Exploring the Effects of Natural Language Justifications in Food Recommender Systems

C. Musto, A. Starke, C. Trattner, A. Rapp, G. Semeraro
{"title":"Exploring the Effects of Natural Language Justifications in Food Recommender Systems","authors":"C. Musto, A. Starke, C. Trattner, A. Rapp, G. Semeraro","doi":"10.1145/3450613.3456827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Users of food recommender systems typically prefer popular recipes, which tend to be unhealthy. To encourage users to select healthier recommendations by making more informed food decisions, we introduce a methodology to generate and present a natural language justification that emphasizes the nutritional content, or health risks and benefits of recommended recipes. We designed a framework that takes a user and two food recommendations as input and produces an automatically generated natural language justification as output, which is based on the user’s characteristics and the recipes’ features. In doing so, we implemented and evaluated eight different justification strategies through two different justification styles (e.g., comparing each recipe’s food features) in an online user study (N = 503). We compared user food choices for two personalized recommendation approaches, popularity-based vs our health-aware algorithm, and evaluated the impact of presenting natural language justifications. We showed that comparative justifications styles are effective in supporting choices for our healthy-aware recommendations, confirming the impact of our methodology on food choices.","PeriodicalId":435674,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3450613.3456827","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Users of food recommender systems typically prefer popular recipes, which tend to be unhealthy. To encourage users to select healthier recommendations by making more informed food decisions, we introduce a methodology to generate and present a natural language justification that emphasizes the nutritional content, or health risks and benefits of recommended recipes. We designed a framework that takes a user and two food recommendations as input and produces an automatically generated natural language justification as output, which is based on the user’s characteristics and the recipes’ features. In doing so, we implemented and evaluated eight different justification strategies through two different justification styles (e.g., comparing each recipe’s food features) in an online user study (N = 503). We compared user food choices for two personalized recommendation approaches, popularity-based vs our health-aware algorithm, and evaluated the impact of presenting natural language justifications. We showed that comparative justifications styles are effective in supporting choices for our healthy-aware recommendations, confirming the impact of our methodology on food choices.
探索自然语言证明在食物推荐系统中的作用
食物推荐系统的用户通常更喜欢流行的食谱,这往往是不健康的。为了鼓励用户通过做出更明智的食物决定来选择更健康的建议,我们引入了一种方法来生成并呈现一种自然语言的理由,强调推荐食谱的营养成分,或健康风险和益处。我们设计了一个框架,它以一个用户和两个食物推荐作为输入,并根据用户的特征和食谱的特征自动生成自然语言证明作为输出。在此过程中,我们在一项在线用户研究(N = 503)中通过两种不同的论证风格(例如,比较每种食谱的食物特征)实施并评估了八种不同的论证策略。我们比较了两种个性化推荐方法的用户食物选择,基于流行度和我们的健康意识算法,并评估了呈现自然语言证明的影响。我们表明,比较论证风格在支持我们的健康意识建议的选择方面是有效的,证实了我们的方法对食物选择的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信