Advertisement

Interactive Assessment of User Preference Models: The Automated Travel Assistant

  • Greg Linden
  • Steve Hanks
  • Neal Lesh
Part of the International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 383)

Abstract

This paper presents the candidate/critique model of interactive problem solving, in which an automated problem solver communicates candidate solutions to the user and the user critiques those solutions. The system starts with minimal information about the user’s preferences, and preferences are elicited and inferred incrementally by analyzing the critiques. The system’s goal is to present “good” candidates to the user, but to do so it must learn as much as possible about his preferences in order to improve its choice of candidates in subsequent iterations. This system contrasts with traditional decision-analytic and planning frameworks in which a complete model is elicited beforehand or is constructed by a human expert. The paper presents the Automated Travel Assistant, an implemented prototype of the model that interactively builds flight itineraries using realtime airline information. The ATA is available on the World Wide Web and has had over 4000 users between May and October 1996.

Keywords

Candidate Solution User Preference Soft Constraint Travel Agent Interactive Assessment 
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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, J., et al. (1995). The TRAINS Project: A case study in building a conversational planning agent. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical AI. 7–48.Google Scholar
  2. Böse, P.K., Biswas, G., and Rao-Padala, A.M. (1989). Globe-Trotter: An intelligent flight itinerary planner. IEEE Expert 4(2):56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke, R., Hammond, K., and Young, B. (1996). Knowledge-based navigation of complex information spaces. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 462–468.Google Scholar
  4. Cleary, D., and Zeleznikow, J. (1991). L-CATA: An intelligent logic based expert travel assistant. In Eleventh International Conference on Expert Systems and their Applications, 111–22.Google Scholar
  5. Ferguson, G., Allen, J., and Miller, B. (1996). TRAINS-95: Toward a mixed-initiative planning assistant. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (AIPS), 70–77.Google Scholar
  6. Huang, Y., and Miles, R. (1995). Combining case based and constraint based techniques in travel reservation systems. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Huang, Y., and Miles, R. (1995). Combining case based and constraint based techniques in travel reservation systems. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications, 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Karunanithi, N., and Alspector, J. (1996). A feature-based user model for movie selection. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on User Modeling, 29–34.Google Scholar
  9. Keeney, R., and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. McCalla, G., Searwar, F., Thomson, J., Collins, J., Sun, Y., and Zhou, B. (1996). Analogical user modelling: A case study in individualized information filtering. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on User Modeling, 13–20.Google Scholar
  11. Mukhopadhyay, S., Mostafa, J., and Palakal, M. (1996). An adaptive multi-level information filtering system. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on User Modeling, 21–28.Google Scholar
  12. Raskutti, B., and Zukerman, I. (1993). Generating queries during cooperative consultations. In Proceedings of the 6th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 389–94.Google Scholar
  13. Raskutti, B., and Zukerman, I. (1994). Acquisition of information to determine a user’s plan. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 28–32.Google Scholar
  14. Siklóssy, L. (1978). Impertinent question-answering systems: Justification and theory. In Proceedings of the ACM National Conference, 39–44.Google Scholar
  15. Thomas, C., and Fischer, G. (1996). Using agents to improve the usability and usefulness of the World-Wide Web. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on User Modeling, 5–12.Google Scholar
  16. Wilson, M., and Borning, A. (1993). Hierachical constraint logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming 16(3–4):277–318.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greg Linden
    • 1
  • Steve Hanks
    • 1
  • Neal Lesh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations