Pauline M. Berry
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
In a world of electronic calendars, the prospect of intelligent, personalized time management assistance seems a plausible and desirable application of AI. PTIME (Personalized Time Management) is a learning cognitive assistant agent that helps users handle email meeting requests, reserve venues, and schedule events. PTIME is designed to unobtrusively learn scheduling preferences, adapting to its user over time. The agent allows its user to flexibly express requirements for new meetings, as they would to an assistant. It interfaces with commercial enterprise calendaring platforms, and it operates seamlessly with users who do not have PTIME. This article overviews the system design and describes the models and technical advances required to satisfy the competing needs of preference modeling and elicitation, constraint reasoning, and machine learning. We further report on a multifaceted evaluation of the perceived usefulness of the system.
- Adomavicius, G. 2005. Toward the next generation of recommender systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Engin. 17, 6, 734--749. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Bana e Costa, C. A. and Vansnick, J.-C. 1999. The MACBETH approach: Basic ideas, software and an application. In Advances in Decision Analysis, N. Meskens and M. Roubens, Eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, 131--157.Google Scholar
- Beard, D., Palaniappan, M., Humm, A., Banks, D., Nair, A., and Shan, Y.-P. 1990. A visual calendar for scheduling group meetings. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'90). 279--290. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Berry, P. M., Conley, K., Gervasio, M., Peintner, B., Uribe, T., and Yorke-Smith, N. 2006. Deploying a personalized time management agent. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS'06), Industrial Track. 1564--1571. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Berry, P. M., Gervasio, M., Peintner, B., and Yorke-Smith, N. 2007. Balancing the needs of personalization and reasoning in a user-centric scheduling assistant. Tech. note 561, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International.Google Scholar
- Boutilier, C., Brafman, R. I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H. H., and Poole, D. 2004. Preference-Based constrained optimization with CP-Nets. Comput. Intell. 20, 137--157.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brzozowski, M., Carattini, K., Klemmer, S. R., Mihelich, P., Hu, J., and Ng, A. Y. 2006. groupTime: Preference-Based group scheduling. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'06). 1047--1056. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dubus, J.-P., Gonzales, C., and Perny, P. 2009. Choquet optimization using gai networks for multiagent/multicriteria decision-making. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT'09). 377--389. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ehrgott, M. and Gandibleux, X., Eds. 2002. Multiple Criteria Optimization: State of the Art Annotated Bibliographic Survey. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- Faulring, A. and Myers, B. A. 2005. Enabling rich human-agent interaction for a calendar scheduling agent. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'05). 1367--1370. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fiechter, C.-N. and Rogers, S. 2000. Learning subjective functions with large margins. InProceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML'00). 287--294. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fishburn, P. 1967. Interdependence and additivity in multivariate, unidimensional expected utility theory. Int. Econ. Rev. 8, 335--342.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Focacci, F. and Godard, D. 2002. A practical approach to multi-criteria optimization problems in constraint programming. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Constraint Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Operations Research (CP-AI-OR'02). 65--75.Google Scholar
- Garrido, L., Brena, R., and Sycara, K. 2000. Multiple negotiation among agents for a distributed meeting scheduler. In Proceedings of MAS'00 Conference. 55--72.Google Scholar
- Gavanelli, M. 2002. An algorithm for multi-criteria optimization in CSPs. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'02). 136--140.Google Scholar
- Gervasio, M. T., Moffitt, M. D., Pollack, M. E., Taylor, J. M., and Uribe, T. E. 2005. Active preference learning for personalized calendar scheduling assistance. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI'05). 90--97. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gervet, C., Caseau, Y., and Montaut, D. 1999. On refining ill-defined constraint problems: A case study in iterative prototyping. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Practical Application of Constraint Technologies and Logic Programming (PACLP'99). 255--275.Google Scholar
- Glass, A., McGuinness, D. L., and Wolverton, M. 2008. Toward establishing trust in adaptive agents. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI'08). 227--236. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Goldsmith, J. and Junker, U., Eds. 2009. AI Magazine Special Issue on Preferences 29.Google Scholar
- Grabisch, M., Murofushi, T., and Sugeno, M., Eds. 2000. Fuzzy Measures and Integrals: Theory and Applications. Physica Verlag, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
- Haynes, T., Sen, S., Arora, N., and Nadella, R. 1997. An automated meeting scheduling system that utilizes user preferences. In Proceedings of the Agents'97 Conference. 308--315. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Higa, K., Shin, B., and Sivakumar, V. 1996. Meeting scheduling: An experimental investigation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 2023--2028.Google Scholar
- Hogg, R. V. and Craig, A. T. 1995. Introduction to Mathematical Statistics. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
