-Based Recommender Systems

THANET MARKCHOM, Department of Computer Science, University of Reading, United Kingdom HUIZHI LIANG, School of Computing, Newcastle University, United Kingdom JAMES FERRYMAN, Department of Computer Science, University of Reading, United Kingdom

Explainability of recommender systems has become essential to ensure users' trust and satisfaction. Various types of explainable recommender systems have been proposed including explainable graph-based recommender systems. This review paper discusses state-of-the-art approaches of these systems and categorizes them based on three aspects: learning methods, explaining methods, and explanation types. It also explores the commonly used datasets, explainability evaluation methods, and future directions of this research area. Compared with the existing review papers, this paper focuses on explainability based on graphs and covers the topics required for developing novel explainable graph-based recommender systems.

CCS Concepts: · Information systems → Recommender systems Personalization ; ; · Computing methodologies → Knowledge representation and reasoning .

Additional Key Words and Phrases: survey, explainable recommender system, graph-based recommender system, dataset, evaluation metric

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Due to the large exponential growth of information online, users are usually bombarded with an excessive number of choices. To cope with this information overload issue, recommender systems have become an essential tool to suggest pieces of information (items) that potentially match users' personal interests. During the early era of recommender systems, most were developed as black-box systems, meaning the internal mechanisms or decision-making processes were not transparent or easily interpretable [3]. However, recent research has shed some light on potential issues that might be caused by using recommender systems without comprehension of how they generate outputs [6]. These issues include biases in making decisions and ethical violations which can cause serious consequences [65]. To address such issues, recent regulations, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union and other countries [31], have been established. This emphasizes the importance of developing recommender systems that not only perform well in terms of accuracy but also provide explainability of recommendations [115].

Recognizing this necessity, numerous studies in recommender systems have focused on developing explainable recommender systems that are transparent and understandable. These systems aim to generate accurate recommendations while o ff ering explanations for their recommendations or encouraging the predictability of explainable recommendations over non-explainable ones. These systems allow users to better understand the decision-making process, leading to increased trust and con fi dence in the systems. Also, by providing clear explanations for their recommendations, any biases that may be present in the data or algorithms can be identi fi ed and addressed accordingly. This ensures that the recommendations are fair, unbiased, and ethically sound.

To achieve both accuracy and explainability in recommendations, various resources have been utilized, including graphs. A graph is a collection of nodes (or vertices) and relations (or edges) connecting pairs of nodes. Each edge represents a relationship or connection between two nodes. In recommendation scenarios, nodes can represent entities such as users, items, or attributes, while relations signify the connections between them such as user-item interactions,

Authors' addresses: Thanet Markchom, Department of Computer Science, University of Reading, United Kingdom, t.markchom@pgr.reading.ac.uk; Huizhi Liang, School of Computing, Newcastle University, United Kingdom, huizhi.liang@ncl.ac.uk; James Ferryman, Department of Computer Science, University of Reading, United Kingdom, j.m.ferryman@reading.ac.uk.

Fig. 1. Example of a graph in a clothing recommendation scenario consisting of four node types, i.e., user, item, category, and brand node types, and three relation types, i.e., user-item, item-category, and item-brand relation types (all relation types are bidirectional)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00166v1-figure-42ebf5de-8b76-4eaa-83bc-5a6949a916a0.jpg)

social connections between users, and item attributes. In recent years, graphs have been widely leveraged to develop explainable graph-based recommender systems [27]. These systems leverage graph structures to make personalized recommendations while also providing explainability of their recommendations via connectivity information within graphs. Unlike traditional recommender systems that predominantly rely on user-item interactions, explainable graphbased recommender systems leverage a variety of interconnected entities and relationships via multi-hop relations [93, 96, 103, 117]. A multi-hop relation represents a high-order connection between two nodes that are not adjacent. For example, in Figure 1, there is a multi-hop relation between 'User 1' and 'T-shirt D' through a path 'User1' - 'T-shirt C' - 'Category: T-shirt' - 'T-shirt D'. Based on this path, it is possible to recommend 'T-shirt D' to 'User 1' since they are linked through a high-order connection. Also, this multi-hop relation that connects them can serve as an explanation. This explanation can be interpreted as 'T-shirt D' is recommended to 'User 1' because it is in the same category as one of 'User 1''s previously bought items.

Explainable graph-based recommender systems represent a pivotal advancement in the recommendation research domain. They have garnered signi fi cant interest and have undergone continuous development [22, 33]. When developing an explainable graph-based recommender system, there are three principle aspects that should be considered: (1) a learning method, (2) an explaining method, and (3) an explanation type.

- · A learning method pertains to the model architecture used to extract connectivity information within a graph for recommendation learning. In graph-based recommender systems, there are three approaches: embeddingbased, path-based, and hybrid approaches [33]. Understanding these methods aids in the selection of the suitable architecture for developing a graph-based recommender system, taking into account the characteristics of available data and the methods used for extracting multi-hop relations.
- · An explaining method refers to the mechanism of the explainability component within an explainable model. It can be categorized as either model-speci fi c, designed to provide insights into the decision-making process of a particular model, or model-agnostic, aiming to o ff er broadly applicable explanations across di ff erent models [42].

Comprehending these mechanisms is crucial for incorporating explainability into graph-based recommender systems.

- · An explanation type refers to the form of explainability provided by an explainable graph-based recommender system. Given the diverse information within a graph, diverse formats of explanations can be o ff ered, for instance, node-level explanations (e.g., predictive/signi fi cant nodes) or path-level explanations (e.g., selected paths connecting users and recommended items). When developing an explainable graph-based recommender system, the choice of explanation type should be carefully considered to align with the expectations of stakeholders. Some scenarios may necessitate node-level explanations, focusing on detailed insights of individual nodes, or higher-level path explanations that emphasize interconnected relationships and sequences of nodes in fl uencing speci fi c recommendations.

Gaining insight into various learning methods, explaining methods, and explanation types can be highly bene fi cial for developing an explainable graph-based recommender system. It enables developers or researchers to make more informed decisions regarding the model architecture, explainability component, and the format of explanations generated by the model. Therefore, to facilitate advances in explainable graph-based recommender systems, this review paper summarizes state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems and categorizes them based on these three aspects. Furthermore, this paper provides a summary of benchmark datasets and explainability evaluation techniques necessary for examining and validating the performances of explainable graph-based recommender systems. This will allow new researchers or anyone interested in explainable graph-based recommender systems to conveniently grasp the whole picture and identify the gaps in this research area.

Contributions and Di ff erences. The contributions of our review paper and the di ff erences compared to other previously published review papers are summarized as follows:

- · This review focuses on explainable graph-based recommender systems unlike previous review papers that focus on graph-based recommend systems [27, 33, 102], explainable recommender systems encompassing various types, not exclusively graph-based ones [18, 115], explainable graph-based arti fi cial intelligence [88] or explainable arti fi cial intelligence [32, 65], which are broader topics compared to ours.
- · In this review, explainable graph-based recommender systems are categorized based on three aspects, i.e., learning method, explaining method, and explanation type.
- · In [22], the focus is on explainable graph-based recommender systems using deep learning. In contrast, our paper covers both deep learning-based and machine learning-based systems. While [22] categorizes explainable graph-based recommender systems based on how graphs, graph embeddings, or path embeddings are learned and merged with deep learning methods, our paper focuses on categorizing these systems across various aspects. Additionally, our survey paper discusses datasets and evaluation methods used in state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems.
- · In [15], the authors focus on visual explanations in recommender systems, exploring various types of explainable recommender systems broadly. In contrast, our paper reviews explainable graph-based recommender systems, covering aspects from their structure to the visualization of obtained explanations. It provides a more in-depth focus on this speci fi c type of recommender system.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 summarizes de fi nitions, notations, and technical terms typically used in explainable graph-based recommender systems to provide background knowledge for the subsequent

sections. Additionally, in this section, the categorization of explainable graph-based recommender systems is explained. Section 3 discusses the variety of learning methods in explainable graph-based recommender systems and presents state-of-the-art systems categorized by their respective learning approaches. Section 4 explores explainable graph-based recommender systems from the aspect of their explaining methods and provides a summary of the state-of-the-art using di ff erent explaining methods. Section 5 delves into di ff erent explanation types available in explainable graph-based recommender systems and presents state-of-the-art systems, categorized based on these various types. Section 6 presents commonly used datasets for explainable graph-based recommender systems. Section 7 discusses methods for evaluating explainability in graph-based recommender systems. Finally, Section 8 provides conclusions and outlines future directions for explainable graph-based recommender systems.

## 2 PRELIMINARIES

Before discussing state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems, this section provides de fi nitions, notations, and technical terms commonly used in these recommender systems. Then, it explains the categorizations of explainable graph-based recommender systems in this paper, laying the groundwork for the subsequent sections.

## 2.1 Definitions, Notations, and Technical Terms

D efinition 1. (Graph) In the context of recommendation, a graph (also known as a knowledge graph or an information network) is de fi ned as a directed graph G = (N R) , , where N is a set of nodes (or entities), and R is a set of relations (or edges). Each node and relation is associated with its type mapping function: 𝜙 : N → N and 𝜓 : R → R, respectively, where N represents the set of node types, and R represents the set of relation types. In a graph, a triplet ( ℎ 𝑟 , , 𝑡 ) represents a relationship between the head node ℎ ∈ N and the tail node 𝑡 ∈ N connected by the relation 𝑟 ∈ R .

D efinition 2. (Path) A path is a sequence of nodes where each adjacent pair is connected by a relation. Given a graph G = (N R) , , a path ( 𝑛 0 , 𝑛 1 , ..., 𝑛 𝑘 -1 , 𝑛 𝑘 ) exists if their exist triplets ( 𝑛 0 , 𝑟 0 , 𝑛 1 ) , ( 𝑛 1 , 𝑟 1 , 𝑛 2 ) , ..., ( 𝑛 𝑘 -2 , 𝑟 𝑘 -2 , 𝑛 𝑘 -1 ) , ( 𝑛 𝑘 -1 , 𝑟 𝑘 -1 , 𝑛 𝑘 ) where 𝑛 𝑖 ∈ N for 𝑖 = 0 1 , , ..., 𝑘 and 𝑟 𝑖 ∈ R for 𝑖 = 0 1 , , ..., 𝑘 -1 in the graph. In other words, a path is a way to traverse a graph from one node to another by following the relations. The length of a path is determined by the number of relations it contains.

D efinition 3. (Single-hop relation) Given a graph G = (N R) , , a single-hop relation refers to a direct relation between two nodes. Mathematically, a single-hop relation between nodes 𝑛 0 ∈ N and 𝑛 1 ∈ N exists if there exists a relation 𝑟 ∈ R that connects them, i.e., there exists a triplet ( 𝑛 0 , 𝑟 , 𝑛 1 ) in the graph.

D efinition 4. (Multi-hop relation) Given a graph G = (N R) , , a multi-hop relation refers to an indirect relation between two nodes through a path. Mathematically, a multi-hop relation between nodes 𝑛 0 ∈ N and 𝑛 𝑘 ∈ N exists, if there exists a path ( 𝑛 0 , 𝑛 1 , ..., 𝑛 𝑘 -1 , 𝑛 𝑘 ) such that 𝑛 𝑖 ∈ N for 𝑖 = 1 2 , , ..., 𝑘 -1 in the graph.

D efinition 5. (Random walk) A random walk on a graph G = (N R) , can be denoted as a sequence of nodes 𝑛 0 , 𝑛 1 , ..., 𝑛 𝑘 where 𝑛 𝑖 is the node visited at step 𝑖 for 𝑖 = 0 1 , , ..., 𝑘 . It is obtained through a stochastic process de fi ned by the sequence of random variables 𝑋 0 , 𝑋 1 , ..., 𝑋 𝑘 , where each 𝑋 𝑖 represents the node visited at step 𝑖 . The walk starts at an initial node 𝑛 0 ∈ N , and at each step 𝑖 , the walker moves to a neighboring node 𝑛 𝑖 + 1 of the current node 𝑛 𝑖 with equal probability. The random walk continues inde fi nitely or until it forms a sequence of visited nodes of a certain length.

Review of Explainable Graph-Based Recommender Systems

D efinition 6. (Meta-path) [83] Given a graph G = (N R) , , a meta-path 𝜋 , de fi ned as

$$N _ { 1 } \xrightarrow { R _ { N _ { 1 }, N _ { 2 } } } N _ { 2 } \cdots N _ { l } \xrightarrow { R _ { N _ { l }, N _ { l + 1 } } } N _ { l + 1 }$$

(abbreviated as 𝑁 𝑁 1 2 · · · 𝑁 𝑙 + 1 ), describes a composite relation 𝑅 𝑁 𝑁 1 , 2 ◦ · · · ◦ 𝑅 𝑁 𝑁 𝑙 , 𝑙 + 1 between 𝑁 1 and 𝑁 𝑙 + 1 where ◦ denotes the composition operator on relations. A meta-path signi fi es a structural relationship among various types of nodes and relations in a graph. It serves as a tool to extract high-order connectivity information under a speci fi c assumption within a graph. The length of meta-path 𝜋 is denoted by | 𝜋 | .

D efinition 7. (Meta-path based random walk) Given a graph G = (N R) , and a meta-path 𝜋 = 𝑁 𝑁 1 2 · · · 𝑁 𝑙 + 1 , a meta-path-based random walk is a sequence of nodes 𝑛 0 , 𝑛 1 , ..., 𝑛 𝑙 + 1 where 𝑛 𝑖 is the node visited at step 𝑖 for 𝑖 = 0 1 , , ..., 𝑘 such that 𝑛 𝑖 has the type 𝑁 𝑖 in 𝜋 . It is obtained via a stochastic process on a graph, where the sequence of nodes visited is in fl uenced by a prede fi ned meta-path, capturing speci fi c semantic relationships between nodes. The random walk continues until it reaches the last node type in the meta-path or continues inde fi nitely. In the case that it continues inde fi nitely, once it reaches the last node type in the meta-path, it goes back to the fi rst node type and repeats following the meta-path again.

D efinition 8. (Node embedding method) A node embedding method refers to the process of fi nding a mapping function Φ : N → R | 𝑉 |× 𝑑 , where 𝑑 &lt;&lt; | 𝑉 | . This function maps a node into a latent space and generates a latent representation (embedding) of this node, capturing graph topological information. In a graph, node embeddings for all nodes can be obtained and utilized as input or features for learning recommendations.

D efinition 9. (Explainability and interpretability) Explainable arti fi cial intelligence (AI), including recommender systems, can provide explanations or allow a human to understand the logic behind its decision-making process. In the research area of explainable AI, two terms are usually mentioned, i.e., 'explainability' and 'interpretability'. According to the previous work [6, 32], the term explainability refers to the ability to provide an explanation of why a decision is made. Meanwhile, the term interpretability refers to the characteristic of an AI system in which its internal mechanism is comprehensible for a human. In the case of interpretable models, developers or users may take advantage of their interpretability to extract some explanations. Thus, whether an AI system has explainability or interpretability, it is possible to obtain an explanation from it.

For instance, linear/logistic regression models are interpretable models because their coe ffi cients directly indicate the magnitude and direction of in fl uence that each corresponding input feature has on the output [11]. The relationship between input variables and the model's predictions makes these models interpretable and enables them to provide explanations for the predictions. On the other hand, neural networks are not interpretable due to their black-box internal mechanisms [32]. However, explanations can be derived from these networks by using techniques such as LIME [75], Anchors [76], SHAP [58], Global Sensitivity Analysis [20], ASTRID [37] or Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) [44]. In other words, these methods allow neural networks to be explainable, providing them with the ability to o ff er explanations.

## 2.2 Categorization of Explainable Graph-Based Recommender Systems

Explainable graph-based recommender systems can be categorized by many aspects. In this survey, we consider three following aspects:

- (1) Types of learning method (embedding-based, path-based, or hybrid) : Graph-based recommender systems can be categorized by their learning methods into three categories, i.e., embedding-based, path-based, and hybrid approaches. In an embedding-based approach, node embeddings are utilized to capture either local neighborhood structures or global graph structures, without explicit consideration of the actual paths within the graphs. A path-based approach, on the other hand, explicitly extracts paths from a graph and incorporates these paths as information for learning recommendations. Lastly, a hybrid approach combines both path-based and embedding-based approaches to leverage the strengths of both methodologies.
- (2) Types of explaining method (model-speci fi c or model-agnostic) : Considering explaining methods, explainable graph-based recommender systems can be classi fi ed into two groups: model-speci fi c and model-agnostic. Model-speci fi c explainable graph-based recommender systems are characterized by explainability components that are tailor-made for their own structures and functionalities. In contrast, model-agnostic explainable graphbased recommender systems encompass post-hoc explainability components capable of application not only to themselves but also to other diverse recommender systems.
- (3) Types of explanations (node-level, path-level, meta-path-level or implicit) : Explainable graph-based recommender systems can further be categorized based on the formats of their explanations. These explanations can be in various forms, including node-level explanations (e.g., predictive or signi fi cant nodes, counterfactual nodes, or node neighborhoods), path-level explanations (e.g., selected paths connecting users and recommended items), and meta-path-level explanations (e.g., predictive or signi fi cant meta-paths). Additionally, there exists an implicit level, where explicit explanations are not generated alongside recommendations. Instead, recommendations with higher explainability are emphasized over those with lower explainability in this category.

Table 1 summarizes state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems categorized by these three aspects. The details including their learning methods, their explaining methods, and their explanation types can be found in the following sections. The software packages for certain state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems are outlined in https://github.com/thanet-m/explainable-graph-based-recommender-systems.git.

## 3 CATEGORIZATION BY LEARNING METHODS: EMBEDDING-BASED, PATH-BASED, AND HYBRID APPROACHES

As discussed in Section 2, explainable graph-based recommender systems can be categorized based on various aspects. This section focuses on the categorization by learning methods: embedding-based, path-based, and hybrid approaches. In this section, the concepts of each approach and the models within each approach are discussed, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each approach.

## 3.1 Embedding-Based Approach

An embedding-based approach uses graph embedding methods [12] to generate node embeddings and incorporate them into recommendation frameworks. These embeddings re fl ect the structural information of users, items, and other entities in a graph. They provide connectivity information for graph-based recommendation learning frameworks. This allows explanations to be generated by reasoning over the embeddings. Several methods can be applied to generate node embeddings, such as autoencoders , translation-based models , reinforcement learning , and GNNs . The following paragraphs discuss the use of each method within embedding-based models for explainable graph-based recommendations.

Review of Explainable Graph-Based Recommender Systems

| Model              | Types of learning method   | Types of learning method   | Types of explainable model   | Types of explainable model   | Types of explanation   | Types of explanation   | Types of explanation   | Types of explanation   |
|--------------------|----------------------------|----------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|
| Model              | Embedding-based            | Path-based                 | Model-speci fi c             | Model-agnostic               | Node                   | Path                   | Meta-Path              | Implicit               |
| SemAuto [8]        | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              | ✓                      |                        |                        |                        |
| Ai et al. 's [4]   | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| RippleNet [92]     | ✓                          | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| SEP [109]          |                            | ✓                          |                              | ✓                            |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| KGAT [93]          | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| PGPR [103]         | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| LDSDMF [5]         |                            | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              | ✓                      |                        |                        |                        |
| KPRN [97]          |                            | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| RuleRec [61]       |                            | ✓                          |                              | ✓                            |                        |                        | ✓                      |                        |
| EIUM [40]          | ✓                          | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| Liu et al. 's [55] | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              | ✓                      |                        |                        |                        |
| HAGERec [110]      | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| MSRE [98]          |                            | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              | ✓                      | ✓                      | ✓                      |                        |
| MP4Rec [68]        |                            | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              |                        |                        | ✓                      | ✓                      |
| FairKG4Rec [26]    |                            | ✓                          |                              | ✓                            |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| PRINCE [30]        |                            | ✓                          |                              | ✓                            | ✓                      |                        |                        |                        |
| ADAC [117]         | ✓                          | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| CAFE [104]         | ✓                          | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| GEAPR [48]         | ✓                          | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              | ✓                      |                        |                        |                        |
| KGIN [94]          | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              | ✓                      |                        |                        |                        |
| MKRLN [87]         | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| TMER [16]          |                            | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| UCPR [86]          | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| LOGER [120]        | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| KGAT+ [78]         | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| TPRec [119]        | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| ReMR [96]          | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| PLM-Rec [29]       |                            | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| METoNR [114]       |                            | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              |                        |                        | ✓                      |                        |
| KR-GCN [60]        | ✓                          | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              |                        | ✓                      |                        |                        |
| CaDSI [95]         | ✓                          | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              | ✓                      |                        |                        |                        |
| SEV-RS [63]        |                            | ✓                          | ✓                            |                              |                        |                        |                        | ✓                      |
| CGSR [113]         | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              |                        |                        |                        | ✓                      |
| CGSR [101]         | ✓                          |                            | ✓                            |                              | ✓                      | ✓                      |                        |                        |

Table 1. Summary of state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems categorized by three di ff erent aspects, i.e., types of learning method, types of explaining method, and types of explanations

- 3.1.1 Autoencoder An autoencoder is a type of neural network used for learning e ffi cient representations of data by encoding the input into a lower-dimensional space and then reconstructing it. The original purpose of autoencoders was to achieve data compression and dimensionality reduction, allowing the model to capture essential features while discarding less critical information. Despite its original purpose, an autoencoder can also be used to build explainable graph-based recommender systems. Bellini et al. [8] proposed an explainable recommender system based on SemanticsAware Autoencoders (SemAuto) [7]. Originally, SemAuto was developed to incorporate structural information in a graph into an autoencoder. Each neuron in SemAuto represents a node in the adopted graph, and each link between neurons represents the edge connecting the nodes represented by these neurons. The weights on all neurons are learned and then extracted to build user pro fi le representations. Since neurons correspond to nodes in the graph, the importance of each node toward a speci fi c user can be discovered and used as an explanation.
- 3.1.2 Translation-based models Someembeddings-based models use translation-based methods such as TransE [10] and TransR [53] to generate node embeddings. Given a triplet ( ℎ 𝑟 , , 𝑡 ) in a graph where ℎ denotes a head node, 𝑟 denotes a relation, and 𝑡 denotes a tail node. These methods are based on the assumption that the information from ℎ combined with the information from 𝑟 should equal the information from 𝑡 , i.e., ℎ + 𝑟 = 𝑡 . These embeddings have been proven to be highly fl exible for many downstream tasks including recommendation [92]. The following are examples of state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems using translation-based models:
- · Ai et al. [4] modeled the distribution of node and relation embeddings by optimizing the generative probability of observed relation triplets similarly to TransE. To explain each recommendation, a soft matching algorithm was proposed to generate explanations for the recommended items. Given a pair of user and his/her recommended item, a breadthfi rst search was initially applied to fi nd potential explanation paths. Then, for each of these paths, the probability based on the learned distribution of node and relation embeddings was computed. The path with the highest probability was applied to a prede fi ned template in natural languages to generate a fi nal explanation for the user.
- · Zhu et al. [120] proposed neural logic reasoning for explainable recommendation (LOGER) leveraging a neural logic model to guide the path-reasoning process for generating explanations. A set of logical rules based on user-item interactions was fi rst mined from a graph. Then, for each user, a set of personalized rule importance scores was generated by using Markov Logic Networks [73], an interpretable probabilistic logic reasoning method. Subsequently, these personalized scores and the learned node embeddings from TransE were jointly considered to train an LSTM-based path reasoning network. Starting from a given user, this network predicted a sequence of nodes and relations until it reached the recommended item forming an explanation path.
- 3.1.3 Reinforcement learning models Finding an explanation/reasoning path in a graph can be formulated as a deterministic Markov Decision Process (MDP) over a graph. Thus, some embedding-based models use a reinforcement learning (RL) method to navigate reasoning paths connecting a user and his/her recommended item. These models typically build a policy network to fi nd such a path attempting to achieve the highest cumulative reward at the end of navigation. Starting from a given user, an agent in an RL-based model navigates from one node to the next adjacent node until it reaches an item of interest. This leaves the navigated path to be used as an explanation for why this item is recommended to this user. Here are examples of explainable graph-based recommender systems using RL models:
- · Xian et al. [103] proposed Policy-Guided Path Reasoning (PGPR), using RL to navigate a graph to fi nd recommended items. Generally, navigating through nodes and relations in a graph requires a high amount of

computational resources. Therefore, in their work, a user-conditional action pruning strategy was proposed to decrease the size of the action spaces. Moreover, since the agent guided by the policy network is likely to repeatedly search the same path with the largest cumulative rewards, the recommendations typically lack diversity. To increase the diversity of both recommended items and explanation paths, a beam search-based algorithm guided by the policy network was used to sample diverse paths. These candidate paths are ranked according to their rewards from the reward function.

- · Tai et al. [86] proposed a user-centric path reasoning network (UCPR) that considers both local and user-centric views. The local view is based on a sequence of actions taken by the agent encoded by using LSTM. The usercentric view is corresponding with the potential user's demand information in the path reasoning process. This demand information was modeled by the user-centric view reasoning network. Assuming that user's demand depends on a group of nodes and relations, not just a single node or relation, a user demand portfolio can be represented by a set of triplets ( ℎ 𝑟 , , 𝑡 ) where ℎ is a node connected with a given user at the 𝑛 -th hop. These triplets were assigned with di ff erent weights according to the user's demand. At each step, these weights were updated accordingly depending on the ful fi lled demand in the previous step. The most relevant triplet was also identi fi ed during updating. The selected relevant triplets from every step then fi nally formed a reasoning path that re fl ects the highlighted triplets in the user demand portfolio.
- · Tao et al. [87] proposed a multi-modal knowledge-aware RL network called MKRLN to incorporate visual information in RL. This model utilizes both structural information from a graph and visual information from item images to generate state representations for the policy network. Based on these representations, the policy network learns to lead this user to his/her recommended item. Moreover, to reduce the size of action spaces, an attention mechanism was used to weight the importance of each neighbor. These attention weights were used to guide the agent to reduce the number of possible action spaces.
- · The previous work typically ignored the interpretability of the generated explanation paths discovered by their path reasoning/ fi nding processes. Zhao et al. [117] proposed an adversarial actor-critic (ADAC) model for the demonstration-guided path fi nding to ensure the interpretability of the generated explanation paths. The idea is to supervise the pathfi nding process by using demonstrations. Due to the fact that there were no groundtruth paths for being used as demonstrations, they proposed a meta-heuristic-based demonstration extractor to generate a set of demonstrations without the ground truth. Three types of demonstrations were considered: (1) shortest path, (2) meta-path based random walk, and (3) path of interest (random-walk paths in which most of the nodes match with users' interests). To involve the demonstrations in the pathfi nding process, Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning [38] was adopted. Two discriminators, i.e., path and meta-path discriminators, were used to estimate how likely a discovered path follows the demonstrations. In this way, ADAC can learn to generate paths that are similar to the demonstrations to increase the interpretability of the explanations.
- · Wang et al. [96] proposed ReMR, an RL framework that leverages both instance-level and ontology-level information in graphs to model users' pro fi les. In this framework, a multi-level reasoning path extraction method was proposed to construct reasoning paths by using both high-level (ontology-level) and low-level (instance-level) concepts. First, an ontology-view graph was constructed by using the Microsoft Concept Graph and added to an original instance-view graph built from item meta-data. This combined graph was then used to perform recommendation along with path reasoning for providing explanations. Compared to existing recommender systems that only consider an instance-view graph, ReMR can better capture users' interests and provide more

diverse explanations with high-level concepts. However, adding an ontology-view graph expands the search space of reinforcement learning. This may result in higher computational time required for learning path reasoning.

- · Zhao et al. [119] proposed a novel Time-aware Path reasoning for Recommendation method (TPRec), which leverages graphs augmented with temporal information. To augment a graph with time-aware interactions, temporal statistical and temporal structural features based on user-item relation timestamps were extracted. These features were projected into a temporal feature space and then were clustered by using Gaussian Mixture Model. Then, the user-item relations in the original graph were replaced by temporal relations based on their corresponding clusters in a temporal feature space. Based on the augmented graph, TransE was adopted to generate node embeddings. Then, the RL-based model was adopted to learn path reasoning for recommendation.

Generally, using RL techniques to fi nd reasoning paths for recommendations is a straightforward way to provide explanations. However, the major drawback of this approach is the scalability issue due to the size of the action spaces. Using such techniques requires numerous computational resources especially when there are a large number of nodes and relations or the out-degrees of nodes in the graph are large. How to e ff ectively and e ffi ciently fi nd reasoning paths in a graph is still a challenging research problem for developing RL-based models.

- 3.1.4 GNN-based models Another line of embedding-based models uses Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to recursively propagate multi-hop information [102]. These GNN-based models update each node embedding based on the embeddings of its neighbors and recursively perform such embedding propagation to capture high-order connectivity. They have shown that the neighborhood aggregation schemes are highly e ff ective for capturing high-order relations in graphs [94]. To provide explanations, these systems heavily rely on attention mechanisms to identify nodes/relations with signi fi cant contributions toward user pro fi ling and recommendation-making. Below are examples of state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems using GNNs:
- · Wang et al. [93] proposed a model called Knowledge Graph Attention Network (KGAT) which is an end-toend model based on a Graph Convolution Network (GCN) and a Graph Attention Network [91]. First, TransR was adopted to generate initial node embeddings. Then, each node embedding was re fi ned by recursively propagating the embeddings of its neighbors. During the propagation, to identify each neighborhood's importance, a knowledge-aware attention mechanism was proposed. Given a user and his/her recommended item, the attention weights of cascaded propagation form explanation paths connecting them. Despite the e ff ectiveness, this model su ff ers from high computational time especially when the number of nodes and relations is large.
- · Yang et al. [110] proposed an explainable model using a hierarchical attention graph convolutional network called HAGERec. This model uses a bi-directional information propagation method to learn user and item representations. For each user/item node, HAGERec attentively aggregates information from its local neighborhood by using a hierarchical attention mechanism. Based on this attention mechanism, signi fi cant neighbors can be selected and used to explain the recommendation.
- · The aforementioned models rely only on original nodes and relations in graphs to model users' pro fi les. To e ff ectively pro fi le these users, some GNN-based models use higher concepts beyond nodes and relations in graphs to capture users' interests. Wang et al. [94] proposed a Knowledge Graph-based Intent Network (KGIN) to model users' underlying intents based on user-item interactions. These intents are normally represented by latent factors which are not easily interpretable. To improve interpretability, KGIN models these intents by using relations in a graph. Speci fi cally, each intent is formed by attentively combining relation embeddings in a graph. The relation with the highest attention weight can be severed as an explanation of the user's intents. Also, a

new aggregation method was proposed to e ff ectively propagate information of high-order relations. Intuitively, each node in a graph has di ff erent semantics and meanings depending on its relational contexts. However, these contexts are usually ignored in most neighborhood-based aggregation methods in normal GNNs. Unlike these methods, their proposed method takes relational contexts into consideration when performing propagation. This allowed a GNN to infuse user intents into learning user and item representations.

- · In [55], an improved aggregation method for GCNs was introduced. Speci fi cally, the traditional GCN model was modi fi ed to factorize user and item embeddings based on multiple concepts. To do so, the aggregation at the last layer was modi fi ed to discriminate information from the lower layers based on concepts. Speci fi cally, all embeddings from the lower layer were categorized into di ff erent concepts and then propagated separately. To categorize the embeddings into di ff erent concepts, the factor a ffi liation degrees were estimated from the learnable parameters of each factor. This allowed them to identify signi fi cant concepts for learning user and item embeddings in the modi fi ed GCN model and use them as explanations.
- · Shimizu et al. [78] proposed KGAT+, an improved framework of KGAT that tackles the problem of scalability. The key idea is to compress one-to-many relations by using a latent class model. First, a set of target relations for compression was de fi ned. If relation 𝑟 in the triplet ( ℎ 𝑟 , , 𝑡 ) is a target relation, then a latent class between ℎ and 𝑡 is assumed. In this way, the relation between ' ℎ and 𝑡 ' is decomposed into ' ℎ and the latent class' and ' 𝑡 and the latent class' with speci fi c probabilities. Such probabilities are considered when computing the attention weights and loss for learning recommendations. According to their experiments, KGAT+ required less computational cost and produced recommendations with higher interpretability compared to KGAT.
- · Yu et al. [113] proposed Causality-guided Graph Learning for Session-based Recommendation (CGSR) that is capable of blocking shortcut paths (direct links between two items that disregard sequential dependencies and intermediate interactions) on the session graph while retaining crucial causal relations for learning users' preferences. In CGSR, two main components were introduced: distillation and aggregation. In the distillation component, the back-door adjustment of causality [19, 71, 112] was adopted to block shortcut paths in the session graph, containing sequential interactions of users within a given session. With this component, a distilled session graph containing causal relations among items was obtained. Subsequently, the second component was used to aggregate high-order information from di ff erent relation types on the distilled session graph by using GNNs. This aggregation process generated user and item representations for learning recommendations based on the causal relationships within this graph.
- · Taking into account causality and correlation relationships between items, Wu et al. [101] proposed a method called Causality and Correlation Graph Modeling for E ff ective and Explainable Session-based Recommendation (CGSR). In their method, three types of graphs were constructed, i.e., cause, e ff ect, and correlation graphs. The cause graph and the e ff ect graph were constructed based on causal relations, particularly cause relations and e ff ect relations between items, respectively. The correlation graph was constructed by considering the fi rst-order relationship in the session graph and various types of second-order relationships derived from the session graph. After obtaining these graphs, an end-to-end GNN-based model with an attention mechanism was applied to these graphs to generate three kinds of item embeddings and attentively aggregate them to obtain fi nal session representations for predicting recommendations.

Typically, the degree of nodes in a graph normally follows a long tail distribution. Numerous cold users and cold items with few interactions normally appear in graphs. To e ff ectively capture the structural information of these cold

users/items, more GNN layers are required compared to those active users/items with many interactions. Despite the fact that stacking multiple GNN layers expands the reception fi eld of nodes and allows high-order connectivity to be considered, this can introduce noise during the propagation [46]. This could compromise recommendation accuracy and explainability as well. Moreover, when the out-degrees of nodes are large, performing the propagation can be computationally expensive. Thus, it can be di ffi cult to decide the number of GNN layers to achieve the optimal performance [56]. Solving all of these issues still remains an open research question [102].

## 3.2 Path-Based Approach

Given a user and his/her item, paths connecting them in a graph indicate high-order connectivity between them. These paths are valuable information for modeling users' personal interests and can be also served as explanations. A path-based approach extracts these paths carrying such high-order information from a graph and feeds them to a recommendation learning framework to learn the connectivity possibilities between users and items. Several techniques have been used to extract paths. Depending on the techniques used for path extraction, a path-based approach can be categorized into two groups. The fi rst group is random-walk based models that extract or sample paths randomly before using these paths for learning recommendations. Some biases or conditions, such as relation weights [30] and restarting strategy [48], might be added to ensure the quality of the randomly sampled paths. However, the core of these techniques is still based on random sampling. The second group is meta-path based models . Unlike randomwalk based models, these models use paths extracted via meta-paths [83] to feed the recommendation frameworks. Compared to random-walk based models, these extracted paths from meta-path based models are more controllable and semantically meaningful. They provide explainable connectivity information between users and items which could lead to explainable recommendations in graph-based recommender systems.

- 3.2.1 Random-walk based models Random-walk based models use a method called random walk [57] to sample paths in a graph. Starting from each node in a graph, this method randomly chooses the next node from its adjacent nodes to form a path. This process is repeated until the forming path reaches a speci fi c length (or satis fi es certain conditions). These randomly sampled paths are used to model the connectivity between nodes in a graph. The following are state-of-the-art random-walk based models:
- · Wang et al. [97] proposed Knowledge-aware Path Recurrent Network (KPRN) that uses an LSTM network to capture the sequential dependencies of nodes and relations within the randomly sampled paths. Given a user and an item, paths connecting them were fi rst sampled via random walk. For each of these sampled paths, an LSTM network was applied to learn a path representation. This representation was obtained from the last hidden state vectors of an LSTM network. Then, since di ff erent paths may have di ff erent contributions in modeling the connectivity between a user-item pair, all path representations were attentively combined by a weighted pooling method. After that, based on the aggregated paths representation, the recommendation score of a given user-item pair was computed by fully-connected layers. Along with the recommendation score, the computed attention weights can be used to identify the path with the most contribution as an explanation of the recommendation.
- · Alshammari et al. [5] developed linked data semantic distance matrix factorization (LDSDMF) to add explainability to a black-box MF model. Items and their semantic attributes obtained from the semantic web DBpedia were used to form a semantic graph. Based on this semantic graph, a similarity measurement based on linked data semantic distance (LDSD) was proposed to compute the similarity between entities. This measurement can capture both direct and indirect relations between a pair of entities. Based on a traditional MF model, an

explainability regularization was added to its original loss function. Given a pair of positive and negative items, this additional part constrains their latent factors to capture their LDSD similarity computed from the constructed semantic graph. To obtain an explanation, given a user, they fi rst considered potential semantic attributes of his/her recommended item. For each attribute, the likability degree was computed from the number of times this user interacted with items that have this semantic attribute. This degree indicates the probability of the user's preferences toward a particular semantic attribute. Finally, the most likable semantic attribute was selected to explain the user's preferences for his/her recommended item.

- · Inspired by a concept of an auto-regressive path language model [21], Geng et al. [29] utilized randomly sampled paths to build a path language model for recommendations called PLM-Rec. They uni fi ed both graph reasoning and recommendation tasks to make recommendations with path instances as explanations. This model generates candidate path instances connecting a user node to a recommended item node by using a Transformer-based decoder. Then, the recommendation scores are computed by the joint probabilities of these candidate path instances.
- · With random walk, there is a high chance that nodes with higher degrees will appear more in the extracted paths than those with lower degrees. This may result in obtaining paths with low diversity causing some biases in recommendations and explanations in a path-based approach. To overcome this issue, Fu et al. [26] proposed a model called FairKG4Rec to produce fair explanation paths. Given a set of pre-selected user-item paths extracted by any model, FairKG4Rec considers fairness when re-ranking and selecting explanation paths from this set. The path score and the diversity score were introduced to quantify fairness of explanation paths. The path score indicates the quality of paths based on user-item historical data. It deals with the bias of user-item path patterns in historical records allowing diversi fi ed path patterns to be chosen instead of those in the record majority. The diversity score is based on Simpson's Index of Diversity of a set of candidate explanation paths extracted from the original model without considering fairness. This score can be considered as the regularization for improving explanation path diversity.
- · Apart from the diversity issue, using paths extracted via a random walk method may breach a privacy issue since these paths may contain other users' historical data. Ghazimatin et al. [30] proposed a Provider-side Interpretability with Counterfactual Evidence model (PRINCE) to address privacy concerns in a path-based approach. This model provides an explanation in a form of a set of minimal actions performed by the user that can change the recommendation to a di ff erent item. In other words, such actions are counterfactual to the recommendation. Firstly, the Personalized PageRank (PPR) [35, 67] model was adopted to produce recommendations based on a graph. Then, given a user, a pair of his/her recommended items were obtained from the PPR model. Each of the outgoing edges of this user was iteratively removed to check whether removing it changed the order of the recommended items or not. Finally, the edges that changed the order were treated as counterfactual explanations for the user.
- · Besides feeding extracted paths to a recommendation framework, there is also another line of work that extracts paths to generate explanations for other recommendation models. Yang et al. [109] proposed a post-hoc method called SEP to select an explanation path given a recommendation from any recommender system. This method requires user and item representations obtained from the chosen recommender system and a graph of users, items, and their metadata. Given a pair of user and his/her recommendation, SEP searches for candidate paths connecting them in the graph. Then, these candidate paths are ranked based on three heuristic metrics: (1) path credibility which is the product of all weights on the path, (2) path readability which is inversely proportional to

the path length and the number of intermediate node types, and (3) path diversity which is its variety in relation types. To rank the paths based on these metrics, the weighted sum of them was used. A scoring function was de fi ned and learned using an unsupervised method.

- 3.2.2 Meta-path based models As for random-walk based models, since the extracted paths are random, the connectivity information obtained from these paths is therefore implicit and unpredictable. To obtain semantically meaningful connectivity information, meta-path based random walk was introduced [83]. This technique has been widely adopted to extract multi-hop relations under speci fi c assumptions. Speci fi cally, starting from any node, instead of randomly selecting the next node from the neighborhood, meta-path based random walk selects the next node in accordance with the node type speci fi ed in a meta-path at each step. By using a meta-path, high-order connectivity under a speci fi c assumption can be obtained and used for learning recommendations. Below are examples of meta-path based models:
- · Ma et al. [61] proposed RuleRec which is an explainable recommendation model based on the meta-paths derived from item association in a graph. Given a user's item and an item of interest, this model fi nds the item-to-item meta-paths that re fl ect the association of these items. To fi nd such meta-paths, hard-selection and soft-selection methods were proposed. The hard-selection method uses a pre-de fi ned hyper-parameter to validate meta-paths while the soft-selection method learns to select meta-paths with the additional objective function. After selecting the meta-paths, the probabilities of fi nding path instances between the item pair following these meta-paths were computed. These probabilities were used to create feature vectors of item pairs. Each entry of this vector is the probability of each meta-path. Then, such feature vectors were used to learn recommendations in the BPR-MF model and NCF model which is a neural network based MF model.
- · Chen et al. [16] developed a temporal-aware path-based model called TMER. This model leverages paths connecting consecutive items in each user's history with attention mechanisms. It captures each user's preferences that dynamically change over time based on his/her sequence of previous items. Given a sequence starting with a user and followed by his/her previously interacted items, DeepWalk [72] was fi rst used to generate user and item initial embeddings. Then, for each pair of consecutive items in the sequence, multiple item-to-item meta-paths were used to extract path instances connecting them. After obtaining these path instances, Word2Vec [64] method was used to compute path embedding. This path embedding was attentively combined with item embedding to generate a new item embedding by using a self-attention mechanism. The attention weights were considered to fi nd reasoning paths as explanations for the user. This process was repeated for every pair of consecutive items. Then, all item, user, and path embeddings were used to predict the recommendation score.
- · Wang et al. [98] proposed a meta-path based recommendation model called MSRE. In their work, two structural relations, i.e., a ffi liation relation (one-centered-by-another structure) and interaction relation (peer-to-peer structure) were leveraged by using di ff erent types of meta-paths. For a ffi liation relation, the meta-paths following these two patterns namely user-item-features and item-user-attributes were used. For interaction relation, metapaths starting with a user node type and ending with an item node type were used. Moreover, due to the high number of possible meta-paths, they also proposed an approach to sample meta-paths with high association degrees. Based on these meta-paths, the meta-path embeddings are computed. Then, these meta-path embeddings are attentively aggregated via an attention mechanism. The most important meta-path can be identi fi ed by the attention weights and used as an explanation.

- · Ozsoy et al. [68] proposed a meta-path based explainable recommendation model called MP4Rec. In their work, PathSim [84] and metapath2vec [23] were fi rst used to measure user-user similarity and item-item similarity and create the similarity matrices based on di ff erent meta-paths. Then, a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) model was applied to learn user and item latent factors of each meta-path from these similarity matrices. To combine all user/item latent factors from every meta-path, an attention mechanism was applied. In this way, the fi nal user/item latent factors can be obtained by attentively aggregating information from each meta-path. The most important meta-path was signi fi ed based on the attention weights and used as an explanation. Besides using meta-paths to improve the explainability, they also included an additional constraint in the traditional BPR loss function to recommend explainable recommendations more than non-explainable ones. This constraint was derived from an assumption that if a given item is explainable for a user, their latent factors should be close to each other in the latent space learned by a BPR model. To determine if an item is explainable for a user or not, association rule mining [69] was adopted for measuring the explainability of any user-item pair. This computed explainability was then included in the loss function to constrain the recommendations.
- · Following a similar idea as in [68], Markchom et al. [63] proposed a scalable and explainable visually-aware recommendation framework called SEV-RS. They mitigated the scalability issues of using meta-paths by proposing a scalable method to extract meta-path based multi-hop information. This information was used to model users' preferences and quanti fi ed meta-path based explainability of recommendations. This meta-path based explainability was integrated into a BPR framework to constrain recommendations as in [68].
- · Zhang et al. [114] proposed an explainable graph-based news recommendation model named MetoNR. The concept of meta explanation triplets was introduced to extract multi-hop information from a graph and provide explanations for users. Each meta explanation triplet is represented by a symmetric 2-hop meta-path. It indicates a reason of why a piece of news is recommended to users. Based on these triplets, a content-based explainable news recommendation model was proposed. First, Transformer was adopted to learn initial news representations from their titles. Then, based on the sequential data of users' previously interacted news, initial users' preferences representations were extracted by using a GRU network. To leverage structural information in a graph, side information representations for news and users were proposed. These representations were learned based on meta explanation triplets to capture the semantically meaningful connectivity between news/users based on these triplets (meta-paths). Based on multiple meta explanation triplets, multiple side information representations of news/users can be obtained. Thus, a self-attention mechanism was adopted to attentively combine these representations and identify the most important meta explanation triplet (meta-path) to provide an explanation for users. Finally, all initial representations of users/news were concatenated with their corresponding side information representations.

Evidently, the e ff ectiveness of meta-path based models highly depends on selecting meta-paths that are suitable for the domains in which they are applied. Such meta-path selection typically requires domain knowledge which can be labor-intensive, especially for those graphs with various types of nodes and relations [93]. Some studies also argued that meta-path based models are ine ffi cient since they are not capable of utilizing unseen connectivity patterns that are not speci fi ed in given meta-paths [60, 97].

In general, a path-based approach can leverage multi-hop relations to model users' preferences by using paths extracted from graphs. As a result, the performance of this approach depends on the quality of these paths. Using paths without caution may result in introducing noise information into learning users' preferences. A study suggested that

paths with a length greater than six will introduce noisy entities [84]. Extracting paths at a certain length while ignoring remote connections is su ffi cient for learning recommendations [84, 85]. Moreover, the process of extracting paths from a graph can be time-consuming since the number of possible paths connecting two nodes grows exponentially when the number of nodes and relations increases [49]. Developing a path-based approach that is scalable remains a challenge in this research fi eld.

## 3.3 Hybrid Approach

An embedding-based approach uses node embedding methods to learn recommendations. These methods allow high fl exibility and e ffi ciency compared to a path-based approach. Meanwhile, a path-based approach utilizes multi-hop relations from paths extracted from graphs. It uses high-order information in graphs in an explicit and intuitive way. A hybrid approach combines the advantages of both embedding-based and path-based approaches to leverage the overall graph structure and extracted paths. Some state-of-the-art models in this approach are as follows:

- · Wang et al. [92] proposed an end-to-end hybrid model called RippleNet. to extract multi-hop relations, the concept of ripple set which is a set of triplets within 𝑛 hops from an item nodes of a given user was proposed. Given a user and one of his/her previously interacted items, the ripple sets of di ff erent 𝑛 were fi rst created. Then, starting from the 1-hop ripple set, the information from each triplet in this set was propagated based on the relevance probability. This probability can be considered as the similarity between the item embedding and the head node embedding of each triplet. The user embedding was computed by the weighted sum of the tail node embeddings in the ripple set based on the computed relevance probabilities from the previous step. Such process was repeated until reaching the 𝑛 -hop ripple sets to obtain the fi nal user embedding enriched with multi-hop information in a graph. Finally, this user embedding and the item embedding were used to predict the recommendation score. To obtain explanations, they followed the path from a user to his/her recommended item by selecting the node with the highest relevance probability at each hop.
- · Huang et al. [40] proposed a model called EIUM to jointly leverage multi-hop relations in a graph along with textual information from users' reviews and visual information from item images. These di ff erent modal features were used to constrain the structural conditions in TransE. Based on the node embeddings obtained from this constrained TransE, each user-item interaction representation was computed from a set of path instances connecting them. These path instances were attentively combined to form the user-item interaction representation. An explanation can be obtained by selecting one of these path instances with the highest attention weight. Finally, the sequential interactions modeling module was used to combine all user-item interaction representations of a given user to capture the user dynamic preferences and predict recommendations for this user.
- · Li et al. [48] also proposed a multi-modal POI recommender system called GEAPR which uses structural context and neighbor impact from graphs, user attributes, and geolocation in fl uence to learn users' preferences. A triple attention mechanism was utilized to attentively aggregate multi-modal factors and provide explainability of recommendations. To leverage the structural context of a user, random walk with restart (RWR) was used to generate his/her RWR representations. Then, a multi-layer neural network was applied to these representations to learn the structural context latent factors. As for the user's neighbor impact, an attention-based graph neural network was used to aggregate information from his/her neighbors and identify the most signi fi cant neighbor from the attention weights. Lastly, an attention-based latent factorization machine was used to extract latent factors of user attributes. Trainable vectors were adopted to represent both categorical and numerical user

features. Then, they were learned by the feature-based FM methods with attention mechanism [105]. All of these multi-modal features were fi nally combined by using the attention mechanism strategy in [47] which allows for the interpretability of the model.

- · Xian et al. [104] proposed a coarse-tofi ne neural symbolic reasoning approach called CAFE which forms user pro fi les as coarse sketches of user behaviors and then uses these sketches to guide a pathfi nding process to fi nd explanation paths for recommendations. By de fi ning a user-centric pattern as a relational path between a user and an item (similar to a meta-path), a user pro fi le can be composed based on certain user-centric patterns that re fl ect this user's personal interests. Given a user, an o ff -the-shelf random-walk based algorithm [45] was fi rst adopted to fi nd a set of candidate user-centric patterns for this user. Then, for a subset of selected user-centric patterns, the prominence scores of these patterns were computed. Each prominence score assigned to each pattern indicated how likely the reasoning model can derive a path following this pattern from a given user to the potentially recommended items. These scores were used to combine all the patterns to form the user pro fi le. Based on the obtained user pro fi le, a Pro fi le-guided Path-Reasoning algorithm (PPR) was proposed to simultaneously fi nd a collection of explanation paths by using selective neural symbolic reasoning modules. In this algorithm, a layout tree consisting of the relation types from the selected user-centric patterns was constructed. This layout tree was used to guide the execution order of neural symbolic reasoning modules. Based on the layout tree, the reasoning modules were executed level by level to sequentially identify the nodes corresponding to the relation types in the layout tree and produce a tree containing a collection of explanation paths for this user. Compared to RL-based models, this model is more e ffi cient since it can collectively fi nd explanation paths instead of fi nding each path separately.
- · Ma et al. [60] proposed KR-GCN, a path reasoning with GCN that utilizes both an embedding-based approach and a path-based approach simultaneously. In their work, a GCN model was adopted to learn node representations in a graph. Then, for each node, the weighted sum aggregator was applied to capture the features of this node itself and its neighbors. This aggregator combined the representation of a given node with the representation of its neighbor obtained via the mean function. Then, a non-linear activation function was applied to the combined representation to generate the fi nal node representation. Path instances were extracted to generate the representation of the user's potential interests. To extract path instances, a heuristic path search algorithm was proposed. This algorithm uses a transition-based method (TransH was used in their work) to determine the triplet-level scores and utilizes nucleus sampling to select triplets within the paths between each given user-item pair. This algorithm was used to perform path selection which solved the problem of error propagation involving low-quality paths. After obtaining the paths, an LSTM model and a self-attention mechanism were applied to the selected paths based on the embeddings learned from the previous GCN model. This process encoded the sequential dependencies of the nodes within every selected path and outputted the encoded vector. Finally, multiple MLP layers with an activation function were applied to the encoded vector to predict the recommendation score. With the self-attention mechanism, the importance scores of the selected paths can be determined. The path with the highest score can then be treated as an explanation for the recommendation.
- · Wang et al. [95] introduced Causal Disentanglement for Semantics-Aware Intent Learning (CaDSI) to enhance users' disentangled intent learning through graph-based methods. They employed a causal graph to represent interpretable disentangled recommendations and addressed the issue of content information confounding user representation and recommendation outcomes. The proposed solution involved a causal intervention method, starting with meta-path based random walks and metapath2vec for context representations. Then, they

introduced a GNN-based disentangling module to learn user representations that reveal multiple user intents. This disentangling module operated across multiple layers, utilizing high-order connectivities within a user-item interaction graph. User/item intent-aware embeddings were initialized by segmenting each user/item embedding into multiple chunks and re fi ned by using importance scores for intent-aware user-item interactions. After computing user/item intent-aware embedding at each layer, these embeddings across all layers were aggregated to create the fi nal intent-aware user/item representation for each intent. After obtaining these representations, the backdoor adjustment technique [70] was adopted to mitigate the impact of context information on user representation. An unbiased intent-aware user representation was obtained and used to compute recommendation scores using a second-order Factorization Machine [74].

## 3.4 Summary

The learning methods in explainable graph-based recommender systems refer to the architectures of the models for extracting and utilizing high-order connectivity information in graphs for learning recommendations. They can be divided into three approaches: embedding-based, path-based, and hybrid approaches. Embedding-based models leverage node embedding techniques to represent users, items, and their relationships within graphs, capturing complex and non-linear relationships between users and items in a continuous vector space. This allows them to capture semantic relationships in the graph. Embedding-based models can generalize well across di ff erent graph structures and types of interactions. They can capture underlying patterns that are not explicitly encoded in prede fi ned paths, providing fl exibility for diverse recommendation scenarios. However, the quality of embeddings heavily relies on the quality and quantity of the training data. In scenarios with sparse or noisy data, the learned representations may not accurately capture underlying patterns, potentially leading to suboptimal recommendations. Embeddings are dense vector representations in a continuous space. It can be challenging to interpret the underlying factors within these representations in fl uencing recommendations. This could compromise the explainability of the recommender systems. Moreover, training embedding-based models can be computationally expensive, especially for large-scale graphs and high-dimensional embedding spaces. This complexity can be a limitation in scenarios where computational resources are limited.

On the other hand, path-based models leverage path extraction methods or graph traversal algorithms to explore relationships and infer recommendations based on paths between users and items. Since path-based models use explicit paths, they can o ff er an intuitively transparent and interpretable way to understand recommendations. Also, by strategically choosing speci fi c paths, these models provide greater control over the type of information used for learning recommendations compared to embedding-based models. Regarding e ffi ciency, path-based models consider paths extracted from a graph, contrasting with embedding-based models that typically consider the entire graph. The paths extracted from the graph are generally of a smaller scale compared to the entire graph. Consequently, path-based models can exhibit greater computational e ffi ciency and scalability than embedding-based models, if the paths are extracted e ffi ciently. Relying on prede fi ned paths also has its disadvantages, as the e ff ectiveness of path-based models may be limited to these speci fi c paths. Without a diverse set of prede fi ned paths, these models may struggle to generalize well to unseen or dynamically evolving patterns in the graph. Moreover, extracting paths without caution could result in obtaining noisy data [84], potentially leading to inaccurate recommendations. Furthermore, path-based models may focus on local patterns within the graph, possibly missing the capture of global structures. This limitation can impact their ability to understand and recommend items based on broader user preferences.

Hybrid models aim to combine the strengths of both embedding-based and path-based approaches. This strategy enables the development of fl exible and generalized models, leveraging the strengths of embedding-based models while simultaneously bene fi ting from the e ffi ciency and explainability provided by explicit paths, as seen in path-based models. These models can use embeddings to capture semantic relationships and paths for interpretability. However, designing e ff ective hybrid models may pose challenges related to model complexity and the need for careful integration of diverse components. Ultimately, the choice between these approaches depends on the speci fi c requirements of the recommendation task, the nature of the graph, and the trade-o ff s between accuracy, interpretability, and e ffi ciency performance.

## 4 CATEGORIZATION BY EXPLAINING METHODS: MODEL-SPECIFIC AND MODEL-AGNOSTIC APPROACHES

Explainable graph-based recommender systems can also be categorized into two approaches based on how their explainability mechanisms work: model-speci fi c, where the mechanisms are developed speci fi cally for the models they are in, and model-agnostic, where the mechanisms are also applicable to other recommender systems. This section discusses the characteristics and di ff erences of these approaches. It provides common methods used in state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems within each approach. Finally, it summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches.

## 4.1 Model-Specific Approach

The model-speci fi c approach aims to design a method or a component within a recommendation model, providing insights into the decision-making process speci fi c to that model. Various techniques have been employed to develop model-speci fi c explaining methods for explainable graph-based recommender systems. Notable among these techniques are attention mechanisms , reinforcement learning , and auto-regressive path generation . In the following paragraphs, the details of these techniques are discussed, exploring their state-of-the-art applications and advancements.

4.1.1 Attention Mechanism As can be seen in the previous section, attention mechanisms have been heavily used for generating explanations in many explainable graph-based recommendation models. Such attention mechanisms learn attention weights to signify the importance of nodes [48, 110] or relations [7, 78, 93, 94] and use them to produce explanations. Those models that use these mechanisms are considered a model-speci fi c approach since the attention weights are simultaneously learned along with optimizing recommendation objective functions. Such attention mechanisms have been applied in many model architectures including GCNs. For example, both KGAT [93] and KGAT+ [78] which is a scalable improved version of KGAT apply the knowledge-aware attention mechanism on GCN models to calculate the attention weights of a given user's neighbors. The attention weights are learned by optimizing the TransR loss which captures the graph structure and the collaborative fi ltering loss for learning recommendations. HAGERec [110] uses a bi-directional information propagation method with an attention mechanism in a GCN model. This method uses the hierarchical attention mechanism to learn the importance score of each neighbor when performing propagation. GEAPR [48] uses three di ff erent attention mechanism modules to attentively aggregate multi-modal information, i.e., the structural context of a user, numerical user's attributes, and categorical user's attributes. Structural features are aggregated by an attention-based graph neural network. The most important neighbor can be identi fi ed from the attention weights. Then, latent factors of both numerical and categorical users' attributes are extracted by an attention-based latent factorization machine. Finally, these multi-modal extracted features are combined by using

another attention mechanism. KGIN [94] also uses an attention mechanism to attentively combine relation embeddings to form each user intent representation. This allows the relation with the highest attention weights to be used as an explanation.

Besides identifying the most important node/relation, some models further take advantage of the attention weights to derive explanation paths or meta-paths. MSRE [98] uses attention mechanisms to perform attention-guide walks. This allows multi-style explanation meta-paths based on the a ffi liation and interaction relations to be discovered. By attentively combining these multi-style explanation meta-paths, this model learns the representations of user-item interactions. The most predictive meta-path can be obtained by considering the attention weights in this process. TMER [16] uses an attention mechanism to fi nd the paths linking consecutive items in users' historical data. The attention weights are used to fi nd reasoning paths as explanations for the user.

Instead of applying attention mechanisms on nodes/relations, some models apply attention mechanisms on a set of paths extracted from a graph. These models attentively aggregate information from multiple paths allowing them to determine the most important path and use it as an explanation. For example, KPRN [97] samples paths connecting a given user and an item and generates path representations via an LSTM network. Then, this model uses an attention mechanism to attentively aggregate the representations of these sampled paths. EIUM [40] uses a self-attention mechanism to learn path representations based on user and item representations that form the paths. After obtaining path representations, this model uses another attention mechanism and weighted pooling layer to fi nd the interaction representations containing information from all of the paths. Finally, the most important path can be selected based on the computed attention weights as explanations. KR-GCN [60] also uses an attention mechanism to distinguish the contributions of the selected paths from their heuristic path extraction method. For each recommendation, the path with the highest score is treated as an explanation as in the other models. Similarly, attention mechanisms can also be applied on a meta-path level as well. MP4Rec [68] initially generates user and item latent factors based on various meta-paths. To obtain the fi nal user and item latent factors, MP4Rec uses an attention mechanism to attentively aggregate information based on di ff erent meta-paths. This model also uses a modi fi ed BPR loss function that leverages association rules to constrain the explainability of the recommendations predicted by the model.

Similarly to attention mechanisms, some models use speci fi c methods to measure the importance of each node or relation when learning recommendations. For instance, SemAuto [7] quanti fi es the importance of each relation in a graph by transforming a graph in Each relation in a graph is equivalent to an edge in a neural network. Thus, the neuron weights learned by optimizing the objective function were considered as signi fi cance weights of the corresponding relations in the original graph. These weights were then used to identify the important attributes of a particular user as explanations. This process of obtaining such explanations is a part of the whole recommendation learning framework. In [55], the modi fi ed aggregation method propagates low-level embeddings based on the computed factor a ffi liation degrees. These degrees are calculated from the learnable parameters of their model. They allow signi fi cant concepts for learning user and item embeddings to be signi fi ed and used as explanations. In CaDSI [95], for each user-item interaction under a speci fi c intent, the import score is computed in this component. These scores can be used to explain why the item is recommended based on the corresponding intent. CGSR [101] generates a set of explanation scores of a speci fi c item on both session and item levels. On the session level, the model generates scores that indicate the signi fi cance of the session in relation to the recommended item. On the item level, the model generates importance scores for each item within a session concerning the recommended item, considering di ff erent relationship types, including causality and correlation relationships. These scores enable the discovery of the impact of the session on the

recommended item from the session level and reveal the importance of each item in the session as either a cause or a correlation to the recommended item from the item level.

- 4.1.2 Reinforcement Learning Another line of model-speci fi c approach is using RL for path reasoning. This approach learns how to navigate from a user to his/her recommended item resulting in producing a recommendation along with a navigated path as an explanation. Many strategies on how to learn such navigation have been proposed in the last few years. PGPR [103] uses a multi-hop scoring function utilizing high-order connectivity between users and items to reward the RL agent. To improve e ffi ciency, a user-conditional action pruning strategy was proposed to reduce the size of the action space. UCPR [86] uses an LSTM network to encode a sequence of actions taken by the agent and a user-centric view reasoning network to construct and update each user's pro fi le accordingly. ADAC [117] leverages Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning [38] to guide the path reasoning process to generate explanation paths following the path demonstrations. ReMR [96] uses a Cascading Actor-Critic method to initially learn the policies based on high-level concepts of users' personal interests. Then, these policies are used to learn the more fi ne-grained concepts to specify users' interests at an instance level. For each user and his/her recommended item, an explanation path is extracted by using a multi-level reasoning path extraction method consisting of di ff erent levels of concepts and instances. TPRec [119] leverages temporal information for performing path reasoning using RL. A personalized time-aware reward scoring function was proposed to compute rewards for the agent instead of using the multi-hop scoring function [103]. Path reasoning using RL can also leverage attention mechanisms to improve the e ff ectiveness and e ffi ciency of path navigation as well. For example, MKRLN [87] uses an attention mechanism to compute the importance of the neighbors at each navigation step. Not only does it help improve navigation e ff ectiveness but it also helps reduce the number of action spaces by fi ltering out those neighbors with low attention weights.
- 4.1.3 Auto-Regressive Path Generation Some explainable graph-based recommender systems have been developed to generate explanation paths instead of extracting paths from a graph. This generative process is considered model-speci fi c since the models learn to generate explanation paths along with producing recommendations. For instance, LOGER [120] uses an LSTM network to generate a path from a given user representation. In other words, given a starting user, this LSTM network predicts a sequence of nodes and relations to form a path connecting this user to his/her recommended item. Similarly, PLM-Rec [29] generates candidate paths from a given user to his/her recommended item by using a Transformer-based decoder [90]. Then, the path with the highest joint probability is outputted as an explanation. CAFE [104] utilizes neural symbolic modules to generate a collection of explanation paths with the layout tree as guidance. In particular, it outputs a tree containing multiple explanation paths for a given user; thus CAFE is more e ffi cient compared to other models that can generate an explanation path one by one for a given user.

4.1.4 Others Apart from the aforementioned techniques, other techniques have also been used for developing modelspeci fi c explaining methods. For example, in [4], the distribution of node and relation representations was learned based on relation triplets in a graph similar to TransE. To obtain an explanation path of them, candidate paths were fi rst extracted via a breathfi rst search. These candidate paths were then ranked based on their probabilities computed from the learned distribution. Although extracting paths by using a breadthfi rst search is not part of the model, ranking and selecting an explanation path at the end is based on the node/relation representation learning module of this model. Hence, it is considered model-speci fi c. CGSR [113] generates the distilled session graph by blocking shortcut paths on the original session graph and retaining only causal relationships among items. Leveraging the retained causal relations,

item representations are generated. These representations, derived from the causal context, enable similarity scores between items to directly mirror the underlying causal connections. For any user, these scores serve as explanations, grounded in causality-based similarities with the user's previously interacted items.

## 4.2 Model-Agnostic Approach

As opposed to a model-speci fi c approach, a model-agnostic approach can be independently applied with di ff erent recommendation models to produce explainable recommendations and generate explanations. Most of the models in this approach involve extracting candidate attributes (typically nodes, relations, or paths) and then validating or ranking these candidates based on certain criteria or measurements. In [5], the explanations can be obtained by considering the likability degree of a user towards a particular item attribute. This likability degree depends on the number of times a given user interacts with items that have this attribute.

Given a recommendation from any recommendation model, SEP [109] selects an explanation speci fi cally for this recommendation by ranking candidate paths extracted from a graph. The ranking criteria are based on three heuristic metrics, i.e., path credibility, path readability, and path diversity. The fi nal ranking score can be computed by the weighted sum of these metrics. This method is a post-hoc method that can be applied with di ff erent types of recommendation models and graphs. Another post-hoc path selection method was proposed in [26]. Unlike other methods, this method takes fairness into account when ranking candidate paths. PRINCE [30] is a post-hoc method that uses counterfactual explanations instead of explanation paths. Given a user and a pair of his/her recommended items, this method iteratively removes one of the relations from this user in a graph to check whether it alters the order of the given recommended items or not. If it changes the order, then this relation may have a high impact and can be used as a counterfactual explanation for this user.

Another line of a model-agnostic approach is to generate multi-hop features that can be subsequently utilized in recommendation models to improve their explainability. RuleRec [61] is one of the explainable graph-based recommendation models in this line of work. This model uses a set of pre-de fi ned meta-paths to generate item features. These features are vectors in which each entry indicates the connectivity probability of users and this item based on each meta-path. They can be used in various recommendation models such as the MF-based model to constrain explainability in recommendations. To incorporate these features in any existing recommendation model, their proposed multi-task learning objective function is required to optimize the feature extraction part and the recommendation part simultaneously. Since this multi-task learning objective function is applicable to any objective function, this explaining method can be considered model-agnostic.

## 4.3 Summary

In explainable graph-based recommender systems, explaining methods are the components or mechanisms that provide explainability of the recommendations made by these systems. These methods are categorized into two approaches: model-speci fi c and model-agnostic approaches.

A model-speci fi c approach focuses on developing internal mechanisms in graph-based recommender systems that can provide explainability speci fi cally for the models they are developed for. Since model-speci fi c explaining methods are speci fi cally designed for the characteristics and intricacies of the particular recommender system, they can provide more tailored and precise explainability for these recommender systems compared to model-agnostic methods. Also, in this approach, the explainability components are closely integrated with the recommendation models. Therefore, the results obtained from these components may exhibit greater alignment with the recommendations generated by the

recommendation models. However, model-speci fi c methods may lack generalizability across di ff erent recommender systems or models. This limits their transferability to other contexts. Additionally, integrating explainability components within the recommendation models can increase the overall complexity of the system, making it harder to understand and less scalable. Also, it could compromise the ability to optimize recommendation accuracy, leading to lower recommendation accuracy or a trade-o ff between recommendation accuracy and explainability.

On the other hand, a model-agnostic approach focuses on developing components that can be combined with various graph-based recommender systems to provide explainability for their recommendations. The methods within this approach can be applied post-hoc without altering the underlying recommender model. This fl exibility enables the application of these methods to various existing recommendation models that require enhanced explainability. Nevertheless, model-agnostic methods may not capture system-speci fi c nuances as e ff ectively as model-speci fi c methods. The explanations derived from model-agnostic methods might be more generic and less tailored to the intricacies of the recommendation model to which they are applied. Furthermore, applying model-agnostic methods externally may result in higher computational costs compared to integrated model-speci fi c methods, particularly if the model-agnostic methods are computationally expensive. Choosing between model-speci fi c and model-agnostic explaining methods often depends on the speci fi c requirements of the application, the desired level of generalizability or speci fi city, and the potential need for transferability across di ff erent recommender systems.

## 5 CATEGORIZATION BY TYPES OF EXPLANATIONS: NODE, PATH, META-PATH, AND IMPLICIT LEVELS

This section centers on categorizing explainable graph-based recommender systems according to di ff erent explanation types. These types include node-level, path-level, meta-path level, and implicit explanations. The details of each type are discussed in this section with examples from recently proposed explainable graph-based recommender systems. Additionally, a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of each explanation type is provided.

## 5.1 Node Level

Node-level explanations include explanations that are in the form of nodes or 1-hop relations. These explanations are the simplest explanation type for explainable graph-based recommendation models. Some models aim to identify certain nodes/relations that are in fl uential or important for the recommendations of a given user. For example, SemAuto [8] treats the neuron weights in Autoencoder Neural Network as the importance weights of nodes in a corresponding graph. Then, it identi fi es the most important node connected to a given user and uses it as an explanation. GEAPR [48] uses a GNN model with an attention mechanism to aggregate information among each user's neighborhood. Thus, the most important neighbor node for each user can be speci fi ed based on the attention weights. LDSDMF [5] identi fi es an attribute of a given item that potentially matches a given user's preferences. An explanation is in the form of an attribute node in a graph with the highest likability degree. KGIN [94] models user-item interaction intents based on the relations connecting them in a graph. Such relations are combined via an attention mechanism to form an intent representation. The relation with the highest attention weight is treated as an explanation in this model. In the model proposed in [55], user and item nodes are assigned to di ff erent concepts. Each of these concepts corresponds to one semantic factor of users or items. These concepts are used to learn user and item embeddings in the modi fi ed GCN model. For each user/item node, the modi fi ed GCN model propagates the information from its neighbor nodes separately based on their concepts. The explanations obtained from this model are in the form of signi fi cant concepts which are nodes representing semantic factors of users or items. CaDSI [95] provides explanations in the form of

important scores of user-item interactions based on certain speci fi c intents. CGSR [101] provides item-level scores to explain session-based recommendations. In this model, a user's sequential interactions with items form a session, conceptualized as a path in a graph, where each item serves as a node. The item-level scores elucidate the signi fi cance of each item in the session concerning the recommended item. They can be used to identify in fl uential items in the session, resembling explanations at the node level. Apart from important nodes/relations, node-level explanations can also be nodes/relations that are counterfactual conditions. For instance, PRINCE [30] provides node-level counterfactual explanations. These explanations are di ff erent from signi fi cant relations. They are relations that, if they are removed from a graph, will change the recommendation results. In other words, they are assumptions or conditions that counter the actual results.

## 5.2 Path Level

Given a user node and item node in a graph, a series of nodes and relations that connect them together form a path providing high-order information about their connectivity. Such connectivity can be user-user connectivity, item-item connectivity, user-item connectivity, etc. These paths are therefore suitable for being used as explanations to explain why recommendations are made, i.e., how a user is connected with his/her recommended item. Paths containing high-order connectivity information are typically extracted or considered to model users' pro fi les and learn recommendations in graph-based recommender systems. Using them as explanations is a straightforward way to utilize such information uniquely provided by graphs. Using such information in the form of paths to provide explanations is therefore an intuitive and straightforward method. According to this, many explainable graph-based recommender systems have been focusing on providing path-level explanations. SEP [109] and FairKG4Rec [26] extract candidate paths connecting a given user and his/her recommended item in a graph and rank them based on certain metrics and conditions. Path-level explanations can also be modi fi ed or rewritten to obtain more user-friendly explanations than sequences of nodes and relations. In the model proposed by Ai et al. [4], candidate paths are ranked by their probabilities based on the distribution of node embeddings learned by TransE. Then, the path with the highest probability is selected and applied on a pre-de fi ned template in natural languages. CGSR [101] provides session-level scores, indicating the importance of each session in relation to the recommended item. A session refers to a sequence of items sequentially interacted with by a user, resembling a path in a graph. The scores provide insights into the impact of a speci fi c session, represented as a distinct path, on the recommendation.

Besides de fi ning criteria or metrics to measure the signi fi cance of candidate paths, some models such as KPRN [97], EIUM [40], and TMER [16] use attention mechanisms to attentively combine multiple paths and identify the most signi fi cant one from the attention weights. This identi fi ed path is then used as an explanation path for the recommendation. KGAT [93], KGAT+ [78], HAGERec [110] use attention mechanisms to determine the importance of each node. For a given user and his/her recommended item, an explanation path connecting them can be formed by considering the attention weights in a cascading manner. RippleNet [92] similarly leverages the relevance probabilities to form an explanation path connecting a user and his/her recommended items.

Explanation paths can also be generated based on the distribution of nodes in a graph as in an auto-regressive path language model in which sentences are formed based on the distribution of words in a corpus. LOGER [120] uses an LSTM-based model to generate explanation paths. PLM-Rec [29] generates explanation paths by using a Transformer-based decoder. CAFE [104] uses multiple neural symbolic modules to fi rst generate a tree where the root node is a user node and the leaf nodes are the recommended item nodes. Based on this tree, multiple explanation paths can be extracted by tree traversal and ranked to fi nd the most suitable one.

PGPR [103], ADAC [117], UCPR [86], MKRLN [87], TPRec [119] and ReMR [96] formulate a recommendation task as deterministic MDP of path reasoning. The task is to navigate from a user node to his/her recommended item node in a graph. Each and every navigation decision at each step altogether forms a leading path from this user to his/her recommended item which can be treated as an explanation for this recommendation. One advantage of these models is that paths discovered by a path reasoning process de fi nitely exist in a graph since they are generated by navigating through an actual graph. This is di ff erent from those paths generated from node distribution where their explanation paths are formed based on the probabilities of node connectivity. Thus, there is no guarantee whether these paths exist in a graph or not.

## 5.3 Meta-Path Level

Path-level explanations provide explainability at an instance-level view. In other words, they particularly provide explanations in the forms of nodes, relations, or combinations of both. On the other hand, meta-path level explanations provide explanations from a higher point of view, i.e., meta-level view. These explanations are in the form of node types or relation types in graphs. They can be used to explain recommendations based on the semantic meanings of these meta-paths. MSRE [98] leverages several meta-paths with di ff erent types to extract multi-hop relations. A meta-path embedding method aggregates information from these meta-paths by using an attention mechanism. The most important meta-path then can be identi fi ed based on the attention weights and used for explaining the recommendations. Similarly, MP4Rec [68] models user and item latent factors based on multiple meta-paths. For each meta-path, the initial user/item latent factors are learned based on the user-user/item-item similarity matrices based on each meta-path. Then, these user/item latent factors based on each meta-path are attentively combined. The most signi fi cant meta-path can be identi fi ed from the attention weights. Ma et al. [61] proposed RuleRec which is an explainable recommendation model based on the meta-paths derived from item association in a graph. Given a user's item and an item of interest, this model fi nds the item-to-item meta-paths that re fl ect the association of these items. To fi nd such meta-paths, hard-selection and soft-selection methods were proposed. Hard-selection method uses pre-de fi ned hyper-parameters to validate meta-paths while the soft-selection method learns to select meta-paths with the additional objective function along with the recommendation objective function. After selecting the meta-paths, the probabilities of fi nding path instances between the item pair following these meta-paths were computed. These probabilities were used to create feature vectors of item pairs where each entry of this vector is the probability of each meta-path. Then, such feature vectors were used to learn recommendations in the BPR-MF model and NCF model which is a neural network based MF model. Note that meta-path based models in Section 3.2.2 are recommendation models that utilize meta-path based random walks for extracting and leveraging connectivity information in a graph. Meanwhile, meta-path level classi fi cation in this section is intended for any graph-based recommender systems that provide explanations in the form of meta-paths. These systems can employ various techniques and are not constrained to rely on meta-path based random walks, unlike meta-path based models.

## 5.4 Implicit

Explanations that are at the node level, path level, or meta-path level are considered explicit explainability of recommender systems. However, instead of producing explicit explanations, some models provide explainability implicitly by selectively recommending items that are explainable rather than non-explainable ones. In [68] and [63], the objective function of a BPR framework was modi fi ed to increase the chance of generating more explainable items rather than those non-explainable ones. Speci fi cally, an additional term was included in the classic BPR loss function. This term

constrains the distance of the user and item latent factors in the latent space to be close to each other (i.e., their di ff erence is close to zero) if the item is explainable to the user. The more they are explainable, the closer their latent factors are in the latent space. In CGSR [113], the distilled session graph containing only causal relationships among items was constructed. The explainability was achieved by considering the causal relationships among items. Speci fi cally, for any user, his/her recommended item is explainable if it exhibits the highest similarity to an item that the user previously purchased, as determined by the scores of the causal relations connecting these two items.

## 5.5 Summary

Explainable graph-based recommender systems can provide explainability of their recommendations in various formats. Node-level explanations allow for clear insights into the signi fi cance of individual nodes, making it easy to interpret the recommendation rationale. Additionally, generating node-level explanations is typically less computationally expensive compared to more complex explanation levels. However, these explanations come with limitations, including a lack of contextual information on how nodes relate to each other and potential challenges in understanding the entire system's behavior as explanations focus on individual nodes.

Path-level explanations , on the other hand, capture sequential relationships between nodes, providing a contextual understanding of recommendations and insights into user behavior. Nevertheless, the complexity of analyzing intricate paths may hinder their comprehensibility. Also, the computational resources required for generating path-level explanations are higher than node-level explanations. This may decrease the e ffi ciency and scalability of the recommender systems.

Meta-path level explanations o ff er a higher-level abstraction with adaptability to various recommendation scenarios. Nevertheless, they may result in a loss of detailed information presented at the node or path level. This loss of granularity can limit the precision of the explanations. Also, using meta-path explanations may introduce additional complexity and computational overhead, similar to path-level explanations.

