Abstract
Within the field of software agents, there has been increasing interest in automating the process of calendar scheduling in recent years. Calendar (or meeting) scheduling is an example of a timetabling domain that is most naturally formulated and solved as a continuous, distributed problem. Fundamentally, it involves reconciliation of a given user’s scheduling preferences with those of others that the user needs to meet with, and hence techniques for eliciting and reasoning about a user’s preferences are crucial to finding good solutions. In this paper, we present work aimed at learning a user’s time preference for scheduling a meeting. We adopt a passive machine learning approach that observes the user engaging in a series of meeting scheduling episodes with other meeting participants and infers the user’s true preference model from accumulated data. After describing our basic modeling assumptions and approach to learning user preferences, we report the results obtained in an initial set of proof of principle experiments. In these experiments, we use a set of automated CMRADAR calendar scheduling agents to simulate meeting scheduling among a set of users, and use information generated during these interactions as training data for each user’s learner. The learned model of a given user is then evaluated with respect to how well it satisfies that user’s true preference model on a separate set of meeting scheduling tasks. The results show that each learned model is statistically indistinguishable from the true model in their performance with strong confidence, and that the learned model is also significantly better than a random choice model.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berry, P., Gervasio, M., Uribe, T.E., Myers, K., Nitz, K.: A Personalized Calendar Assistant. In: AAAI Spring Symposium Series (March 2004)
Blum, A.: Empirical Support for Winnow and Weighted-Majority Based Algorithms: Results on a Calendar Scheduling Domain. Machine Learning 26, 5–23 (1997)
Cohen, P.R.: Hypothesis Testing and Estimation, ch. 4. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)
Cost, S., Salzberg, S.: A Weighted Nearest Neighbor Algorithm for Learning with Symbolic Features. Machine Learning 10, 57–78 (1993)
Dent, C.L., Boticario, J., McDermott, J.P., Mitchell, T.M., Zabowski, D.: A Personal Learning Apprentice. In: Proceedings of AAAI 1992, pp. 96–103 (1992)
Fiechter, C.-N., Rogers, S.: Learning Subjective Functions with Large Margins. In: ICML 2000, pp. 287–294 (2000)
Fix, E., Hodges, J.L.: Discriminatory Analysis: Nonparametric Discrimination: Consistency Properties. Technical Report Project 21-49-004 4. USAF School of Aviation Medicine, Randolf Field, TX (1951)
Mitchell, T.M., Caruana, R., Freitag, D., McDermott, J.P., Zabowski, D.: Experience with a Learning Personal Assistant. Commun. ACM, 80–91 (1994)
Modi, P.J., Veloso, M., Smith, S.F., Oh, J.: CMRadar: A Personal Assistant Agent for Calendar Management. In: Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Henderson-Sellers, B., Low, G., Winikoff, M. (eds.) AOIS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3508, pp. 134–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Sen, S., Haynes, T., Arora, N.: Satisfying User Preferences While Negotiating Meetings. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 47, 407–427 (1997)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Oh, J., Smith, S.F. (2005). Learning User Preferences in Distributed Calendar Scheduling. In: Burke, E., Trick, M. (eds) Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling V. PATAT 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3616. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11593577_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11593577_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-30705-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-32421-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)Springer Nature Proceedings Computer Science
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