- Joachims, T. 2002. Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In Proceedings of the International SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD'02). 133--142. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Junker, U. 2002. Preference-Based search and multi-criteria optimization. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artficial Intelligence (AAAI'02). 34--40. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. 1993. Decisions with Multiple Objectives 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- Kojadinovic, I. 2007. Minimum variance capacity identification. Euro. J. Oper. Res. 177, 1, 498--514.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kozierok, R. and Maes, P. 1993. A learning interface agent for scheduling meetings. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI'93). 81--88. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Krzywicki, A., Wobcke, W., and Wong, A. 2010. An adaptive calendar assistant using pattern mining for user preference modelling. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI'10). 71--80. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Labreuche, C. and Grabisch, M. 2003. The Choquet integral for the aggregation of interval scales in multicriteria decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 137, 1, 11--26. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Labreuche, C. and Huede, F. L. 2005. MYRIAD: A tool for preference modeling application to multi-objective optimization. In Proceedings of the CP'05 Workshop on Preferences and Soft Constraints.Google Scholar
- Labreuche, C. and Huede, F. L. 2006. Inconsistencies in the determination of a capacity. In Proceedings of the ECAI'06 Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling.Google Scholar
- Le Huede, F., Grabisch, M., Labreuche, C., and Saveant, P. 2006. Mcs: A new algorithm for multicriteria optimisation in constraint programming. Ann. Oper. Res. 147, 1, 143--174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marichal, J.-L. and Roubens, M. 2000. Determination of weights of interacting criteria from a reference set. Euro. J. Oper. Res. 124, 3, 641--650.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G. C., Guarino, A. J., Guarino, A. J., and Gamst, G. 2005. Applied Multivariate Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, T., Caruana, R., Freitag, D., McDermott, J., and Zabowski, D. 1994. Experience with a learning personal assistant. Comm. ACM 37, 7, 80--91. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Moffitt, M. D., Peintner, B., and Yorke-Smith, N. 2006. Multi-Criteria optimization of temporal preferences. In Proceedings of the CP'06 Workshop on Preferences and Soft Constraints.Google Scholar
- Moffitt, M. D. and Pollack, M. E. 2006. Temporal preference optimization as weighted constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'06). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Myers, K. L., Berry, P. M., Blythe, J., Conley, K., Gervasio, M., McGuinness, D., Morley, D., Pfeffer, A., Pollack, M., and Tambe, M. 2007. An intelligent personal assistant for task and time management. AI Mag. 28, 2, 47--61.Google Scholar
- Oh, J. and Smith, S. F. 2005. Learning user preferences in distributed calendar scheduling. In Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling V. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3616. Springer, 169--181. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ozturk, M., Tsoukias, A., and Vincke, P. 2005. Preference modelling. InState of Art in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, M. Ehrgott et al., Eds., Springer, New York, 27--72.Google Scholar
- Palen, L. 1999. Social, individual and technological issues for groupware calendar systems. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'99). 17--24. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Payne, S. J. 1993. Understanding calendar use. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, 2, 83--100. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peintner, B. and Pollack, M. E. 2004. Low-Cost addition of preferences to DTPs and TCSPs. InProceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'04). 723--728. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peintner, B., Viappiani, P., and Yorke-Smith, N. 2009. Preferences in interactive systems: Technical challenges and case studies. AI Mag. 29, 4, 13--24.Google ScholarCross Ref
- PeopleCube, Inc. 2011. Meeting Maker. http://www.peoplecube.com/products-other-meeting-maker.htm.Google Scholar
- Poulton, E. C. 1994. Behavioral Decision Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
- Refanidis, I. 2007. Managing personal tasks with time constraints and preferences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS'07). 272--279.Google Scholar
- Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
- Steinfeld, A., Bennett, R., Cunningham, K., Lahut, M., Quinones, P., Wexler, D., Siewiorek, D., Hayes, J., Cohen, P., Fitzgerald, J., Hansson, O., Pool, M., and Drummond, M. 2007. Evaluation of an integrated multi-task machine learning system with humans in the loop. In Proceedings of the NIST Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems Workshop (PerMIS'07). 182--188. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tullio, J., Goecks, J., Mynatt, E., and Nguyen, D. 2002. Augmenting shared personal calendars. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST'02). 11--20. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Van Schaik, P. and Jing, J. 2005. Five psychometric scales for online measurement of the quality of human-computer interaction in web sites. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 18, 3, 309--322.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Viappiani, P., Faltings, B., and Pu, P. 2006. Preference-Based search using example-critiquing with suggestions. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 27, 465--503. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Weber, J. S. and Pollack, M. E. 2007. Entropy-Driven online active learning for interactive calendar management. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI'07). 141--150. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- PTIME: Personalized assistance for calendaring
Recommendations
Robust ordinal regression in preference learning and ranking
Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA) offers a diversity of approaches designed for providing the decision maker (DM) with a recommendation concerning a set of alternatives (items, actions) evaluated from multiple points of view, called criteria. ...
Interactive and nonparametric modeling of preferences on an ordinal scale using small data
MCDA sorting techniques fail to model complex preferences having interactions.Interactive nonparametric statistical learning for preference modeling is proposed.Algorithmic recommendations are made for different preference structures.Modeling is ...
Multiple Criteria Hierarchy Process in Robust Ordinal Regression
A great majority of methods designed for Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA) assume that all evaluation criteria are considered at the same level, however, it is often the case that a practical application is imposing a hierarchical structure of ...
Comments