Constructing and Utilizing a Model of User Preferences in Collaborative Consultation Dialogues

A natural language collaborative consultation system must take user preferences into account. A model of user preferences allows a system to appropriately evaluate alternatives using criteria of importance to the user. Additionally, decision research suggests both that an accurate model of user preferences could enable the system to improve a user's decision‐making by ensuring that all important alternatives are considered, and that such a model of user preferences must be built dynamically by observing the user's actions during the decision‐making process. This paper presents two strategies: one for dynamically recognizing user preferences during the course of a collaborative planning dialogue and the other for exploiting the model of user preferences to detect suboptimal solutions and suggest better alternatives. Our recognition strategy utilizes not only the utterances themselves but also characteristics of the dialogue in developing a model of user preferences. Our generation strategy takes into account both the strength of a preference and the closeness of a potential match in evaluating actions in the user's plan and suggesting better alternatives. By modeling and utilizing user preferences, our system is able to fulfill its role as a collaborative agent.

[1]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning , 1992 .

[2]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  Analyzing Intention in Utterances , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Paul R. Cohen,et al.  Heuristic reasoning about uncertainty: an artificial intelligence approach , 1984 .

[4]  S. Carberry.  Pragmatic modeling: toward a robust natural language interface , 1987 .

[5]  Peter van Beek,et al.  FROM PLAN CRITIQUING TO CLARIFICATION DIALOGUE FOR COOPERATIVE RESPONSE GENERATION * , 1993, Comput. Intell..

[6]  Kazuo Miyashita,et al.  Case-Based Acquisition of User Preferences for Solution Improvement in Ill-Structured Domains , 1994, AAAI.

[7]  Kathleen R. McKeown.  Generating goal-oriented explanations , 1988 .

[8]  Bonnie L. Webber,et al.  Living Up to Expectations: Computing Expert Responses , 1984, HLT.

[9]  Jennifer Chu-Carroll,et al.  A Plan-Based Model for Response Generation in Collaborative Task-Oriented Dialogues , 1994, AAAI.

[10]  Cécile Paris,et al.  Tailoring Object Descriptions to a User's Level of Expertise , 1988, Comput. Linguistics.

[11]  James F. Allen,et al.  A Plan Recognition Model for Subdialogues in Conversations , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[13]  KassRobert,et al.  Modeling the user in natural language systems , 1988 .

[14]  Liliana Ardissono,et al.  Extending the Role of user Feedback in Plan Recognition and Response Generation for Advice-Giving Systems: An Initial Report , 1996, Canadian Conference on AI.

[15]  Mathias Bauer.  Quantitative Modeling of User Preferences for Plan Recognition , 1994 .

[16]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems , 1988 .

[17]  Anthony Jameson,et al.  Adaptive Provision of Evaluation-Oriented Information: Tasks and Techniques , 1995, IJCAI.

[18]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives—Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1977 .

[19]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Unit weighting schemes for decision making , 1975 .

[20]  David N. Chin.  KNOME: Modeling What the User Knows in UC , 1989 .

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. , 1990 .

[22]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[23]  Jennifer Chu-Carroll,et al.  Collaborative Response Generation in Planning Dialogues , 1998, Comput. Linguistics.

[24]  William R. Murray,et al.  An Endorsement-based Approach to Student Modeling for Planner-controlled Tutors , 1991, IJCAI.

[25]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Evidence , 2020, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence.

[26]  G. Miller,et al.  Cognitive science. , 1981, Science.

[27]  A. Tversky.  Intransitivity of preferences. , 1969 .

[28]  Jennifer Chu-Carroll,et al.  Recognizing and Utilizing User Preferences in Collaborative Consultation Dialogues , 1994 .

[29]  R. Dawes.  Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

[30]  Edward H. Shortliffe,et al.  Computer-based medical consultations, MYCIN , 1976 .

[31]  Peter van Beek,et al.  A Model For Generating Better Explanations , 1987, ACL.

[32]  Vibhu O. Mittal,et al.  Automatic Documentation Generation: The Rnteraction of Text and Examples , 1993, IJCAI.

[33]  Reuven Cohen,et al.  Incorporating user models into ex-pert systems for educational diagnosis , 1989 .

[34]  John W. Payne,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis☆ , 1976 .

[35]  Alfred Kobsa,et al.  User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction , 1994, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[36]  Marlene Jones,et al.  Providing responses specific to a user's goals and background , 1989 .

[37]  David N. Chin.  Exploiting User Expertise in Answer Expression , 1988, AAAI.

[38]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[39]  A Response Generation , 1995 .

[40]  Katharina Morik,et al.  User Models and Conversational Settings: Modeling the User’s Wants , 1989 .

[41]  A. Tversky.  Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[42]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  What is intention , 1987 .

[43]  Peter van Beek,et al.  Resolving Plan Ambiguity for Cooperative Response Generation , 1991, IJCAI.

[44]  Robin Cohen,et al.  Analyzing the Structure of Argumentative Discourse , 1987, CL.

[45]  Lynn Lambert,et al.  A Tripartite Plan-Based Model of Dialogue , 1991, ACL.