UM99 User Modeling pp 45-54 | Cite as
User-Tailored Plan Generation
Conference paper
Abstract
The output of advice-giving systems can be regarded as plans to be executed by the user. Such plans are fairly useless if the user is not capable of executing some of the involved plan steps, or if he does not know them. We propose a two-phase process of user-tailored plan generation and plan presentation to produce advice that enables a user to reach his goals. This paper reports the first phase, the generation of a plan under the constraints of the user’s capabilities. The capabilities are represented as a hierarchy of plan concepts. System assumptions about user capabilities form a part of the user model, but are separate from assumptions about the user’s knowledge, goals etc. With this representation, we can re-use the techniques for collecting assumptions about the user’s conceptual knowledge for inferring his capabilities as well. We show an example of plan generation for users with different capabilities.
Keywords
User Model Plan Generation Plan Operator Plan Step Plan Concept
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.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Bauer, M. (1996). Acquisition of user preferences for plan recognition. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on User Modeling, Kailua-Kona, HI, 105–112.Google Scholar
- Brachman, R., and Schmolze, J. (1985). An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science 9:171–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Breuker, J., ed. (1990). EUROHELP: Developing Intelligent Help Systems. EC, Kopenhagen.Google Scholar
- Bylander, T. (1991). Complexity results for planning. In Proceedings of 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Sidney, Australia, 274–279.Google Scholar
- Carberry, S. (1990). Plan Recognition in Natural Language Dialogue. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Cohen, P. (1978). On knowing what to say: planning speech acts. Tech.Report 118, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
- Devanbu, P., and Litman, D. (1996). Taxonomic plan reasoning. Artificial Intelligence84:1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Erol, K., Hendler, J., and Nau, D. (1994). Semantics for hierarchical task-network planning. Tech.Report CS-TR-3239, Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland.Google Scholar
- Erol, K., Nau, D., and Subrahmanian, V. (1995). Complexity, decidability and undecidability results for domain-independent planning. Artificial Intelligence76:75–88.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Horacek, H. (1997). A model for adapting explanations to the user’s likely inferences. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction7:1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kautz, H. (1991). A formal theory of plan recognition and its implementation. In Reasoning about Plans, Allen, Kautz, Pelavin, and Tenenberg, eds., Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA. 69–126.Google Scholar
- Kobsa, A. (1991). Utilizing knowledge: the components of the SB-ONE knowledge representation workbench. In Principles of Semantic Networks, Sowa, J., ed., Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA. 457–486.Google Scholar
- Kobsa, A., Müller, D., and Nill, A. (1994). KN-AHS: an adaptive hypertext client of the user modeling system BGP-MS. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on User Modeling, Hyannis, MA, 99–105.Google Scholar
- Kobsa, A., and Pohl, W. (1995). The BGP-MS user modeling system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction4:59–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McCoy, K. (1989). Generating context-sensitive responses to object-related misconceptions. Artificial Intelligence41:151–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McDermott, D., and Hendler, J. (1995). Planning: what it is, what it could be. Artificial Intelligence76:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Penberthy, J., and Weld, D. (1992). UCPOP: A sound, complete, partial order planner for ADL. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning- Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference KR’92, Cambridge, MA, 103–114.Google Scholar
- Pohl, W., and Höhle, J. (1997). Mechanisms for flexible representation and use of knowledge in user modeling shell systems. In User Modeling: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference, UM97, Chia Laguna, Italy, 403–414.Google Scholar
- Russell, S., and Norvig, P. (1995). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle, River, NJ.MATHGoogle Scholar
- Sacerdoti, E. (1977). A Structure for Plans and Behavior. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, London, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar
- Sarner, M., and Carberry, S. (1992). Generating tailored definitions using a multifaceted user model. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction2:181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sleeman, D. (1985). UMFE: A user modelling front-end subsystem. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies23:71–88.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Weida, R., and Litman, D. (1992). Terminological reasoning with constraint networks and an application to plan recognition. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning — Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference KR’92, Cambridge, MA, 282–293.Google Scholar
- Weld, D. (1994). An introduction to least commitment planning. Al Magazine4:27–61.Google Scholar
- Young, M. (1996). Using plan reasoning in the generation of plan descriptions. In Proceedings of 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Portland, OR, 1075–1080.Google Scholar
- Zukerman, I., and McConachy, R. (1993). Generating concise discourse that addresses a user’s inferences. In Proceedings of 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambery, France, 1202–1207.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999