Implicit explanations do not involve explicit details or additional information that might overwhelm users. From the perspective of real-world applications, these explanations are less likely to interrupt the user experience. They simplify the overall user interface by avoiding the need for dedicated explanation interfaces or additional elements, contributing to a cleaner design. However, implicit explanations may lack transparency, posing a challenge for users to understand the rationale behind the recommendations. Without explicit details, there is a risk that users may misinterpret the system's behavior or recommendations, as they are not provided with a clear understanding of the underlying factors. For system developers, debugging and improving the system's performance may be more challenging when relying on implicit explanations, as there are no insights into the decision-making process.

The choice between these explanation levels depends on several factors. Firstly, the desired depth of insight provided by the explanations is crucial, whether it should provide detailed insights at the node or path level or o ff er a more abstract perspective with meta-path explanations. Secondly, the computational resources required for generating explanations must be taken into account, with node-level explanations typically being less demanding than path or meta-path explanations. Lastly, the selection of the explanation level should align with the speci fi c goals and user requirements. Some users may favor explicit explanations for a comprehensive understanding of recommendations, while others may prefer explainable recommendations without actual explanations to maintain a seamless user interface. All of these factors should be considered together to achieve optimal performance and user satisfaction.

Review of Explainable Graph-Based Recommender Systems

Table 2. Benchmark datasets used in state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems

| Dataset       | Domain     | User feedback   | User feedback   | Data type   | Data type   | Data type   | Variation                                                                                                                                                         | Model                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|---------------|------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dataset       | Domain     | Explicit        | Implicit        | Metadata    | Review      | Image       | Variation                                                                                                                                                         | Model                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| Movielens     | Movie      | ✓               | ✓               | ✓           |             |             | Movielens-HetRec-2011 Movielens-100K Movielens-1M Movielens-20M                                                                                                   | [63] [5, 68, 109] [86, 92, 109, 110] [8, 40, 110]                                                                                                                                                           |
| Amazon        | E-commerce | ✓               |                 | ✓           | ✓           | ✓           | All categories Automotive Beauty Book CDs and Vinyl Cell Phones and Accessories Clothing Shoes and Jewelry Electronics Grocery Musical Instruments Toys and Games | [30] [16, 29, 120] [4, 26, 86, 96, 103, 104, 117, 119] [60, 86, 93, 94] [4, 26, 103, 104] [4, 26, 29, 61, 86, 96, 103, 104, 117, 119, 120] [4, 26, 86, 96, 103, 104, 117, 119] [61, 68] [29, 120] [16] [16] |
| Last.fm       | Music      |                 | ✓               | ✓           |             |             |                                                                                                                                                                   | [55, 60, 93, 94, 110]                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| Yelp          | Business   | ✓               |                 | ✓           | ✓           | ✓           |                                                                                                                                                                   | [48, 55, 60, 68, 93, 98]                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| Book-Crossing | Book       | ✓               |                 | ✓           |             |             |                                                                                                                                                                   | [87, 92, 110]                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| KKBOX         | Music      |                 | ✓               | ✓           |             |             |                                                                                                                                                                   | [87, 97]                                                                                                                                                                                                    |

## 6 BENCHMARK DATASETS

Benchmark datasets are crucial for advancing research in various domains, including explainable graph-based recommender systems. This section explores benchmark datasets that have been used in existing explainable graph-based recommender systems. It provides insights into the details and variations of various datasets, o ff ering a comprehensive summary of their applications and popularity within this research area. Explainable graph-based recommender systems have been applied to various kinds of datasets ranging from a movie domain to a retail domain. Some benchmark datasets that have been commonly used in the previous work are shown in Table 2. The details of these datasets are as follows:

- · MovieLens 1 This dataset is a widely used benchmark dataset in movie recommendations. It contains user records of both explicit feedback (rating) and implicit feedback (watching and tagging). Regarding items, this dataset contains metadata of movies such as genres, directors, actors, tags, etc. There are multiple versions of this dataset with di ff erent scales including MovieLens-HetRec-2011, Movielens-100K, Movielens-1M, and Movielens-20M. To incorporate more rich information about movies, the combination of Movielens-1M and IMDb datasets linked by the tiles and release dates was used in KPRN [97]. In [5], the MovieLens-100K dataset was combined with SPARQL, a semantic web query language. In [40], the Freebase data dumps 2 was used to construct the graph. The mapping relationship between movies of MovieLens-20M and entities of Freebase was adopted from [39, 118]. In [86], Microsoft Satori 3 , a knowledge base developed by Microsoft, was adopted. This base uses the Resource Description Framework and the SPARQL query language and consists of billions of entities. It was used to build the graph where the con fi dence level was set to greater than 0.9.

1 https://grouplens.org/datasets/movielens

3 http://searchengineland.com/library/bing/bing-satori

2 https://developers.google.com/freebase/

- · Amazon 4 This dataset contains product reviews and metadata from Amazon which include 142.8 million reviews spanning May 1996 to July 2014 from around 20 million users. This dataset includes reviews (containing ratings, textual reviews, and helpfulness votes) and item metadata (descriptions, category information, price, brand, items that were bought/viewed together, and image features). In [30], the whole dataset with items from multiple categories was used to examine the e ff ect of cross-category information on generating explanations. However, the whole dataset can be divided into smaller datasets of di ff erent product categories. Each dataset can be used as an individual benchmark which means that the results obtained from these divided datasets are not necessarily comparable to each other [104]. Some examples of these datasets of various categories along with the papers in which they were adopted can be found in Table 2. Similar to the MovieLens datasets, side information from publicly available knowledge bases can be incorporated to construct graphs for recommender systems. In [93] and [60], the graph was constructed by mapping the book titles in the Amazon-Book dataset to the corresponding entities in Freebase [9].
- · Yelp 6 This dataset o ff ers comprehensive information about businesses and users on the Yelp website where users can rate local businesses or post photos and reviews about them. It provides user data consisting of information about each user's account, such as the account creation date, the number of reviews posted, the average rating given by the user, and the social network and friendship data among users. As for businesses, this dataset provides information about the business category, location, hours of operation, average rating, number of reviews, and the count of user check-in by date. In total, there are 1,017 categories of businesses (e.g., 'Restaurants', 'Bars', etc.) and 6,990,280 reviews over 150,346 businesses.
- · Last.fm 5 Last.fm is a music recommendation dataset extracted from Last.fm online music systems. It contains binary implicit feedback (tagging data) between users and music as well as social networking and music artist listening information. Also, similar to the Movielens and Amazon datasets, side information from Freebase can be incorporated to construct graphs as in [60].
- · Book-Crossing 7 his is a book dataset consisting of approximately 1,149,780 ratings (ranging from 0 to 10) from users in the Book-Crossing community. In [92] and [110], these ratings were converted to implicit feedback. However, due to the sparsity of this dataset, no rating threshold was set, i.e., each user-book interaction was marked with 1 if the user has rated the book regardless of its rating score.
- · KKBOX 8 This music recommendation dataset was provided by a music streaming platform KKBOX. The KKBOX dataset consists of user-song interaction recorded within a speci fi c time duration. For users, the metadata includes user ID, city, age, gender, registration method, registration date, and expiration date. For items (songs), the metadata includes song ID, song length, genre, artist, composer, lyricist, and language. In [87], the entities in the KKBox dataset were mapped to the CN-DBpedia 9 knowledge base [106] to construct the graph.

## 7 EXPLAINABILITY EVALUATION

Evaluation of explainability stands as a crucial phase in the development of explainable graph-based recommender systems. This process not only enables the comparison of di ff erent systems but also steers the re fi nement and optimization

4 https://jmcauley.ucsd.edu/data/amazon/

6 https://www.yelp.com/dataset/

5 https://grouplens.org/datasets/hetrec-2011/

7 https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/somnambwl/bookcrossing-dataset

9 http://kw.fudan.edu.cn/cndbpedia

8 https://www.kaggle.com/c/kkbox-music-recommendation-challenge/data

Review of Explainable Graph-Based Recommender Systems

Table 3. Qu alitative methods adopted in state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems

| Qualitative evaluation method   | Models                                                                                                                   | Advantage                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | Disadvantage                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Visualization                   | [48], [98], [55], [60]                                                                                                   | - Provides a big picture of how the mod- els work and the practicality of the gen- erated explanations - Easy to implement as it does not neces- sitate additional information or human annotations                                                                         | - Visualization-based evaluation is subjective, varying based on individual observers' inter- pretations - More suited for preliminary assessments that broadly evaluate overall model performance; additional evaluation techniques are required for a comprehensive understanding - Some techniques may require user or item sampling, potentially limiting the representa- tiveness of the evaluation        |
| Case study                      | [5], [55], [98], [94], [40], [29], [92], [104], [110], [93], [78], [16], [103], [87], [119], [96], [4], [97], [61], [26] | - Allows for in-depth examination of recommendation model explainability by assessing real-world cases of recom- mendation model explainability - Facilitates a user-centric evaluation, considering the actual impact and us- ability of the explanations on individu- als | - Case studies can be subjective, requiring hu- man interpretation that may vary signi fi cantly based on prior knowledge and experience - Conducting case studies can be resource- intensive, demanding time and e ff ort to gather and analyze data for speci fi c cases - The uniqueness of each case might not rep- resent the broader user population, making it challenging to draw universal conclusions |
| User survey                     | [8], [5], [86], [120], [60], [30]                                                                                        | - Provides direct insights into users' per- ceptions of the system's explainability, crucial for improving user satisfaction and trust - Statistical analysis of user responses al- lows for a more structured and measur- able evaluation compared to the other methods    | - Typically requires signi fi cant expertise and considerable resources - The design of tests or questionnaires is crucial for the outcome. It needs careful consideration, adding complexity to the survey process.                                                                                                                                                                                            |

of these systems in terms of their explainability. Within this section, an overview of explainability evaluation techniques in explainable graph-based recommender systems is presented. Furthermore, a comparative analysis of their advantages and disadvantages is provided, o ff ering insights for selecting and implementing suitable evaluation techniques. Evaluating explanations or explainable recommendations can be done in both qualitative and quantitative ways. A qualitative way usually involves data visualization or case studies to illustrate or examine how suitable explanations are. As for quantitative evaluation, several metrics have been proposed. However, since explainability in recommendations is a relatively new area, there are not many common metrics for evaluating explanations or explainable recommendations. Common techniques for qualitative and quantitative evaluation are discussed in the following.

## 7.1 Qu alitative Evaluation

Most of the existing explainable graph-based recommender systems evaluate the e ff ectiveness of their explainability via qualitative evaluation. It can be a visualization of explanations or an analysis of case studies to decide whether their explanations are practical or not. Moreover, since generating explanations for users can be considered a human-computer interaction task, a user study can also be conducted to examine the quality of explanations generated by explainable graph-based recommender systems. In this paper, three types of qualitative evaluation are discussed: visualization, case study, and user survey. Table 3 summarizes the qualitative evaluation techniques that were used in some state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems.

- 7.1.1 Visualization Visualization of explanations is the representation of explanations and/or related information in a visual format. It involves the use of graphical elements such as charts, graphs, maps, or other visual aids to illustrate the characteristics of explanations and analyze their e ff ectiveness. In state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems, several visualization techniques have been utilized. The following outlines the techniques previously employed:
- · Heat map : In [48], the authors demonstrated the interpretability of their model GEAPR by using heat maps of the attention weights showing the importance of features. These heat maps allowed them to know which features were informative for each input and indicated the lack of informative features in their experiments. Heat maps of attention weights on features were also used in [98] to evaluate the explanations generated for three randomly selected users.
- · Scatter plot : In [55], the item embeddings were visualized in scatter plots. In these plots, the color of each point indicated the closest a ffi liated factor of the item. They allowed the authors to observe the clusters of items based on the embeddings and investigate how the model discovered the factors and learned the embeddings correspondingly leading to high explainability.
- · Explanation paths with attention scores : In [60], given a randomly selected user and his/her recommended item, the explanation paths with high attention scores were extracted to form reasoning sub-graphs. These sub-graphs were displayed to illustrate the explainability performance of their model.

It can be seen that visualizing model structures (e.g., attention weights) or generated explanations allows users as well as model developers to understand the logic behind the decision-making processes. It provides a big picture of how the models work and whether the explanations generated are useful or not. Another advantage is the simplicity of implementation. This method does not require additional information or humans to annotate or rate the results. Nevertheless, evaluation based on visualization can be subjective depending on observers. Thus, visualization might be suitable for an initial evaluation in which the overall performance of an evaluated model is generally examined. Then, it should be followed by further investigation using other evaluation techniques. Also, in the previous studies, some visualization may require sampling of users or items. This may not be su ffi cient to evaluate the actual explainability performance of those explainable graph-based models.

- 7.1.2 Case Study A case study is one of the common ways to demonstrate the e ff ectiveness or suitability of explanations obtained from explainable recommender systems. It typically involves choosing at least one user and showing his/her recommendation obtained from the model along with its explanation. By comparing them with the user's personal pro fi le or other evidence of the user's interests, it is possible to evaluate whether this explanation makes sense or is suitable for being used in real-world situations or not. Case studies have been conducted to evaluate various types of explanations, including node and path levels, in various aspects, including practicality, fairness, and diversity. The following discusses the use of case studies in these various scenarios:
- · Case studies on practicality of node-level explanations : In [5], a sampled user along with his/her recommendations and their explanations were shown to investigate how the model captures this user's semantic attribute preferences. In [55], some entities in a graph with their important scores towards the selected users were presented. In [98], apart from using heat maps, the authors also showed the most important neighbors and the most important multi-style meta-paths of the selected users. In [94], the proposed model KGIN learned intents that represent users' preferences by attentively aggregating information from multiple relations. To demonstrate the explainability of this model, examples of these intents were presented. For each intent, the relations in a graph that formed this intent along with their weights were extracted and shown as a case study. This allowed

the authors to identify which relations were important for a given user and gain some knowledge of how KGIN modeled the users' preferences. In [95], a case study was conducted to understand the disentanglement of user intents and its relation to real-world item semantics. A user was selected, and the important scores of user-item interactions based on four di ff erent user intents were computed. Then, four items were randomly selected from the interaction scores. For each intent, the user-item interaction with the highest score was identi fi ed to observe how user preferences vary across di ff erent intents. Furthermore, the attributes of the item with the highest score were examined to determine whether they aligned with high-level item semantics. In CGSR [113], explainability was assessed through a case study involving a selected user. The study involved computing similarity scores between items in the neighborhood of the user, including the recommended item. The investigation focused on score di ff erences among di ff erent items to determine the model's ability to block shortcut paths and retain only causal relations. In [101], two randomly chosen sessions were analyzed for session-based recommendations. In their work, item-level explanation scores were used to determine the signi fi cance of each item in the session to the recommended item. Comparisons were made to identify the most signi fi cant items and determine their plausibility in in fl uencing the user toward the recommended item.

- · Case studies on practicality of path-level explanations : As for those models that produce path-level explanations, the explanation paths of randomly sampled users can be illustrated for evaluation. For instance, in [40], the authors randomly selected a user and generated his/her top-3 recommendations along with their explanation paths. These explanations were presented and their suitability was discussed. Similarly, for PLM-Rec [29], case studies based on the randomly selected users were conducted for evaluation. These case studies allowed the authors to demonstrate the performance of PLM-Rec in terms of solving recall bias. As for RippleNet [92], the explanation paths of a randomly sampled user were compared among its variations. The relevance probabilities of these paths were also discussed. The decentralization of these probabilities was shown in their results. For CAFE [104], two case studies of two chosen users were shown in the paper. For each user, his/her layout tree obtained from his/her pro fi le and the subset of generated explanation paths based on his/her layout tree were presented. In HAGERec [110], KGAT [93] and KGAT+ [78], paths connecting between the randomly chosen user-item pair were extracted with the help of attention mechanisms. These explanation paths revealed the user's preferences from di ff erent perspectives and were examined for evaluation. For TMER [16], the authors randomly selected a user and retrieved his/her previously interacted items. Then item-item path instances connecting each pair of items were extracted based on the attention weights learned by their proposed model. These paths formed the explanation paths of this user and were analyzed based on their suitability and practicality. For those models using RL-based path reasoning methods to provide explanations, i.e., PGPR [103], MKRLN [87], TPRec [119] and ReMR [96], explanation paths discovered via path navigation using the RL agents were extracted and presented to exhibit the performance of their explanation generating methods. As for RuleRec [61], two positive rules learned from this model were fi rst derived to examine the explainability. These rules indicated that if there is a path connecting a user's unobserved item and one of the user's items, then this unobserved item is more likely to be recommended. To verify the practicality of these rules, they fi rst examine whether item pairs connected with these rules correspond with common sense or not. Then, these rules were labeled by three experts to check whether users would agree with these rules. In [101], case studies were conducted on two randomly chosen sessions for session-based recommendations. Various types of scores re fl ecting the signi fi cance of the entire user's session in relation to the recommended item were computed. Then, the reasonableness of the computed scores was examined by the authors.

Apart from presenting explanation paths individually for evaluation, there are some papers that combined such paths to form a sub-graph and used it to examine the explainability of their models. For example, in [4] and [97], the authors extracted all the explanation paths connecting the selected user-item pair and presented them in the form of a sub-graph showing di ff erent high-order connections between them.

- · Case studies on fairness and diversity of path-level explanations : Apart from the practicality of explanations, case studies were conducted to evaluate the fairness/diversity of explanation paths as well. The explanation paths obtained from the fairness-aware algorithm FairKG4Rec [26] were extracted and compared with other baselines in terms of path diversity. The variety of nodes and relations within these extracted paths were examined to evaluate their diversity. This exempli fi es the uses of case studies to evaluate the explainability of graph-based recommender systems in di ff erent aspects not only accuracy or practicality.

Overall, case studies allow for a more in-depth examination of recommendation model explainability compared to visualization of characteristics of explanations or components in a recommendation model. They involve assessing realworld cases of recommendation model explainability. By focusing on speci fi c cases, case studies facilitate a user-centric evaluation, considering the actual impact and usability of the explanations on individuals. Nevertheless, similarly to visualization, case studies are also subjective. They require human interpretation which can be highly varied depending on prior knowledge and experience. Thus, using case studies may not be su ffi cient to explicitly evaluate the performance of explanations generated by the models. Conducting case studies can be resource-intensive, requiring time and e ff ort to gather and analyze data for speci fi c cases. This may limit the scalability of the evaluation. Moreover, case studies may have limited generalizability. The uniqueness of each case might not represent the broader user population, making it challenging to draw universal conclusions.

