Avoiding Long and Fruitless Dialogues in Critiquing
An important issue in critiquing approaches to product recommendation is how to avoid long and fruitless critiquing dialogues when none of the available products are acceptable to the user. We present a new approach called progressive critiquing in which the non-existence of a product that satisfies all the user’s critiques triggers an explanation alerting the user to the possibility that none of the available products may be acceptable. A recovery mechanism based on implicit relaxation of constraints ensures that progress can again be made if the user is willing to compromise. Our empirical results show that progressive critiquing is most effective when users give priority to critiques on attributes whose values they are least inclined to accept.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Hammond, K.J., Burke, R., Schmitt, K.: A Case-Based Approach to Knowledge Navigation. In: Leake, D.B. (ed.) Case-Based Reasoning: Experiences, Lessons & Future Directions. A A AI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA (1996) 125–136Google Scholar
- 6.Linden, G., Hanks, S., Lesh, N.: Interactive Assessment of User Preference Models: The Automated Travel Assistant. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on User Modeling (1997) 67–78Google Scholar
- 7.McCarthy, K., Reilly, J., McGinty, L., Smyth, B.: Experiments in Dynamic Critiquing. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (2005) 175–182Google Scholar
- 10.Salamó, M., Reilly, J., McGinty, L., Smyth, B.: Improving Incremental Critiquing. Proceedings of the 16th Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science (2005) 379–388Google Scholar
- 12.McSherry, D.: On the Role of Default Preferences in Compromise-Driven Retrieval. Proceedings of the 10th UK Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning (2005) 11–19Google Scholar
- 13.McSherry, D.: Incremental Nearest Neighbour with Default Preferences. Proceedings of the 16th Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science (2005) 9–18Google Scholar