Key Issues in Interactive Problem Solving: An Empirical Investigation on Users Attitude

  • Gabriella Cortellessa
  • Vittoria Giuliani
  • Massimiliano Scopelliti
  • Amedeo Cesta
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3585)

Abstract

This paper explores the interaction between human and artificial problem solvers when interacting with an Intelligent Scheduling System. An experimental study is presented aimed at investigating the users’ attitude towards two alternative strategies for solving scheduling problems: automated and interactive. According to an automated strategy the responsibility of solving the problem is delegated to the artificial solver, while according to an interactive strategy human and automated solvers cooperate to achieve a problem solution.

Previous observations of end-users’ reactions to problem solving systems have shown that users are often skeptical toward artificial solver performance and prefer to keep the control of the problem solving process. The current study aims at understanding the role played by both the users’ expertise and the difficulty of the problem in choosing one of the two strategies. Results show that user expertise and task difficulty interact in influencing this choice.

A second aspect explored in the paper concerns the context in which the end-users rely on explanations to understand the solving process. Explanations are in fact expected to play an important role when artificial systems are used for cooperative and interactive problem solving. Results support the hypothesis that explanation services are more often called into play in case of problem solving failures.

References

  1. 1.
    Baptiste, P., Le Pape, C., Nuijten, W.: Constraint-Based Scheduling. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, vol. 39. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burstein, M., McDermott, D.: Issues in the development of human-computer mixed-initiative planning. In: Gorayska, B., Mey, J.L. (eds.) Cognitive Technology, pp. 285–303. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chandrasekaran, B., Mittal, S.: Deep versus compiled knowledge approaches to diagnostic problem-solving. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 51(2), 357–368 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen, R., Allaby, C., Cumbaa, C., Fitzgerald, M., Ho, K., Hui, B., Latulipe, C., Lu, F., Moussa, N., Pooley, D., Qian, A., Siddiqi, S.: What is initiative? In: Haller, S., McRoy, S., Kobsa, A. (eds.) Computational Models of Mixed-Initiative Interaction, pp. 171–212. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, R.: Application of Meta-Level Knowledge to the Construction, maintenance and Use of Large Knowledge bases. In: Davis, R., Lenat, D. (eds.) Knowledge-Based Systems in Artificial Intelligence. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York (1982)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gilbert, N.: Explanation and dialogue. Knowledge Engineering Review 4(3), 205–231 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gregor, S.: Explanations from knowledge-based systems and cooperative problem solving: an empirical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 54, 81–105 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hayes, P., Reddy, R.: Steps toward Graceful Interaction in Spoken and Written Man-Machine Communication. Internal Journal of Man-Machines Studies  19, 231–284 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hayes-Roth, F., Jacobstein, N.: The state of knowledge-based systems. Communications of the ACM 37, 27–39 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones, D.R., Brown, D.: The division of labor between human and computer in the presence of decision support system advice. Decision Support Systems 33, 375–388 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karsenty, L., Brezillon, J.: Cooperative problem solving and explanation. Expert Systems with Applications 8(4), 445–462 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langer, E.J.: Matters of mind: Mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective. Consciousness and Cognition 1, 289–305 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lovett, M.C., Anderson, J.R.: Making heads or tails out of selecting problem-solving strategies. In: Moore, J.D., Lehman, J.F. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 265–270. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Polson, P.G., Atwood, M.E., Masson, M.E.: Further explorations with a process model for water jug problems. Memory and Cognition 8(2), 182–192 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mao, J., Benbasat, I.: Exploring the use of explanations in knowledge-based systems: a process tracing analysis. Working Paper 96-MIS-002. Faculty of Commerce, University of British Columbia, Canada (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nass, C., Moon, Y.: Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers. Journal of Social Issues 56, 81–103 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schank, R.C.: Explanation: A first pass. In: Kolodner, J.L., Riesbeck, C.K. (eds.) Experience, Memory and Reasoning, pp. 139–165. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1986)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith, S.F., Cortellessa, G., Hildum, D.W., Ohler, C.M.: Using a scheduling domain ontology to compute user-oriented explanations. In: Castillo, L., Borrajo, D., Salido, M.A., Oddi, A. (eds.) Planning, Scheduling, and Constraint Satisfaction: From Theory to Practice. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith, S.F., Hildum, D.W., Crimm, D.A.: Interactive Resource Management in the Comirem Planner. In: IJCAI 2003 Workshop on Mixed-Initiative Intelligent Systems, Acapulco Mexico (August 2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tsang, E.P.K.: Foundation of Constraint Satisfaction. Academic Press, London (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ye, L.R.: The Value of Explanation in Expert Systems for Auditing: An experimental Investigation. Expert Systems with Applications 9(4), 543–556 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriella Cortellessa
    • 1
  • Vittoria Giuliani
    • 1
  • Massimiliano Scopelliti
    • 1
  • Amedeo Cesta
    • 1
  1. 1.ISTC-CNR, Institute for Cognitive Science and TechnologyItalian National Research CouncilRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations