Applied Intelligence

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Automated debugging of recommender user interface descriptions

  • Alexander Felfernig
  • Gerhard Friedrich
  • Klaus Isak
  • Kostyantyn Shchekotykhin
  • Erich Teppan
  • Dietmar Jannach


Customers interacting with online selling platforms require the assistance of sales support systems in the product and service selection process. Knowledge-based recommenders are specific sales support systems which involve online customers in dialogs with the goal to support preference forming processes. These systems have been successfully deployed in commercial environments supporting the recommendation of, e.g., financial services, e-tourism services, or consumer goods. However, the development of user interface descriptions and knowledge bases underlying knowledge-based recommenders is often an error-prone and frustrating business. In this paper we focus on the first aspect and present an approach which supports knowledge engineers in the identification of faults in user interface descriptions. These descriptions are the input for a model-based diagnosis algorithm which automatically identifies faulty elements and indicates those elements to the knowledge engineer. In addition, we present results of an empirical study which demonstrates the applicability of our approach.


Knowledge Engineer Intended Behavior Faulty Transition Recommender Application Reachability Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Burke R (2000) Knowledge-based recommender systems. Encycl Libr Inf Syst 69(32) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burke R (2002) Hybrid recommender systems: survey and experiments. User Model User-Adapted Interact 12(4):331–370 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Felfernig A (2005) Koba4MS: selling complex products and services using knowledge-based recommender technologies. In: Müller G, Lin K (eds) 7th IEEE international conference on e-commerce technology (CEC’05), Munich, Germany, pp 92–100 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Felfernig A (2007) Reducing development and maintenance efforts for web-based recommender applications. Int J Web Eng Technol 313:329–351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Felfernig A, Friedrich G, Jannach D, Zanker M (2006) An integrated environment for the development of knowledge-based recommender applications. Int J Electron Commer 11(2):11–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Felfernig A, Friedrich G, Jannach D, Stumptner M (2004) Consistency-based diagnosis of configuration knowledge bases. Artif Intell 2(152):213–234 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Felfernig A, Friedrich G, Jannach D, Stumptner M, Zanker M (2003) Configuration knowledge representations for semantic web applications. AI Eng Des Anal Manuf J 17:31–50 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Felfernig A, Isak K, Russ C (2006) Knowledge-based recommendation: technologies and experiences from projects. In: Brewka G, Coradeschi S, Perini A, Traverso P (eds) 17th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI06), Riva del Garda, Italy, pp 632–636 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Felfernig A, Kiener A (2005) Knowledge-based interactive selling of financial services using FSAdvisor. In: 17th innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference (IAAI’05), Pittsburgh, PA, pp 1475–1482 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Felfernig A, Shchekotykhin K (2005) Debugging user interface descriptions of knowledge-based recommender applications. In: Workshop notes of the IJCAI’05 workshop on configuration, Edinburgh, Scottland, pp 13–18 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Friedrich G, Stumptner M, Wotawa F (1999) Model-based diagnosis of hardware designs. AI J 111(2):3–39 zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greiner R, Smith B, Wilkerson R (1989) A correction to the algorithm in Reiter’s theory of diagnosis. Artif Intell 41(1):79–88 zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herlocker JL, Konstan JA, Terveen LG, Riedl J (2004) Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Trans Inf Syst 22(1):5–53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hopcroft J, Ullman J (1979) Introduction to automata theory, languages and computation. Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jiang B, Wang W, Benbasat I (2005) Multimedia-based interactive advising technology for online consumer decision support. Commun ACM 48(9):93–98 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Junker U (2004) QUICKXPLAIN: preferred explanations and relaxations for over-constrained problems. In: 19th national conference on AI (AAAI04), pp 167–172 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim J, Spraragen M, Gil Y (2004) An intelligent assistant for interactive workflow composition. In: International conference on intelligent user interfaces (IUI-2004), Madeira, Portugal, pp 125–131 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stumptner MM, Wotawa F (2000) Modeling Java programs for diagnosis. In: 14th European conference on artificial intelligence, Berlin, Germany, pp 171–175 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Montaner M, Lopez B, De la Rose J (2003) A taxonomy of recommender agents on the Internet. Artif Intell Rev 19:285–330 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pazzani M (1999) A framework for collaborative, content-based and demographic filtering. Artif Intell Rev 13(5–6):393–408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reiter R (1987) A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif Intell 23(1):57–95 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Resnick P, Iacovou N, Suchak M, Bergstrom P, Riedl J (1994) GroupLens: an open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews. In: ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, pp 175–186 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ricci F, Venturini A, Cavada D, Mirzadeh N, Blaas D, Nones M (2003) Product recommendation with interactive query management and twofold similarity. In: 5th international conference on case-based reasoning (ICCBR 2003), Trondheim, Norway, pp 479–493 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sachenbacher M, Struss Pr, Carlen CM (2000) A prototype for model-based on-board diagnosis of automotive systems. AI Commun 13(2):83–97 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mittal S, Falkenhainer B (1990) Dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In: 8th national conference on artificial intelligence, Detroit, MI. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 25–32 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smyth B, Balfe E, Boydell O, Bradley K, Briggs P, Coyle M, Freyne J (2005) A live user evaluation of collaborative web search. In: 19th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp 1419–1424 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stolze M, Field S, Kleijer P (2000) Combining configuration and evaluation mechanisms to support to selection of modular insurance products. In: 8th European conference on information systems, pp 858–865 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stumptner M, Wotawa F (1998) A survey of intelligent debugging. Eur J Artif Intell 11(1):35–51 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tallis M, Kim YG (1999) User studies of knowledge acquisition tools: methodology and lessons learned. In: KAW-99 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thompson C, Göker M, Langley P (2004) A personalized system for conversational recommendations. J Artif Intell Res 21:393–428 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tsang E (1993) Foundations of constraint satisfaction. Academic Press, London Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    VanNoord G, Gerdemann D (2004) Finite state transducers with predicates and identities. Grammars 4(3):263–286 CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Felfernig
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gerhard Friedrich
    • 1
  • Klaus Isak
    • 2
  • Kostyantyn Shchekotykhin
    • 1
  • Erich Teppan
    • 1
  • Dietmar Jannach
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Intelligent Systems and Business InformaticsUniversity KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria
  2. 2.ConfigWorksKlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations