Machine Learning and Knowledge Representation in the LaboUr Approach to User Modeling

  • Wolfgang Pohl
  • Achim Nick
Part of the CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 407)


In early user-adaptive systems, the use of knowledge representation methods for user modeling has often been the focus of research. In recent years, however, the application of machine learning techniques to control user-adapted interaction has become popular. In this paper, we present and compare adaptive systems that use either knowledge representation or machine learning for user modeling. Based on this comparison, several dimensions are identified that can be used to distinguish both approaches, but also to characterize user modeling systems in general. The LaboUr (Learning about the User) approach to user modeling is presented which attempts to take an ideal position in the resulting multi-dimensional space by combining machine learning and knowledge representation techniques. Finally, an implementation of LaboUr ideas into the information server ELFI is sketched.


Knowledge Representation User Modeling User Interest Adaptive Feature LaboUr Approach 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brajnik, G., and Tasso, C. (1994). A shell for developing non-monotonic user modeling systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 40:31–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Jameson, A. (1996). Numerical uncertainty management in user and student modeling: An overview of systems and issues. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 5(3–4): 193–251.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Kobsa, A., and Pohl, W. (1995). The user modeling shell system BGP-MS. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4(2):59–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kobsa, A., Müller, D., and Nill, A. (1994). KN-AHS: An adaptive hypertext client of the user modeling system BGP-MS. In Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on User Modeling, 99–105.Google Scholar
  5. Kobsa, A. (1989). A taxonomy of beliefs and goals for user models in dialog systems. In Kobsa, A., and Wahlster, W., eds., User Models in Dialog Systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kozierok, R., and Maes, P. (1993). A learning interface agent for scheduling meetings. In Gray, W. D., Hefley, W. E., and Murray, D., eds., Proc. of the International Workshop on Intelligent User Interfaces, Orlando FL, 81–88. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  7. Krogsæter, M., Oppermann, R., and Thomas, C. G. (1994). A user interface integrating adaptability and adaptivity. In Oppermann, R., ed., Adaptive User Support. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Lieberman, H. (1995). Letizia: An agent that assists web browsing. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Mislevy, R. J., and Gitomer, D. H. (1996). The role of probability-based inference in an intelligent tutoring system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 5(3–4):253–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mitchell, T., Caruana, R., Freitag, D., McDermott, J., and Zabowski, D. (1994). Experience with a learning personal assistant. Communications of the ACM 37(7):81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moukas, A. G. (1996). Amalthaea: Information discovery and filtering using a multi-agent evolving ecosystem. In Proceedings of the Conference on Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Technology.Google Scholar
  12. Nick, A., Koenemann, J., and Schalück, E. (1998). ELFI: information brokering for the domain of research funding. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 30:1491–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Orwant, J. (1995). Heterogeneous learning in the Doppelgänger user modeling system. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4(2):107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Paiva, A., and Self, J. (1995). TAGUS — a user and learner modeling workbench. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 4(3): 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pazzani, M., and Billsus, D. (1997). Learning and revising user profiles: The identification of interesting web sites. Machine Learning 27:313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pohl, W. (1997). LaboUr- machine learning for user modeling. In Smith, M. J., Salvendy, G., and Koubek, R. J., eds., Design of Computing Systems: Social and Ergonomic Considerations (Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction), volume B, 27–30. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  17. Pohl, W. (1998). Logic-Based Representation and Reasoning for User Modeling Shell Systems. Number 188 in Dissertationen zur künstlichen Intelligenz (DISKI). St. Augustin: infix.Google Scholar
  18. Rich, E. (1983). Users are individuals: Individualizing user models. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 18:199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wahlster, W., and Kobsa, A. (1989). User models in dialog systems. In Kobsa, A., and Wahlster, W., eds., User Models in Dialog Systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 4–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Pohl
    • 1
  • Achim Nick
    • 1
  1. 1.GMD FIT, HCI Research DepartmentSankt AugustinGermany

Personalised recommendations