- 7.1.3 User Survey Conducting a user survey is another straightforward way to evaluate explainability since it can provide users' opinions towards generated explanations or explainable recommendations. This evaluation approach involves recruiting a group of people (which could be stakeholders or potential users of the systems) and using questionnaires/tests to gain knowledge from these users regarding the explainability of recommender systems.
- · A/B test : For instance, in [8], the persuasiveness of explanations generated by SemAuto was evaluated through online A/B testing. In the fi rst step, the user had to select at least 15 movies that they have watched from the list provided and rate each movie on a fi ve-star rating scale. These movies were treated as input data for their model. After that, the user was given a list of recommendations based on their selected movies without any explanations. The user then was asked to rate the recommended items. Next, the explanations were presented to the user, and the user was asked to re-rate the top-2 recommended items. The results before and after providing the explanations were then compared to examine the impact of the explanation in terms of persuasiveness.
- · Questionnaire: In [5], a user study was conducted to answer whether the number of semantic attributes in the explanation impacted user satisfaction or not. The authors assumed that user satisfaction can be achieved by recommending an item with an explanation that contains a higher number of semantic attributes. With this hypothesis, 34 participants were assigned to either the low, medium, or high group where the number of semantic attributes used in the explanations is up to one, up to three, and up to fi ve, respectively. Some demographic information of each participant was collected including age, gender, major of study, weekly hours watching movies, and his/her favorite movie semantic attributes. Each participant was asked to rate, on a 1-to-5 scale, at least 10 movies they have previously watched from a selection of movies. Then, a recommendation with an explanation, containing di ff erent numbers of attributes based on the participant's assigned group, was provided

to the participant. The participant was asked to fi ll out a Likert Scale questionnaire regarding the explanation provided, for example, 'This explanation helps me understand why this movie was recommended' and 'Based on the share of semantic attributes between the recommended movie and my interest in these semantic attributes, I will watch this movie'. The results of this survey were presented along with analytical testing including an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and a Tukey's Honestly Signi fi cant Di ff erence (HSD) to determine the signi fi cance of the results.

In [86], two human evaluations were conducted to answer two questions: (1) whether the generated explanation paths from UCPR are relevant to the corresponding highlighted entities and (2) whether the highlighted entities in the user's portfolio are su ffi cient for anticipating the positive item of the user. For the fi rst question, the participants were asked to rate the relevance between the explanation paths and the highlighted nodes learned from the model at each step. The rating criteria were proposed to determine the relevance. For the second question, the participants had to choose the next nodes based on the highlighted entities and the previously chosen nodes until they reached the fi nal item node.

In [120], the authors conducted a user survey to evaluate the explanation paths. The authors sampled 50 paths connecting a user to one of his/her previously interacted items in the training set to represent examples of users' historical behaviors. The participants were asked to rank three models based on the consistency between their generated explanation paths and the users' historical behaviors.

In [60], 100 user-item pairs were randomly chosen and the explanation paths for these pairs were generated. Then, 10 participants were asked to evaluate the Relevance and Diversity scores of these explanation paths. Relevance indicates how likely the explanations are related to the recommended items. Diversity shows whether the explanations consist of various types of nodes and relations or not. Also, to avoid inconsistency in the results from di ff erent participants, the explanation paths were divided into 5 groups in which each group contains 100 paths corresponding to certain 20 user-item pairs. For each group, two participants were assigned and the fi nal scores were obtained from the average scores among these two participants.

To evaluate the counterfactual explanations generated by PRINCE [30], three recommendation items were shown to 500 participants on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). For each recommendation, two explanations, i.e., a counterfactual explanation and an explanation path connecting the user to the item were presented. The participants were requested to answer three questions, 'Which method do you fi nd more useful?', 'How do you feel about being exposed through explanations to others?' and 'Personally, which type of explanation matters to you more'. This is to examine whether the counterfactual explanations were more useful and preferred than the path-based explanations given the same recommendations. The participants were also asked to rate di ff erent explanations on a scale from 1 to 3 being 'Not useful at all', 'Partially useful', and 'Completely useful' respectively.

User surveys o ff er direct insights into users' perceptions of the system's explainability. Understanding user opinions is crucial for improving user satisfaction and acceptance. Statistical analysis of user responses enables a more structured and measurable evaluation compared to other qualitative methods. Despite the valuable insights into human behavior, conducting a user survey typically requires signi fi cant expertise and considerable resources. Additionally, the design of tests or questionnaires is crucial for the outcome. Many design aspects need consideration, such as survey objectives, target groups, survey length, accessibility, anonymity, and privacy of data collection. Carefully considering these factors

can complicate the process of conducting user surveys and consume a signi fi cant amount of time to complete a user survey.

## 7.2 Qu antitative Evaluation

Quantitative methods are evaluation methods that involve using quantitative metrics to measure and compare the explainability or suitability of the generated explanations or explainable recommendations. Compared to qualitative methods, quantitative methods are more concrete and de fi nite since they are not varied by human deliberation. In this section, we discuss the quantitative evaluation metrics that have been proposed in state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems. They are summarized in Table 4. More details of these metrics are described in the following paragraphs.

## 7.2.1 Mean Explainability Precision (MEP), Mean Explainability Recall (MER) and Mean Explainability F-

Score (xF-SCORE) In [63, 109], the applicability of the models in terms of predicting explainable items was evaluated by two metrics, i.e., Mean Explainability Precision (MEP) and Mean Explainability Recall (MER) [1, 2]. MEP and MER were de fi ned similarly to regular Precision and Recall to measure the accuracy of predicting those items that are explainable to the users. Compared to regular Precision and Recall, instead of considering a set of recommended items and a set of positive items of each user, MEP and MER consider a set of recommended items and a set of explainable items of each user as follows:

$$\text{MER} & = \frac { } { | \mathcal { U } | } \sum _ { u \in \mathcal { U } } \frac { } { | \mathcal { Y } _ { u } | }, \\ \text{MER} & = \frac { 1 } { | \mathcal { U } | } \sum _ { u \in \mathcal { U } } \frac { | \mathcal { E } _ { u } \bigcap \mathcal { Y } _ { u } | } { | \mathcal { E } _ { u } | }, \\ \text{rs set, $\mathcal{E}_{u}$ denotes the set of explainable items of user $u$ and $\mathcal{Y}_{u}$ denotes the set of}$$

$$\L \L \L \L h c u \L \text{$user$, $\mathbb{E}$ and $\mathbb{ER}$ consider a set of recommended items and a set of explainable} \\ \mathbb { M } \mathbb { P } = \frac { 1 } { | \mathcal { U } | } \sum _ { u \in \mathcal { U } } \frac { | \mathcal { E } _ { u } \bigcap \mathcal { Y } _ { u } | } { | \mathcal { Y } _ { u } | }, \\ \mathbb { m } \mathbb { m } = \frac { 1 } { } \sum _ { u } | \mathcal { E } _ { u } \bigcap \mathcal { Y } _ { u } |$$

and where U denotes the users set, E 𝑢 denotes the set of explainable items of user 𝑢 and Y 𝑢 denotes the set of recommended items of user 𝑢 . In [5], in addition to MEP and MER, Mean Explainability F-Score (xF-SCORE) was also used. This xF-SCORE can be computed by MEP and MER as follows:

$$<_Perl_>                                                                                                                                                                                                         xF-SCORE = 2 \cdots                                                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                        <xF-SCORE = 2 \cdots                                                                                                                                                                                               <xF-SCORE = 2 \ddots                                                                                                                                                                                                       <yF-SCORE = 2 \ddots                                                                                                                                                                                               <yF-SCORE = 2 \cdots                                                                                                                                                                                              
        
                                                                                                                                                                                               <yF-SCORE = 2 \dots                                                                                                                                                                                                      

:r a n u a n c a s s s s m e n t o f m o d e l p e r o m a n c e b e v o n d \ c u r a c v a l o n e. \ w i t h o u n t \ e n d i n g$$

MEP, MER, and xF-SCORE o ff er a nuanced assessment of model performance beyond accuracy alone, without needing additional user or item data such as reviews or descriptions. However, calculating these metrics relies on having a set of explainable items for each user in the dataset. To obtain a set of explainable items of each user, di ff erent strategies can be used. For instance, it can be a set of items with at least one explanation generated by a post-hoc explaining method [109] or a set of items whose explainability values are higher than a pre-de fi ned threshold [63]. This process adds complexity to evaluation and demands setting speci fi c thresholds, which can be challenging without prior expertise. Finally, these metrics were employed to assess how e ff ectively a model generates explainable items, rather than explicitly evaluating the quality of explanations themselves. Adapting these metrics for the evaluation of generated explanations may require further re fi nement.

7.2.2 Performance shift Performance shift involves evaluating changes in predictive outcomes resulting from the modi fi cation or removal of speci fi c elements within a model or its input. It assumes that elements are good explanations if altering them notably a ff ects predictions. In [109], the shift in their model's performance was examined to determine the signi fi cance of nodes and relations within the generated explanation paths. Speci fi cally, for a given user-item pair and its associated explanation path, the nodes and relations within this path were excluded from the training data. If

Review of Explainable Graph-Based Recommender Systems

Table 4. Qu antitative evaluation methods adopted in state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems

| Quantitative evaluation method                                                                              | Models                                | Advantage                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | Disadvantage                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Mean Explainability Precision (MEP) Mean Explainability Recall (MER) Mean Explainability F-Score (xF-SCORE) | [109], [5], [63] [109], [5], [63] [5] | - Evaluate implicit explanations - Provide a nuanced understanding of model performance such as detailed misclassi fi cation comprehension, in- cluding false positives and false nega- tives - No additional user/item information is required                                                 | - Rely on having a set of explainable items for each user, introducing com- plexities when identifying explainable items for each user - Not originally designed for evaluating explicit explanations generated by the model                                                                                                                                                            |
| Performance shift                                                                                           | [109], [55]                           | - No additional user/item information is required - Evaluates explicit explanations - Provides valuable insights into the op- erational dynamics of the model, con- tributing to the transparency of recom- mender systems                                                                      | - Rely on the chosen evaluation metric, such as Recall shift, which may not cap- ture all relevant aspects of model per- formance - May oversimplify the nuanced impact of certain nodes and relations on the rec- ommendation model, potentially lead- ing to misinterpretations                                                                                                       |
| Simpson's Index of Diversity (SID)                                                                          | [26], [86]                            | - O ff ers another aspect of explanation quality that should be evaluated besides accuracy - No additional user/item information is required                                                                                                                                                    | - Other evaluation metrics focusing on accuracy should be jointly considered to ensure both accuracy and diversity of explanations - Only path-level explanations are appli- cable                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| Review matching                                                                                             | [117], [86]                           | - Enables the assessment of the align- ment between the generated explana- tions and the characteristics of users and items - Ensures the quality of explanations, potentially enhancing user satisfaction with recommender systems                                                             | - Requires users' reviews, limiting its applicability in cases where such infor- mation is unavailable - Previously used for the assessment of path-level explanations, modi fi cations are needed to extend its application to other types of explanations                                                                                                                             |
| Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence                                                                              | [120]                                 | - Enables the assessment of how well the generated explanations align with users' historical behaviors (similar to review matching) - Requires only user-item paths ex- tracted from a graph (does not need users' reviews)                                                                     | - Extracting user-item paths from a graph is computationally expensive, limiting consideration to subsets of users and paths. - Determining the optimal number of sampled paths is challenging, as too few may not represent a user's history ade- quately, and too many could introduce noise.                                                                                         |
| Levenshtein distance                                                                                        | [60]                                  | - Evaluates the quality of the generated explanations by comparing them with ground-truth explanations or compares the similarity of explanations generated via di ff erent methods - No additional user/item information is required - Computationally e ffi cient using dy- namic programming | - The availability of ground-truth expla- nations is typically limited; therefore, the generated explanations can only be compared with other generated expla- nations - Only path-level explanations are appli- cable - Sensitive to sequence length - Originally designed for sequences, e.g., strings; for sub-graphs, metrics such as graph edit distance [17] may be more suitable |

re-training the recommendation model with this modi fi ed dataset resulted in a notable decrease in rating scores for the user-item pair, it was concluded that the removed elements played a signi fi cant role in predicting scores. This suggested that the explanation paths contained valuable information about how the recommendation model operated. In [55], the generated explanation in the forms of signi fi cant concepts (or attributes) was evaluated by adversarial perturbation [25]

similarly to [109]. The evaluation involved sampling 200 users from the test set, predicting recommendations, and identifying the important item or attribute nodes for each user-recommended item pair. By removing these critical nodes, new recommendations were generated and compared with the original ones. The Recall shift, indicating the di ff erence in Recall values between the new and original recommendations, was then calculated. A higher shift value suggests that the explanations accurately and substantially re fl ect users' preferences.

Evaluating explainability using performance shift does not require auxiliary user and item information, similar to MEP, MER, and xF-SCORE. However, unlike these metrics, performance shift is used to evaluate explicit explanations. In addition to assessing explanations, analyzing performance shift provides insights into the operational dynamics of the model, contributing to the transparency of recommender systems. Nevertheless, the e ff ectiveness of performance shift analysis heavily depends on the chosen evaluation metric (e.g., Recall shift), which may not capture all aspects of model performance. Moreover, within a recommendation model, nodes and relations are interconnected, and their e ff ects are intertwined. Assuming that a change in rating score indicates signi fi cance may oversimplify the nuanced impact of speci fi c nodes and relations on the model.

7.2.3 Simpson's Index of Diversity (SID) It has been discussed that current explainable recommender systems may su ff er from bias issues since they may present discrimination between users when providing recommendation explanations to the users [26]. As a result, apart from the accuracy of producing explicit explanations, evaluating fairness in explicit explanations has become important for explainable recommender systems [26]. One way to evaluate fairness is to consider the diversity of the generated explanations. In the case that the generated explanations are not diverse, it can be assumed that the model has biases towards certain explanations, leading to decreases in diversity.

In [26, 86], Simpson's Index of Diversity (SID) [79] was adopted to quantify the diversity of generated explanation paths. Speci fi cally, it is used to measure the probability that two randomly selected explanation paths belong to the same path pattern (or meta-path) computed as follows:

where Π is the set of all path patterns (or meta-paths), 𝑚 𝑖 denotes the number of paths belonging to the 𝑖 th pattern, and 𝑀 is the total number of user-item paths. Ranging from 0 to 1, the higher the SID is, the more diverse the explanation paths. Based on SID, FairKG4Rec [26] was compared with the other baselines in terms of diversity and fairness in recommendations and explanation paths. SID was also adopted in [86] to quantify the diversity of explanation paths obtained from UCPR.

$$\text{path} ) & \text{computed as follows} \colon \\ S & \text{ID} ( \Pi, M ) = 1 - \frac { \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { | \Pi | } m _ { i } ( m _ { i } - 1 ) } { M ( M - 1 ) } \\ \text{patterns} ( or meta-paths), m _ { i } & \text{ denotes the number of paths belonging to the ith pattern, and}$$

SID o ff ers another aspect of explanation quality besides accuracy and can be computed without any additional user/item information. However, while a model may produce diverse explanation paths for a user, they might not accurately match the user's characteristics or interests. Hence, other accuracy-focused evaluation metrics should also be considered to ensure both accuracy and diversity of explanations. Additionally, as SID assesses path-level explanations only, adaptations are necessary to evaluate the diversity of other explanation types.

7.2.4 Review matching Review matching plays a pivotal role in assessing the quality and e ff ectiveness of explanations. It is based on the assumption that the quality of explanations is positively correlated with a high degree of alignment between the explanations and users' reviews. For instance, in [117], the ground-truth reviews were used to evaluate the generated explanation paths. For each positive recommended item, words in its review were fi ltered based on their frequencies and TF-IDF values, leaving the remaining words as ground-truth reviews. Subsequently, the

nodes in the generated explanation path for that item were gathered and ranked according to their frequencies. The explainability of the path was evaluated by comparing its nodes with the ground-truth words, using Precision@K and Recall@K metrics based on the top-5 matched nodes. These metrics can be computed as follows:

$$P & \text{recision} \varphi K = \frac { 1 } { 2 | \mathcal { V } _ { r _ { i } } | }, \\ & \text{Recall} \varphi K = \frac { | \mathcal { V } _ { p _ { i } } \bigcap \mathcal { V } _ { r _ { i } } | } { | \mathcal { V } _ { p _ { i } } | }, \\ \text{path}, r _ { i } & \text{ denotes the item review associated with path } p _ { i }, \mathcal { V } _ { p _ { i } } \text{ is the set of selected}$$

$$\text{top-5 matched nodes. These metrics can be computed as follows: } \\ & \text{Precision} \theta K = \frac { | \mathcal { V } _ { p _ { i } } \cap \mathcal { V } _ { r _ { i } } | } { | \mathcal { V } _ { r _ { i } } | }, & ( 5 ) \\ & & | \mathcal { V } _ { n }. \cap \mathcal { V } _ { r }. |$$

where 𝑝 𝑖 denotes an explanation path, 𝑟 𝑖 denotes the item review associated with path 𝑝 𝑖 , V 𝑝 𝑖 is the set of selected top-K nodes in path 𝑝 𝑖 , and V 𝑟 𝑖 is the set of ground-truth words in review 𝑟 𝑖 . Similarly, UCPR [86] also evaluated the explanation paths discovered by the RL agent by conducting a review matching. Recall@K and NDCG@K were applied based on the top-10 matched entities to justify the e ff ectiveness. NDCG@K can be computed as follows:

$$\begin{smallmatrix} \cdot & \cdot & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &
 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & _ & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &. & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & } & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & - & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &

 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ; & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & + & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & = & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &, & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &	 & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & b & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & +# & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &$$

Review matching evaluates how well generated explanations align with users' interests, enhancing explanation quality and potentially boosting user satisfaction with recommender systems. However, it relies on access to users' reviews, limiting its applicability in datasets lacking such information. Moreover, previous studies mostly apply review matching to assess path-level explanations, requiring adjustments for other explanation types.

where DCG@K = Í 𝐾 𝑖 = 1 log rel 𝑖 2 ( 𝑖 + ) 1 and IDCG@K = Í 𝐾 𝑖 = 1 log 1 2 ( 𝑖 + ) 1 where rel 𝑖 is the relevance of the node in the explanation path at rank 𝑖 .

7.2.5 Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence Faithfulness is one of the principles in explaining machine learning and deep learning models [14, 59]. It focuses on how well the generated explanations accurately re fl ect the behavior or decision-making process of the underlying model [14]. In the context of recommendation systems, a faithful explanation should be personalized and capable of accurately re fl ecting a user's historical behavior. In [120], inspired by [77, 81, 89], the Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence of rule-related distributions in the training set and the set of generated explanations was adopted to measure this quality. For each user 𝑢 , let 𝐹 ( 𝑢 ) denote the distribution of rules (de fi ned similarly to meta-paths) over the user-item paths sampled from a training set, 𝑄 𝑓 ( 𝑢 ) denote the distribution of rules over generated explanation paths, and 𝑄 𝑤 ( 𝑢 ) denote the distribution of rule weights derived from either rule importance scores or path weights of the explanation paths. The JS scores were computed by:

$$J S _ { f } = \mathbb { E } _ { u \sim U } [ D _ { \mathbb { J S } } ( Q _ { f } ( u ) | | F ( u ) ) ]$$

$$J S _ { w } = \mathbb { E } _ { u \sim U } [ D _ { \mathbb { J } S } ( Q _ { w } ( u ) | | F ( u ) ) ] \\ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }. \ \hat { \ }.$$

where 𝐷 JS denotes the JS divergence. Smaller values of these scores indicated better faithfulness of the generated explanation paths.

Similar to review matching, JS divergence can be used to evaluate how the generated explanations align with users' historical behaviors. However, JS divergence relies on user-item paths extracted from a graph, enabling evaluation even without users' reviews. Nevertheless, extracting user-item paths from a graph can be computationally expensive [49]. Due to this time-consuming nature, computing JS divergence may necessitate considering only a subset of users and user-item paths, as demonstrated in [120]. Moreover, the number of sampled paths can signi fi cantly a ff ect the evaluation. A small number may inadequately represent a user's historical behavior, while a large number could introduce noise [83, 92], making it challenging to determine the optimal number.

