skip to main content
10.1145/988772.988804acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Evaluating example-based search tools

Published:17 May 2004Publication History

ABSTRACT

A crucial element in consumer electronic commerce is a catalog tool that not only finds the product for the user, but also convinces him that he has made the best choice. To do that, it is important to show him ample choices while keeping his interaction effort below an acceptable limit. Among the various interaction models used in operational e-commerce sites, ranked lists are by far the most popular tool for product navigation and selection. However, as the number of product features and the complexity of user's criteria increase, a ranked list's efficiency becomes less satisfactory. As an alternative, research groups from the intelligent user interface community have developed various example-based search tools, including SmartClient from our laboratory. These tools not only perform personalized search, but also support tradeoff analysis. However, despite the academic interest, example-based search paradigms have not been widely adopted in practice. We have examined the usability of such tools on a variety of tasks involving selection and tradeoff. The studies clearly show that example-based search is comparable to ranked lists on simple tasks, but significantly reduces the error rate and search time when complex tradeoffs are involved. This shows that such tools are likely to be useful particularly for extending the scope of consumer e-commerce to more complex products.

References

  1. Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., and Rossi, F. Semiring-based Constraint Solving and Optimization. Journal of the ACM, 44, 2 (Mar. 1997), 201--236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Burke, R., Hammond, K., and Young, B. The FindMe Approach to Assisted Browsing. In IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, 12, 4 (Jul. 1997), 32--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Carenini G. and Poole D. Constructed Preferences and Value-focused Thinking: Implications for AI research on Preference Elicitation. AAAI-02 Workshop on Preferences in AI and CP: symbolic approaches, Edmonton, Canada, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. L.F. Cranor, J. Reagle, and M.S. Ackerman. Beyond Concern: Understanding Net Users' Attitudes About Online Privacy. In Ingo Vogelsang and Benjamin M. Compaine (editors). The Internet Upheaval: Raising Questions, Seeking Answers in Communications Policy. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2000, 47--70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Faltings, B., Torrens, M., and Pu, P. Solution Generation with Qualitative Models of Preferences, International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications, 2004. To appear in 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Fink, J., and Kobsa, A. A Review and Analysis of Commercial User Modeling Servers for Personalization on the World Wide Web. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 10, 3-4 (2000), 209-249. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Keeney, R. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University Press, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Linden, G., Hanks, S., and Lesh, N. Interactive assessment of user preference models: The automated travel assistant. Proceedings of User Modeling '97, 1997, 67--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Nguyen, H., and Haddawy, P. The Decision-Theoretic Video Advisor. In workshop notes, Recommender Systems, the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'98), 77--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., and Johnson, E.J., The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., and Schkade, D.A. Measuring Constructed Preference: Towards a Building Code. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 1-3 (1999), 243--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Pu, P., and Faltings, B. Enriching Buyers' experiences: the SmartClient Approach. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '00) (The Hague, The Netherlands, April 1-6, 2000). ACM Press, New York, NY, 2000, 289--296. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Pu, P., Faltings, B., and Torrens, M. User-Involved Preference Elicitation. In workshop notes, workshop on Configuration, the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'03), 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Pu, P., Kumar, P., and Faltings, B. User-Involved Tradeoff Analysis in Configuration Tasks. In workshop notes, the Third International Workshop on User-Interaction in Constraint Satisfaction, Ninth International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Pu, P. and Faltings, B. User Preference Elicitation Via Tradeoff. Submitted to the International Journal of Constraints, December, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Shearin, S., and Lieberman, H. Intelligent Profiling by Example. Proceedings of the 6th international Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, 2001) ACM Press, New York, NY, 2001, 145--151. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Shimazu, H. ExpertClerk: Navigating Shoppers' Buying Process with the Combination of Asking and Proposing. In Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'01) (Seattle, Washington, USA, August 4-10, 2001). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. S. Spiekermann and C. Paraschiv. Motivating Human-Agent Interaction: Transferring Insights from Behavioral Marketing to Agent Design. Electronic Commerce Research, Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands, (2002), 255--285. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Stolze, M. Comparative Study of Analytical Product Selection Support Mechanisms, Proceedings of INTERACT 99, Edinborough, UK, August 30 - September 3, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M. Torrens, R. Weigel and B. Faltings. Java Constraint Library: bringing constraints technology on the Internet using the Java language. In workshop notes, Constraints and Agents, the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'97), July 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. M. Torrens and B. Faltings. SmartClients: Constraint satisfaction as a paradigm for scaleable intelligent information systems. In workshop notes, Artificial Intelligence for Electronic Commerce, the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'99), July 1999, 10--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Torrens, M., Faltings, B., and Pu, P., SmartClients: Constraint Satisfaction as a Paradigm for Scaleable Intelligent Information Systems. International Journal of Constraints, 7, 1 (Jan. 2002), 49--69. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Evaluating example-based search tools

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        EC '04: Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on Electronic commerce
        May 2004
        278 pages
        ISBN:1581137710
        DOI:10.1145/988772

        Copyright © 2004 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 17 May 2004

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        EC '04 Paper Acceptance Rate24of146submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate664of2,389submissions,28%

        Upcoming Conference

        EC '24
        The 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
        July 8 - 11, 2024
        New Haven , CT , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader