Acquiring Customer Preferences from Return-Set Selections

This paper describes LCW, a procedure for learning customer preferences by observing customers' selections from return sets. An empirical evaluation on simulated customer behavior indicated that an uninformed hypothesis about customer weights leads to low ranking accuracy unless customers place some importance on almost all features or the total number of features is quite small. In contrast, LCW's estimate of the mean preferences of a customer population improved as the number of customers increased, even for larger numbers of features of widely differing importance. This improvement in the estimate of mean customer preferences led to improved prediction of individual customer's rankings, irrespective of the extent of variation among customers and whether a single or multiple retrievals were permitted. The experimental results suggest that the return set that optimizes benefit may be smaller for customer populations with little variation than for customer populations with wide variation.

[1]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[2]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity , 1999 .

[3]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Retrieval and organizational strategies in conceptual memory: a computer model , 1980 .

[4]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Designing web usability , 1999 .

[5]  P. Chandler,et al.  Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. , 1990 .

[6]  Wolfgang Wilke Knowledge management for intelligent sales support in electronic commerce , 1999, DISKI.

[7]  Steven J. Plimpton,et al.  Massively parallel methods for engineering and science problems , 1994, CACM.

[8]  David W. Aha,et al.  Weighting Features , 1995, ICCBR.

[9]  Karl Branting Active Exploration in Instance-Based Preference Modeling , 1999, ICCBR.

[10]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Agents that reduce work and information overload , 1994, CACM.

[11]  Douglas B. Terry,et al.  Using collaborative filtering to weave an information tapestry , 1992, CACM.

[12]  Karl Branting,et al.  Automated acquisition of user preferences , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Qiang Yang,et al.  Dynamic Refinement of Feature Weights Using Quantitative Introspective Learning , 1999, IJCAI.

[14]  Stefan Wess,et al.  Intelligent Sales Support with CBR , 1998, Case-Based Reasoning Technology.

[15]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[16]  Tom M. Mitchell,et al.  A Personal Learning Apprentice , 1992, AAAI.

[17]  Kristian J. Hammond,et al.  Question Answering from Frequently Asked Question Files: Experiences with the FAQ FINDER System , 1997, AI Mag..

[18]  Padraig Cunningham,et al.  Using Introspective Learning to Improve Retrieval in CBR: A Case Study in Air Traffic Control , 1997, ICCBR.