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

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.

[1]  B. Chandrasekaran,et al.  Deep versus compiled knowledge approaches to diagnostic problem-solving , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[2]  Frederick Hayes-Roth,et al.  The state of knowledge-based systems , 1994, CACM.

[3]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Explanation: A First Pass. , 1984 .

[4]  Donald R. Jones,et al.  The division of labor between human and computer in the presence of decision support system advice , 2002, Decis. Support Syst..

[5]  Shirley Gregor,et al.  Explanations from knowledge-based systems and cooperative problem solving: an empirical study , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Elpida T. Keravnou,et al.  What is a deep expert system? An analysis of the architectural requirements of second-generation expert systems , 1989, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[7]  L. Richard Ye,et al.  The value of explanation in expert systems for auditing: An experimental investigation , 1995 .

[8]  Bowen Hui,et al.  What is Initiative? , 1998, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[9]  R. Shillcock,et al.  Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 1995 .

[10]  Larry Press,et al.  The global diffusion of the Internet: patterns and problems , 1994, CACM.

[11]  C. Nass,et al.  Machines and Mindlessness , 2000 .

[12]  Douglas B. Lenat,et al.  Knowledge-based systems in artificial intelligence , 1981 .

[13]  Philippe Baptiste,et al.  Constraint-based scheduling , 2001 .

[14]  Alfred Kobsa,et al.  Computational Models of Mixed-Initiative Interaction , 2007, Springer Netherlands.

[15]  Christopher K. Riesbeck,et al.  Experience, Memory and Reasoning , 1986 .

[16]  G. Nigel Gilbert,et al.  Explanation and dialogue , 1989, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[17]  Edward P. K. Tsang,et al.  Constraint Based Scheduling: Applying Constraint Programming to Scheduling Problems , 2003, J. Sched..

[18]  Raj Reddy,et al.  Steps Toward Graceful Interaction in Spoken and Written Man-Machine Communication , 1983, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[19]  E. Langer,et al.  Matters of mind: Mindfulness/mindlessness in perspective , 1992, Consciousness and Cognition.

[20]  M E Masson,et al.  Further explorations with a process model for water jug problems , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[21]  Patrick Brézillon,et al.  Cooperative problem solving and explanation , 1995 .

[22]  L. Catillo,et al.  Planning, Scheduling And Constraint Satisfaction: From Theory To Practice , 2005 .