Cited by 223Recommender Systems and TechniquesSpeech and dialogue systemsInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

A Personalized System for Conversational Recommendations

Open access
Thompson, C. A., Goker, M. H., Langley, P.·2004·Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Abstract

Searching for and making decisions about information is becoming increasingly difficult as the amount of information and number of choices increases. Recommendation systems help users find items of interest of a particular type, such as movies or restaurants, but are still somewhat awkward to use. Our solution is to take advantage of the complementary strengths of personalized recommendation systems and dialogue systems, creating personalized aides. We present a system -- the Adaptive Place Advisor -- that treats item selection as an interactive, conversational process, with the program inquiring about item attributes and the user responding. Individual, long-term user preferences are unobtrusively obtained in the course of normal recommendation dialogues and used to direct future conversations with the same user. We present a novel user model that influences both item search and the questions asked during a conversation. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our system in significantly reducing the time and number of interactions required to find a satisfactory item, as compared to a control group of users interacting with a non-adaptive version of the system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1613/jair.1318

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • The effects of personalization have been evaluated by measuring efficiency, user satisfaction, relevance, understandability, information quality, and appropriateness of system responses.

    “The effects of personalization have been evaluated in various ways by measuring aspects like efficiency in terms of the number and duration of interactions [11,20], user satisfaction, relevance, and understandability [20], information quality presented [21], and appropriateness of system responses [10].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thompson, C. A., Goker, M. H., & Langley, P.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Venue
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Published
2004-03-01
Volume
21
Pages
393-428
ISSN
1076-9757 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2152883745
Cited by
223
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 13
FWCI
51.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
conversational recommendation, personalized recommendation, dialogue systems, user modeling, adaptive recommendation, user preferences, information overload, item selection

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