1. Speaker: Yuen-Kuei Hsueh Mixed-Initiative Conflict Resolution for Context-aware Applications Choonsung Shin, Anind K. Dey, and Woontack Woo Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Ubiquitous computing (UbiComp2008), Seoul, Korea, September 21-24, 2008, pp. 262-271 Choonsung Shin Anind K. Dey Woontack Woo

2. July 29, 20092 Resource conflict ? ? I want to see HBO I want to see ESPN MaryTom

3. July 29, 20093 Resource conflict 25  C Cold Cool Cold

4. July 29, 20094 Resource conflict 25  C 28  C 24  C 23  C 25  C 27  C

5. July 29, 20095 Outline Introduction Mixed-initiative conflict resolution Conflict Resolution Approach Determination Tree Conflict Resolution Evaluation Conclusions

6. July 29, 20096 Introduction Systems which resolve resource conflicts automatically will –eliminate the users’ ability to perform this conflict resolution by themselves However, the users actually prefer to do by themselves in certain situations

7. July 29, 20097 Introduction Many technologies address resource conflicts between multiple users But, most of them are unlikely to produce the best solution for their users due to –the existence of multiple solutions –the dynamicity of users’ desires and context Mediation techniques give users useful information to support them in resolving conflict to overcome those problems

8. July 29, 20098 Introduction Mediation techniques require users to be active participants in conflict resolution ? Automatic resolutionMediated resolution Which one is better?

9. July 29, 20099 Mixed-initiative conflict resolution This approach exploits –users’ priorities –the types of context attributes (Symbolic and Numeric) –users’ preferences This resolution framework consists of three components –Conflict detection –Determination of resolution approach –Conflict resolution

10. July 29, 200910 Mixed-initiative conflict resolution Conflict detection –Gather users’ contexts –Detect conflicts Determination of resolution approach –determines whether a detected conflict should be resolved automatically by asking for users’ opinions Conflict resolution –resolves the conflict with the specified approach

11. Mixed-initiative conflict resolution

12. Conflict Resolution Approach Determination Tree

13. July 29, 200913 Conflict Resolution Approach Determination Tree Symbolic attribute type (e.g. the title of song) –degrees of deviation between users’ preference is used to determine an appropriate resolution approach –might have no easily reachable solution –may have multiple solutions

14. July 29, 200914 Conflict Resolution Approach Determination Tree For selecting an appropriate resolution approach –deviations between each user’s and group’s best items are used The user’s best item is –the item with the highest preference The group’s best item is –the item preferred by a majority of all users

15. Conflict Resolution Approach Determination Tree The deviation between a user’s and group’s best items is given by following equation: ▲ UP(u, v) be a function which maps a symbolic item v belonging to a user u to a preference value, an integer value ranging form -5 to +5

16. Conflict Resolution Approach Determination Tree User 1-k User 1 A A B B C C D D UserItem 1 ABCD Preference value 52-34

17. Conflict Resolution Approach Determination Tree A A B B C C D D GroupItem UserItem 1 ABCD Preference value (assumption) 506010010

18. Conflict Resolution Approach Determination Tree Based on the deviation, the resolution approach for –resolving a conflict between users is determined as follows: ▲ N user is the number of users ▲ d is the deviation threshold

19. July 29, 200919 Conflict Resolution Example - TV application –Select an appropriate program –3 users with the same priority –4 potential programs (a-d, or e-h)

20. July 29, 200920 Conflict Resolution However, when resolving conflict, –more than one solution may exist depending on the underlying algorithm used, e.g., Average Multiplication of preferences Minimizing user misery

21. Conflict Resolution -3+5+4=6(4+5)*(3+5)*(3+5)=576

22. July 29, 200922 Evaluation Projected –(a) TV –(b) temperature control applications and the –(c) music player application projected in a coffee shop setting.

23. July 29, 200923 Evaluation Experimental setup

24. Evaluation (Satisfaction with Conflict Resolution Approach) The graphs compare satisfaction with resolution approaches involving users –(a) with slightly different preferences –(b) with very different preferences

25. July 29, 200925 Evaluation participants describe their feelings about the automatic and mediated approach along 5 dimensions: –understanding of resolution approach (U), –control over applications (C) –how well the process reflects preferences (P) –agreement with the selection (A) –how close the result was to their preferred selection (B)

26. Evaluation (automatic) Features for scenarios with slightly different preference for (a) TV application (b) Temperature control Application (c) Music player application.

27. Evaluation (mediated) Features for very different preference scenarios (a) TV application (b) Temperature control Application (c) Music player application.

28. Evaluation (Effect of Preference Deviation) Relationship between satisfaction and preference deviation for the automatic resolution approach

29. July 29, 200929 Conclusions This research shows an interesting result that currently users would like to make decisions by themselves