Cited by 209Recommender Systems and TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorUsability and User Interface Design

Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces

·2020

Abstract

We present Navigation-by-Preference, n-by-p, a new conversational recommender that uses what the literature calls preference-based feedback.Given a seed item, the recommender helps the user navigate through item space to find an item that aligns with her longterm preferences (revealed by her user profile) but also satisfies her ephemeral, short-term preferences (revealed by the feedback she gives during the dialog).Different from previous work on preference-based feedback, n-by-p does not assume structured item descriptions (such as sets of attribute-value pairs) but works instead in the case of unstructured item descriptions (such as sets of keywords or tags), thus extending preference-based feedback to new domains where structured item descriptions are not available.Different too is that it can be configured to ignore long-term preferences or to take them into account, to work only on positive feedback or to also use negative feedback, and to take previous rounds of feedback into account or to use just the most recent feedback.We use an offline experiment with simulated users to compare 60 configurations of n-by-p.We find that a configuration that includes long-term preferences, that uses both positive and negative feedback, and that uses previous rounds of feedback is the one with highest hit-rate.It also obtains the best survey responses and lowest measures of effort in a trial with real users that we conducted with a web-based system.Notable too is that the user trial has a novel protocol for experimenting with short-term preferences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3377325

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-03-17
OpenAlex
W190293641
Cited by
209
References
30
Citations by year
2025: 48 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2
Type
paratext
Language
en
Open access
closed
Funders
  • Science Foundation Ireland (SFI/12/RC/, SFI/12/RC/2289., 12/RC/, Grant Number SFI/12/RC/2289, 12/RC/2289)
  • European Regional Development Fund (SFI/12/RC/2289)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
conversational recommender systems, user profiles, negative feedback, user effort, user interface design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review