7.2.6 Levenshtein distance In [60], explanation sub-graphs generated from their proposed model KR-GCN and the other baselines were compared in terms of their topological similarity by using Levenshtein distance [66]. Levenshtein distance is a metric used to quantify the di ff erence between two sequences. It measures the minimum number of edits (insertions, deletions, or substitutions) required to transform one sequence into another. It is computed using dynamic programming, de fi ned by the following recurrence relation:

 where lev ( 𝑎 𝑏 , ) is the Levenshtein distance between sequences 𝑎 and 𝑏 , 𝑎 [ 1 ] denotes the fi rst element of sequence 𝑎 , 𝑎 [ 2 : ] denotes the subsequence of 𝑎 excluding its fi rst element, and | 𝑎 | denotes the length of sequence 𝑎 .

$$\text{programming, defined by the following recurrence relation: } \\ \text{$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$
\text{programming, defined by the following recurrence relation: } \\ \text{$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\	\text{$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\	\end{cases}$$

Levenshtein distance enables comparison of explanations, including paths or sub-graphs, without requiring additional user/item information. It can be e ffi ciently implemented using dynamic programming. Quality of generated explanations can be assessed by comparing them with ground-truth explanations, though these may be limited. As in prior work [60], the assessment of generated explanations only involved comparing them with other generated explanations from baseline models, focusing on their similarity rather than the alignment with ground-truth explanations. Levenshtein distance can be sensitive to sequence length, with longer sequences resulting in higher distances. Moreover, it was originally designed for comparing sequences such as strings. For sub-graphs, other metrics, e.g., graph edit distance [17], might be more appropriate.

## 8 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

## 8.1 Conclusions

Explainable graph-based recommender systems have proven to be e ff ective in providing personalized recommendations to users. These systems utilize the high-order relationships between users and items in graphs to make accurate and relevant recommendations. Another key advantage of leveraging these relationships in graphs is that they allow for transparent and interpretable decision-making. Explainable recommendations along with explanations can be generated allowing users to understand why certain recommendations are made. Additionally, the explainability of these systems allows for transparency and trust from users, making them more likely to engage with and trust the recommendations provided. Overall, the use of explainable graph-based recommender systems has the potential to improve user satisfaction and engagement in various applications.

In this paper, state-of-the-art explainable graph-based recommender systems were summarized and discussed. For the sake of studying, such systems were categorized based on three aspects, i.e., learning methods, explaining methods, and explanation types. Based on learning methods, explainable graph-based recommender systems can be divided into three approaches: an embedding-based approach using node embedding methods for learning recommendation, a path-based approach that extracts actual paths containing high-order information and feeds them to a recommendation framework, and a hybrid approach that combines both embedding-based and path-based approaches. Compared to a path-based approach, an embedding-based approach is more fl exible since node embeddings used in this approach are typically versatile. They re fl ect the overall structure of a graph and can be consequently utilized in various ways depending on the recommendation framework in which they are applied. Meanwhile, a path-based approach leverages multi-hop relations in graphs in a more explicit and intuitive way. This approach allows explanations, especially path-level ones,

to be extracted in a more straightforward way compared to an embedding-based approach. However, extracting paths beforehand can be time-consuming. Also, paths extracted without caution may contain noisy entities that might degrade the performance of recommendation models.

Based on explaining methods, explainable graph-based recommender systems can be divided into two approaches: a model-speci fi c approach and a model-agnostic approach . As for a model-speci fi c approach, according to the investigation, attention mechanisms and path reasoning/ fi nding using RL-based models have been used for generating explanations in the majority of explainable graph-based recommender systems. On the other hand, auto-regressive path generation is not as common as these two approaches. One reason is that, by using auto-regressive path generation, it cannot be guaranteed that the generated path will exist in the graph since it is generated from the optimized probability distribution. Therefore, compared to using attention mechanisms or an RL-based model to fi nd an explanation path, auto-regressive path generation can be more uncertain. As for a model-agnostic approach, the majority of the methods use criteria or certain metrics to quantify the suitability or importance of nodes, relations, or paths and select the most suitable or important one as an explanation. This approach allows fl exibility in generating explanations depending on the adopted criteria or metrics. However, one drawback is that extracting candidate nodes/relations/paths and validating them individually can be a time-consuming process. A pre-processing step or certain conditions for selecting a subset of these candidates could be applied to overcome this issue. Also, post-hoc explanations can be misleading [54, 80]. Since such explanations are generated separately from the model learning processes, it is possible that they may not actually re fl ect how the models work. Also, when low-quality data/features are used to generate post-hoc explanations, such explanations are likely to be impractical.

Lastly, based on types of explanations, explainable graph-based recommender systems can be divided into four approaches: node-level type such as important nodes, path-level type such as explanation paths connecting users and his/her recommended items, meta-path-level type such as signi fi cant meta-paths and (4) implicit type in which the models are constrained to produce more explainable recommendations than those non-explainable ones. Intuitively, path-level explanations are more ubiquitous in explainable graph-based recommender systems than compared to the other types. Compared to node-level explanations, path explanations consist of more details which can be more useful when presenting to users. Also, compared to meta-path level explanations, path-level explanations are more speci fi c since entities (nodes and relations) are presented instead of node types and relation types.

## 8.2 Future Directions

Although there have been numerous e ff orts in developing explainable graph-based recommender systems during the past few years, there are still some gaps in this area and also some challenges that still need further investigation. Some challenges and future directions of this research fi eld are summarized in this section.

Explainability via attention mechanisms. As shown in the previous sections, attention mechanisms have been extensively used to develop explainable graph-based recommender systems. Although they have proven to be e ff ective in identifying signi fi cant components in graphs (e.g., nodes, relations, or paths) as explanations for certain recommendations, the use of attention mechanisms could be misleading. In [43], extensive experiments on various natural language processing (NLP) tasks were conducted to validate whether attention weights are suitable for providing meaningful explanations or not. According to their experimental results, the attention weights were not entirely correlated with gradient-based measures of feature importance. The model could produce the same output, even though it attended over di ff erent sets of features. Therefore, it might not be entirely true to conclude that the model will make a particular

prediction when it attends to certain features. Nevertheless, there is an argument in [100] saying that attention weights could be used as explanations depending on the de fi nition of explainability. The authors suggested that attention weights may serve as plausible explanations but may not be faithful enough to indicate the decision-making logic of the model or the exact correlation between inputs and outputs. Despite the di ff erences in nature between NLP and recommendation tasks, these studies should ignite the future direction to thoroughly examine how attention weights actually play a role in explaining recommendations.

Limitation of graph-based explanations. As pointed out in [55], if the stakeholders are end users and the goal of explainability is to persuade them, importance scores or attention weights may not be suitable in that case. To be speci fi c, identifying signi fi cant nodes/relations/paths/meta-paths may be more useful for examining the model structure or debugging the model rather than persuading users. Also, it has been shown in section 4 that path-level explanations are quite popular in explainable graph-based recommender systems. One reason is that it is intuitive to leverage paths carrying high-order information from graphs for generating explanations. However, a path extracted from a graph may not serve as a user-friendly explanation, especially when the goal is to increase users' comprehension of the recommendation. A previous e ff ort has been made to provide explanations in a form that is more human-language-like to ensure users' understanding [4]. Moreover, prior e ff orts mostly focused on extracting paths that connect the user with the recommended item. Such paths typically contain other users' actions which raise some privacy issues [30]. Therefore, future directions in this area could be further exploration of di ff erent types of explanations that are easily comprehensible for users and also preserve users' privacy.

Multi-modal graphs. A multi-modal graph typically combines data from di ff erent sources, such as text, images, and audio, to create a more comprehensive user and item representation for learning recommendations. By using multiple modes of information, a multi-modal graph can provide more accurate and diverse recommendations to users [40, 41, 62, 63, 82, 99]. Additionally, since a multi-modal graph considers di ff erent types of data, it can produce recommendations based on a wider range of factors, such as user preferences, previous behavior, and other contextspeci fi c information. This can lead to more personalized and relevant recommendations, which can improve the overall user experience. Also, it can improve explainability since broader factors are considered. However, most previous work typically ignored multi-modal data and focused only on user and item metadata. Thus, e ff ectively incorporating multi-modal data in explainable graph-based recommender systems is still an open research question.

Causal graphs. In the research area of explainable recommender systems, causal reasoning is one of the popular approaches along with graph-based approaches [28]. These systems, based on causal reasoning, aim to enhance transparency and interpretability in the recommendation process by incorporating causal relationships between various factors [28]. Speci fi cally, they utilize causal graphs to visualize and comprehend cause-e ff ect relationships between factors such as users, items, and attributes, drawing assumptions for learning recommendations [13, 107, 108]. Unlike other graph-based recommender systems, they do not emphasize leveraging connectivity information or high-order relations between di ff erent entities within graphs. However, some state-of-the-art models have successfully integrated causal relations into graphs to simultaneously harness high-order connectivity information and causal reasoning [95, 101, 113]. This showcases the potential of combining graphs, particularly knowledge graphs or information networks, with causal graphs to incorporate causal reasoning alongside high-order connectivity information. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement in the seamless integration of causal relationships into graphs, aiming for more e ff ective

and nuanced models. Constructing causal graphs that speci fi cally focus on casual multi-hope relations represents a promising avenue for advancement. Overall, the development of graph-based explainable recommender systems that are capable of considering multi-hop relations and casual relations simultaneously will open up new opportunities for explainable recommendations.

Scalability. Graphs generated from real-world data typically contain a large number of nodes and relations. As a result, it is challenging to apply recommender systems on these graphs due to the number of computational resources required [50, 51]. Moreover, despite the fact that augmenting graphs with auxiliary information can increase the accuracy and explainability [52, 62, 96], it also increases the number of nodes and relations and computational complexity. All of these challenges cause scalability issues for numerous graph-based recommender systems. Many approaches have been proposed to deal with such issues. One of these approaches is to reduce the size of a graph, for example, compressing relations in a graph to reduce its size [78] and pruning relations to reduce the size of action spaces in RL-based path reasoning models [87, 103]. Another approach is using sub-graphs [24] or subsets of paths [34, 111] instead of using a whole graph or all paths which is not scalable. Apart from the input side, scalable methods for extracting and leveraging high-order information were also proposed to cope with the scalability issues [36, 63, 116]. Although these approaches can attenuate the scalability issues, the accuracy and explainability performances could be compromised since certain parts in a graph are disregarded. Therefore, how to develop a scalable graph-based recommender system while maintaining high accuracy and explainability performances still needs more investigation.

Benchmark datasets and evaluation. Benchmark datasets can facilitate testing and comparing the performance of di ff erent models. As previously mentioned, benchmark datasets for evaluating the explainability of graph-based recommender systems are not commonly available. Due to the lack of benchmark datasets, validating the e ff ectiveness of each model in terms of explainability becomes di ffi cult. Also, compared to other performance aspects such as accuracy, novelty, and diversity of recommendations, there has been no conventional or universal method/metric for explainability. The previous work employed particular ways to evaluate the explainability of their models. This also obstructs comparisons of explainable graph-based recommender systems. Thus, having benchmark datasets and conventional evaluation metrics could be one of the key factors to further development of e ff ective explainable graph-based recommender systems.

## REFERENCES

- [1] Behnoush Abdollahi and Olfa Nasraoui. 2016. Explainable Matrix Factorization for Collaborative Filtering. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web . International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, 5-6.
- [2] Behnoush Abdollahi and Olfa Nasraoui. 2017. Using Explainability for Constrained Matrix Factorization. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (Como, Italy) (RecSys '17) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 79-83.
- [4] Qingyao Ai, Vahid Azizi, Xu Chen, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2018. Learning Heterogeneous Knowledge Base Embeddings for Explainable Recommendation. Algorithms 11, 9 (2018), 137.
- [3] Gediminas Adomavicius and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2005. Toward the Next Generation of Recommender Systems: A Survey of the State-of-the-Art and Possible Extensions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 17, 6 (June 2005), 734-749.
- [5] Mohammed Alshammari, Olfa Nasraoui, and Scott Sanders. 2019. Mining Semantic Knowledge Graphs to Add Explainability to Black Box Recommender Systems. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 110563-110579.

[7] Vito Bellini, Vito Walter Anelli, Tommaso Di Noia, and Eugenio Di Sciascio. 2017. Auto-Encoding User Ratings via Knowledge Graphs in Recommendation Scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Deep Learning for Recommender Systems . ACM.

[6] Alejandro Barredo Arrieta, Natalia Díaz-Rodríguez, Javier Del Ser, Adrien Bennetot, Siham Tabik, Alberto Barbado, Salvador Garcia, Sergio Gil-Lopez, Daniel Molina, Richard Benjamins, Raja Chatila, and Francisco Herrera. 2020. Explainable Arti fi cial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion 58 (2020), 82-115.

| [8]       | Vito Bellini, Angelo Schiavone, Tommaso Di Noia, Azzurra Ragone, and Eugenio Di Sciascio. 2018. Knowledge-Aware Autoencoders for Explainable Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Deep Learning for Recommender Systems . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 24-31.                                                    |
|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [9]       | Kurt Bollacker, Colin Evans, Praveen Paritosh, Tim Sturge, and Jamie Taylor. 2008. Freebase: A Collaboratively Created Graph Database for Structuring Human Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (Vancouver, Canada) (SIGMOD '08) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1247-1250. |
| [10]      | Antoine Bordes, Nicolas Usunier, Alberto Garcia-Durán, Jason Weston, and Oksana Yakhnenko. 2013. Translating Embeddings for Modeling Multi-Relational Data. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 2 . Red Hook, NY, USA, 2787-2795.                                                               |
| [11]      | Nadia Burkart and Marco F Huber. 2021. A survey on the explainability of supervised machine learning. Journal of Arti fi cial Intelligence Research 70 (2021), 245-317.                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| [12]      | HongYun Cai, Vincent W. Zheng, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2018. A Comprehensive Survey of Graph Embedding: Problems, Techniques, and Applications. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 30, 9 (2018), 1616-1637.                                                                                                                                  |
| [13]      | Emanuele Cavenaghi, Alessio Zanga, Fabio Stella, and Markus Zanker. 2023. Towards a Causal Decision-Making Framework for Recommender Systems. ACM Trans. Recomm. Syst. (oct 2023). Just Accepted.                                                                                                                                                                 |
| [14]      | Chun Sik Chan, Huanqi Kong, and Guanqing Liang. 2022. A comparative study of faithfulness metrics for model interpretability methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05514 (2022).                                                                                                                                                                                     |
| [15]      | Mohamed Amine Chatti, Mouadh Guesmi, and Arham Muslim. 2023. Visualization for Recommendation Explainability: A Survey and New Perspectives. arXiv:2305.11755 [cs.IR]                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| [16]      | Hongxu Chen, Yicong Li, Xiangguo Sun, Guandong Xu, and Hongzhi Yin. 2021. Temporal Meta-path Guided Explainable Recommendation. Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (2021).                                                                                                                                        |
| [17]      | Xiaoyang Chen, Hongwei Huo, Jun Huan, and Je ff rey Scott Vitter. 2019. Ane ffi cient algorithm for graph edit distance computation. Knowledge-Based Systems 163 (2019), 762-775.                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| [18]      | Xu Chen, Yongfeng Zhang, and Jingxuan Wen. 2022. Measuring "Why" in Recommender Systems: a Comprehensive Survey on the Evaluation of                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|           | Explainable Recommendation. ArXiv abs/2202.06466 (2022).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| [19]      | Juan Correa, Jin Tian, and Elias Bareinboim. 2018. Generalized adjustment under confounding and selection biases. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Arti fi cial Intelligence , Vol. 32.                                                                                                                                                                   |
| [20]      | Paulo Cortez and Mark J. Embrechts. 2013. Using sensitivity analysis and visualization techniques to open black box data mining models. Information Sciences 225 (2013), 1-17.                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| [21]      | Andrew M Dai and Quoc V Le. 2015. Semi-supervised Sequence Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , C. Cortes,                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| [22]      | N. Lawrence, D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett (Eds.), Vol. 28. Curran Associates, Inc. Ronky Francis Doh, Conghua Zhou, John Kingsley Arthur, Isaac Tawiah, and Benjamin                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|           | Doh. 2022. A Systematic Review of Deep Knowledge Graph-Based Recommender Systems, with Focus on Explainable Embeddings. Data 7 (2022).                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| [23]      | Yuxiao Dong, Nitesh V Chawla, and Ananthram Swami. 2017. metapath2vec: Scalable Representation Learning for Heterogeneous Networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 135-144.                                                                                                              |
| [24]      | Yufei Feng, Binbin Hu, Fuyu Lv, Qingwen Liu, Zhiqiang Zhang, and Wenwu Ou. 2020. ATBRG: Adaptive Target-Behavior Relational Graph Network for E ff ective Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information ACM.                                                                           |
| [25]      | Retrieval Ruth C. Fong and Andrea Vedaldi. 2017. Interpretable Explanations of Black Boxes by Meaningful Perturbation. In 2017 IEEE International Conference                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| [26]      | USA, 69-78. Chen Gao, Yu Zheng, Nian Li, Yinfeng Li, Yingrong Qin, Jinghua Piao, Yuhan Quan, Jianxin Chang, Depeng Jin, Xiangnan He, and Yong Li. 2023. A                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|           | Zuohui Fu, Yikun Xian, Ruoyuan Gao, Jieyu Zhao, Qiaoying Huang, Yingqiang Ge, Shuyuan Xu, Shijie Geng, Chirag Shah, Yongfeng Zhang, and Gerard de Melo. 2020. Fairness-Aware Explainable Recommendation over Knowledge Graphs . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,                                                                                |
| [27] [28] | Survey of Graph Neural Networks for Recommender Systems: Challenges, Methods, and Directions. ACM Trans. Recomm. Syst. (jan 2023). Just Accepted. Chen Gao, Yu Zheng, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, Xiangnan He, and Yong Li. 2024. Causal Inference in Recommender Systems: A Survey and Future                                                                        |
|           | Directions. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. (jan 2024). Just Accepted. Shijie Geng, Zuohui Fu, Juntao Tan, Yingqiang Ge, Gerard de Melo, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2022. Path Language Modeling over Knowledge Graphsfor Recommendation. In Proceedings of the ACMWeb Conference 2022 (Virtual Event, Lyon, France) (WWW'22) . Association for Computing                          |
| [29]      | Explainable Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 946-955.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|           | Azin Ghazimatin, Oana Balalau, Rishiraj Saha Roy, and Gerhard Weikum. 2020. Prince: Provider-side interpretability with counterfactual in recommender systems. WSDM 2020 - Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining                                                                                                         |
| [30]      | explanations (2020), 196-204.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|           | Bryce Goodman and Seth Flaxman. 2017. European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision-Making and a 'Right to Explanation'. AI Magazine                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| [31]      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |

- [31] Bryce Goodman and Seth Flaxman. 2017. European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision-Making and a 'Right to Explanation'. AI Magazine 38, 3 (Oct. 2017), 50-57.

| [32]      | Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Salvatore Ruggieri, Franco Turini, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi. 2018. A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models. Comput. Surveys 51, 5, Article 93 (aug 2018), 42 pages.                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [33]      | Qingyu Guo, Fuzhen Zhuang, Chuan Qin, Hengshu Zhu, Xing Xie, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. 2020. A Survey on Knowledge Graph-Based Recommender Systems. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge & Data Engineering (2020).                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| [34]      | William L. Hamilton, Rex Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphs. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Long Beach, California, USA) (NIPS'17) . Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 1025-1035. T.H. Haveliwala. 2003. Topic-sensitive PageRank: a context-sensitive ranking algorithm for Web search. Data |
| [35]      | IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Engineering 15, 4 (2003), 784-796.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| [36]      | Xiangnan He, Kuan Deng, Xiang Wang, Yan Li, YongDong Zhang, and Meng Wang. 2020. LightGCN: Simplifying and Powering Graph Convolution Network for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval 639-648.                                                                                                                       |
| [37]      | Andreas Henelius, Kai Puolamäki, and Antti Ukkonen. 2017. Interpreting Classi fi ers through Attribute Interactions in Datasets. In Proceedings of the 2017 ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning (WHI 2017) , Been Kim, Dimitry Malioutov, Kush Varshney, and Adrian Weller (Eds.).                                                                                                          |
| [38]      | Jonathan Ho and Stefano Ermon. 2016. Generative Adversarial Imitation Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. Luxburg, I. Guyon, and R. Garnett (Eds.), Vol. 29. Curran Associates, Inc.                                                                                                                                                                           |
| [39]      | Jin Huang, Wayne Xin Zhao, Hongjian Dou, Ji-Rong Wen, and Edward Y. Chang. 2018. Improving Sequential Recommendation with Knowledge- Enhanced Memory Networks. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval (Ann Arbor, MI, USA) (SIGIR '18) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 505-514.                                                |
| [40]      | Xiaowen Huang, Quan Fang, Shengsheng Qian, Jitao Sang, Yan Li, and Changsheng Xu. 2019. Explainable Interaction-Driven User Modeling over Knowledge Graph for Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.                                                                                            |
| [41]      | Xiaowen Huang, Shengsheng Qian, Quan Fang, Jitao Sang, and Changsheng Xu. 2018. CSAN: Contextual Self-Attention Network for User Sequential Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 26th ACMInternational Conference on Multimedia (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (MM '18) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 447-455.                                                                             |
| [42] [43] | Sheikh Rabiul Islam, William Eberle, Sheikh Khaled Ghafoor, and Mohiuddin Ahmed. 2021. Explainable arti fi cial intelligence approaches: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.09429 (2021). Sarthak Jain and Byron C. Wallace. 2019. Attention is not Explanation. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics .                                                                      |
|           | Been Kim, Martin Wattenberg, Justin Gilmer, Carrie J. Cai, James Wexler, Fernanda B. Viégas, and Rory Sayres. 2018. Interpretability Beyond                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| [44] [45] | Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV). In ICML . Ni Lao, Tom Mitchell, and William W. Cohen. 2011. Random Walk Inference and Learning in A Large Scale Knowledge Base. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics, Edinburgh, Scotland,                                       |
| [46]      | UK., 529-539. Qimai Li, Zhichao Han, and Xiao-Ming Wu. 2018. Deeper Insights into Graph Convolutional Networks for Semi-Supervised Learning. In                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|           | Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Arti fi cial Intelligence and Thirtieth Innovative Applications of Arti fi cial Intelligence Conference and Eighth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Arti fi cial Intelligence (New Orleans, Louisiana, USA) (AAAI'18/IAAI'18/EAAI'18) . AAAI Press, Article 433, 8 pages.                                                                              |
| [47]      | Zeyu Li, Wei Cheng, Yang Chen, Haifeng Chen, and Wei Wang. 2020. Interpretable Click-Through Rate Prediction through Hierarchical Attention. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (Houston, TX, USA) (WSDM '20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 313-321.                                                                                     |
| [48]      | Zeyu Li, Wei Cheng, Haiqi Xiao, Wenchao Yu, Haifeng Chen, and Wei Wang. 2021. You Are What and Where You Are: Graph Enhanced Attention Network for Explainable POI Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management Association for Computing Machinery.                                                                                               |
| [49]      | H. Liang. 2020. DRpro fi ling: Deep Reinforcement User Pro fi ling for Recommendations in Heterogenous Information Networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2020), 1-1. Huizhi Liang and Timothy Baldwin. 2015. A Probabilistic Rating Auto-encoder for Personalized Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 24th                                                                          |
| [50]      | ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 1863-1866. Liang, Zehao Liu, and Thanet Markchom. 2022. Relation-Aware Blocking for Scalable Recommendation Systems. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (Atlanta, GA, USA) (CIKM '22) . Association for Computing Machinery, York, NY, USA, 4214-4218.                                |
| [51]      | Huizhi ACM New                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| [52]      | Huizhi Liang and Thanet Markchom. 2022. TNE: A General Time-Aware Network Representation Learning Framework for Temporal Applications. Knowledge-Based Systems 240, C (mar 2022), 17 pages. Lin, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, Yang Liu, and Xuan Zhu. 2015. Learning Entity and Relation Embeddings for Knowledge Graph                                                                                                |
| [53]      | Yankai Completion. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Arti fi cial Intelligence . AAAI Press.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|           | In                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| [54]      | Zachary C. Lipton. 2018. The Mythos of Model Interpretability: In Machine Learning, the Concept of Interpretability is Both Important and Slippery.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |

- [54] Zachary C. Lipton. 2018. The Mythos of Model Interpretability: In Machine Learning, the Concept of Interpretability is Both Important and Slippery. Queue 16, 3 (jun 2018), 31-57.

| [55]      | Ninghao Liu, Yong Ge, Li Li, Xia Hu, Rui Chen, and Soo-Hyun Choi. 2020. Explainable Recommender Systems via Resolving Learning Representations. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management . Association for Computing Machinery.                                                                                                                  |
|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [56]      | Ziqi Liu, Chaochao Chen, Longfei Li, Jun Zhou, Xiaolong Li, Le Song, and Yuan Qi. 2019. GeniePath: Graph Neural Networks with Adaptive Receptive Paths. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Arti fi cial Intelligence 33, 01 (2019).                                                                                                                                                                |
| [57]      | László Lovász. 1993. Random walks on graphs. Combinatorics, Paul erdos is eighty 2, 1-46 (1993), 4.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
| [58]      | Scott M. Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A Uni fi ed Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Long Beach, California, USA) (NIPS'17) . Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 4768-4777.                                                                                                           |
| [59]      | Qing Lyu, Marianna Apidianaki, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2022. Towards Faithful Model Explanation in NLP: A Survey. ArXiv abs/2209.11326 (2022).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| [60]      | Ting Ma, Longtao Huang, Qianqian Lu, and Songlin Hu. 2022. KR-GCN: Knowledge-Aware Reasoning with Graph Convolution Network for Explainable Recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (jan 2022).                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| [61]      | Weizhi Ma, Woojeong Jin, Min Zhang, Chenyang Wang, Yue Cao, Yiqun Liu, Shaoping Ma, and Xiang Ren. 2019. Jointly learning explainable rules for recommendation with knowledge graph. The Web Conference 2019 - Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference, WWW2019 (2019), 1210-1221.                                                                                                               |
| [62]      | Thanet Markchom and Huizhi Liang. 2021. Augmenting Visual Information in Knowledge Graphs for Recommendations. In 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 475-479.                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| [63]      | Thanet Markchom, Huizhi Liang, and James Ferryman. 2023. Scalable and explainable visually-aware recommender systems. Knowledge-Based                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|           | Systems 263 (2023), 110258.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| [64]      | Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Je ff rey Dean. 2013. E ffi cient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781 (2013).                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| [65]      | Sina Mohseni, Niloofar Zarei, and Eric D. Ragan. 2021. A Multidisciplinary Survey and Framework for Design and Evaluation of Explainable AI                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|           | Systems. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (2021).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| [66] [67] | Gonzalo Navarro. 2001. A Guided Tour to Approximate String Matching. Comput. Surveys 33, 1 (mar 2001), 31-88. Athanasios N. Nikolakopoulos and George Karypis. 2019. RecWalk: Nearly Uncoupled Random Walks for Top-N Recommendation. In                                                                                                                                                              |
| [68]      | Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (Melbourne VIC, Australia) (WSDM '19) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 150-158.                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|           | Makbule Gulcin Ozsoy, Diarmuid O'Reilly-Morgan, Panagiotis Symeonidis, Elias Z. Tragos, Neil Hurley, Barry Smyth, and Aonghus Lawlor. 2020. MP4Rec: Explainable and Accurate Top-N Recommendations in Heterogeneous Information Networks. IEEE Access (2020). Georgina Peake and Jun Wang. 2018. Explanation Mining: Post Hoc Interpretability of Latent Factor Models for Recommendation Systems. In |
| [69] [70] | Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining . 2060-2069. Judea Pearl. 2009. Causality (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| [71]      | Judea Pearl. 2014. Interpretation and identi fi cation of causal mediation. Psychological methods 19, 4 (2014), 459.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| [72]      | Bryan Perozzi, Rami Al-Rfou, and Steven Skiena. 2014. DeepWalk: Online Learning of Social Representations. CoRR abs/1403.6652 (2014).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| [73]      | Meng Qu and Jian Tang. 2019. Probabilistic Logic Neural Networks for Reasoning. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Processing Systems . Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, Article 693, 11 pages.                                                                                                                                                                  |
| [74]      | Information Ste ff en Rendle. 2010. Factorization Machines. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (2010), 995-1000. https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:17265929                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| [75]      | Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classi fi er. In                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|           | of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . Association for Computing Machinery.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| [76]      | Proceedings Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2018. Anchors: High-Precision Model-Agnostic Explanations. In AAAI Conference on Arti fi cial Intelligence .                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| [77]      | So fi a Serrano and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Is Attention Interpretable?. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence, Italy, 2931-2951.                                                                                                                                                             |
| [78]      | Ryotaro Shimizu, Megumi Matsutani, and Masayuki Goto. 2022. An explainable recommendation framework based on an improved knowledge                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|           | graph attention network with massive volumes of side information. Knowledge-Based Systems 239 (2022), 107970.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| [79] [80] | Edward H Simpson. 1949. Measurement of diversity. nature 163, 4148 (1949), 688-688. Dylan Slack, Sophie Hilgard, Himabindu Lakkaraju, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Counterfactual Explanations Can Be Manipulated. In Neural                                                                                                                                                                               |
| [81]      | Information Processing Systems . Sanjay Subramanian, Ben Bogin, Nitish Gupta, Tomer Wolfson, Sameer Singh, Jonathan Berant, and Matt Gardner. 2020. Obtaining Faithful Interpretations from Compositional Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics                                                                                 |
| [82]      | Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 5594-5608. Sun, Xuezhi Cao, Yan Zhao, Junchen Wan, Kun Zhou, Fuzheng Zhang, Zhongyuan Wang, and Kai Zheng. 2020. Multi-Modal Knowledge for Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management . Association                                                                        |
|           | Rui Computing Machinery.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|           | Graphs for                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| [83]      | Yizhou Sun, Jiawei Han, Xifeng Yan, Philip S. Yu, and Tianyi Wu. 2011. PathSim: Meta Path-Based Top-K Similarity Search in Heterogeneous Information Networks. 4, 11 (aug 2011), 992-1003.                                                                                                                                                                                                            |

- [84] Yizhou Sun, Jiawei Han, X. Yan, Philip S. Yu, and Tianyi Wu. 2011. PathSim: Meta Path-Based Top-K Similarity Search in Heterogeneous Information Networks. Proc. VLDB Endow. 4 (2011), 992-1003.
- [86] Chang-You Tai, Liang-Ying Huang, Chien-Kun Huang, and Lun-Wei Ku. 2021. User-Centric Path Reasoning towards Explainable Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.
- [85] Zhu Sun, Jie Yang, Jie Zhang, Alessandro Bozzon, Long-Kai Huang, and Chi Xu. 2018. Recurrent Knowledge Graph Embedding for E ff ective Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.
- [87] Shaohua Tao, Runhe Qiu, Yuan Ping, and Hui Ma. 2021. Multi-modal Knowledge-aware Reinforcement Learning Network for Explainable Recommendation. Knowledge-Based Systems 227 (2021), 107217.
- [88] Ilaria Tiddi and Stefan Schlobach. 2022. Knowledge graphs as tools for explainable machine learning: A survey. Arti fi cial Intelligence 302 (2022), 103627.
- [89] Laurens van der Maaten and Geo ff rey E. Hinton. 2008. Visualizing Data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9 (2008), 2579-2605.
- [90] Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Ł ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is All you Need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett (Eds.), Vol. 30. Curran Associates, Inc.
- [91] Petar Veli č kovi , Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Liò, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. ć Graph Attention Networks. International Conference on Learning Representations (2018).
- [93] Xiang Wang, Xiangnan He, Yixin Cao, Meng Liu, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2019. KGAT: Knowledge Graph Attention Network for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery &amp; Data Mining . 950-958.
- [92] Hongwei Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Jialin Wang, Miao Zhao, Wenjie Li, Xing Xie, and Minyi Guo. 2018. RippleNet: Propagating User Preferences on the Knowledge Graph for Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 417-426.
- [94] Xiang Wang, Tinglin Huang, Dingxian Wang, Yancheng Yuan, Zhenguang Liu, Xiangnan He, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2021. Learning Intents behind Interactions with Knowledge Graph for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.
- [95] Xiangmeng Wang, Qian Li, Dianer Yu, Peng Cui, Zhichao Wang, and Guandong Xu. 2022. Causal disentanglement for semantics-aware intent learning in recommendation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2022).
- [96] Xiting Wang, Kunpeng Liu, Dongjie Wang, Le Wu, Yanjie Fu, and Xing Xie. 2022. Multi-Level Recommendation Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs with Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022 (Virtual Event, Lyon, France) (WWW'22) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2098-2108.
- [97] Xiang Wang, Dingxian Wang, Canran Xu, Xiangnan He, Yixin Cao, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2019. Explainable Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs for Recommendation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Arti fi cial Intelligence 33 (2019), 5329-5336.
- [99] Yinwei Wei, Xiang Wang, Liqiang Nie, Xiangnan He, Richang Hong, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2019. MMGCN: Multi-Modal Graph Convolution Network for Personalized Recommendation of Micro-Video. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Nice, France) (MM '19) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1437-1445.
- [98] Xin Wang, Ying Wang, and Yunzhi Ling. 2020. Attention-Guide Walk Model in Heterogeneous Information Network for Multi-Style Recommendation Explanation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Arti fi cial Intelligence 34, 04 (2020), 6275-6282.
- [100] Sarah Wiegre ff e and Yuval Pinter. 2019. Attention is not not Explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) . Association for Computational Linguistics, Hong Kong, China, 11-20.
- [101] Huizi Wu, Cong Geng, and Hui Fang. 2023. Causality and correlation graph modeling for e ff ective and explainable session-based recommendation. ACM Transactions on the Web 18, 1 (2023), 1-25.
- (mar 2022).
- [102] Shiwen Wu, Fei Sun, Wentao Zhang, Xu Xie, and Bin Cui. 2022. Graph Neural Networks in Recommender Systems: A Survey. Comput. Surveys
- [103] Yikun Xian, Zuohui Fu, S. Muthukrishnan, Gerard de Melo, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2019. Reinforcement Knowledge Graph Reasoning for Explainable Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 285-294.
- [104] Yikun Xian, Zuohui Fu, Handong Zhao, Yingqiang Ge, Xu Chen, Qiaoying Huang, Shijie Geng, Zhou Qin, Gerard de Melo, S. Muthukrishnan, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2020. CAFE: Coarse-to-Fine Neural Symbolic Reasoning for Explainable Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information &amp; Knowledge Management (Virtual Event, Ireland) (CIKM '20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1645-1654.
- [105] Jun Xiao, Hao Ye, Xiangnan He, Hanwang Zhang, Fei Wu, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2017. Attentional Factorization Machines: Learning the Weight of Feature Interactions via Attention Networks. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Arti fi cial Intelligence (Melbourne, Australia) (IJCAI'17) . AAAI Press, 3119-3125.
- [106] Bo Xu, Yong Xu, Jiaqing Liang, Chenhao Xie, Bin Liang, Wanyun Cui, and Yanghua Xiao. 2017. CN-DBpedia: A Never-Ending Chinese Knowledge Extraction System. In International Conference on Industrial, Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems .

| [107]   | Shuyuan Xu, Yingqiang Ge, Yunqi Li, Zuohui Fu, Xu Chen, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2023. Causal collaborative fi ltering. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval . 235-245.                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [108]   | Shuyuan Xu, Juntao Tan, Shelby Heinecke, Vena Jia Li, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2023. Deconfounded causal collaborative fi ltering. ACM Transactions on Recommender Systems 1, 4 (2023), 1-25.                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| [109]   | Fan Yang, Ninghao Liu, Suhang Wang, and Xia Hu. 2018. Towards Interpretation of Recommender Systems with Sorted Explanation Paths. Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM (2018).                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| [110]   | Zuoxi Yang and Shoubin Dong. 2020. HAGERec: Hierarchical Attention Graph Convolutional Network Incorporating Knowledge Graph for Explainable Recommendation. Knowledge-Based Systems 204 (2020), 106194.                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| [111]   | Rex Ying, Ruining He, Kaifeng Chen, Pong Eksombatchai, William L Hamilton, and Jure Leskovec. 2018. Graph convolutional neural networks for web-scale recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining . 974-983.                                                                                                                           |
| [112]   | Dianer Yu, Qian Li, Xiangmeng Wang, and Guandong Xu. 2023. Deconfounded recommendation via causal intervention. Neurocomputing 529 (2023), 128-139.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| [113]   | Dianer Yu, Qian Li, Hongzhi Yin, and Guandong Xu. 2023. Causality-guided graph learning for session-based recommendation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management . 3083-3093.                                                                                                                                                                              |
| [114]   | Mingwei Zhang, Guiping Wang, Lanlan Ren, Jianxin Li, Ke Deng, and Bin Zhang. 2022. METoNR: A Meta Explanation Triplet Oriented News Recommendation Model. Knowledge-Based Systems 238, C (feb 2022), 12 pages.                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| [115]   | Yongfeng Zhang and Xu Chen. 2020. Explainable Recommendation: A Survey and New Perspectives. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 14, 1 (2020), 1-101.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| [116]   | Jun Zhao, Zhou Zhou, Ziyu Guan, Wei Zhao, Wei Ning, Guang Qiu, and Xiaofei He. 2019. IntentGC: A Scalable Graph Convolution Framework Fusing Heterogeneous Information for Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining . 2347-2357.                                                                                                         |
| [117]   | Kangzhi Zhao, Xiting Wang, Yuren Zhang, Li Zhao, Zheng Liu, Chunxiao Xing, and Xing Xie. 2020. Leveraging Demonstrations for Reinforcement Recommendation Reasoning over Knowledge Graphs. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (Virtual Event, China) (SIGIR '20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 239-248. |
| [118]   | Wayne Xin Zhao, Gaole He, Hongjian Dou, Jin Huang, Siqi Ouyang, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2018. KB4Rec: A Dataset for Linking Knowledge Bases with Recommender Systems.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| [119]   | Yuyue Zhao, Xiang Wang, Jiawei Chen, Yashen Wang, Wei Tang, Xiangnan He, and Haiyong Xie. 2022. Time-Aware Path Reasoning on Knowledge Graph for Recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 41, 2 (2022).                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| [120]   | Yaxin Zhu, Yikun Xian, Zuohui Fu, Gerard de Melo, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2021. Faithfully Explainable Recommendation via Neural Logic Reasoning.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |

- [120] Yaxin Zhu, Yikun Xian, Zuohui Fu, Gerard de Melo, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2021. Faithfully Explainable Recommendation via Neural Logic Reasoning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies .
Thanet Markchom Huizhi Liang James Ferryman
Review of Explainable Graph-Based Recommender Systems
Explainability of recommender systems has become essential to ensure users'
trust and satisfaction. Various types of explainable recommender systems have
been proposed including explainable graph-based recommender systems. This
review paper discusses state-of-the-art approaches of these systems and
categorizes them based on three aspects: learning methods, explaining methods,
and explanation types. It also explores the commonly used datasets,
explainability evaluation methods, and future directions of this research area.
Compared with the existing review papers, this paper focuses on explainability
based on graphs and covers the topics required for developing novel explainable
graph-based recommender systems.