Course talk:CPSC522/Decision Support System using Interactive Preference Elicitation

Hi YuYan,

Great job on the page! Some suggestions are as follows: 1. I would have liked some background explanation either in the Abstract part or you could add it in 'Introduction' and give some intuition to readers. 2. I would also benefit from some explanation to the pseudo-code, maybe a couple of lines below the pseudocode explaining the steps. 3. I didn't quite understand what you were trying to explain through the 'Value Chart Example' figure. For instance, how are the stacked bars varying with the different weights? The image is a little blury so i can't read the index at the top as well. Other than these suggestions, I think you've done a great job at explaining us DSS using Interactive Preference Elicitation. :) Warm regards,

Ritika

Hi Ritika,

Thanks for your suggestions.

1.For your first suggestion, I have added some explanation of Decision Networks and also put the external link for it in Background section.

2. I also added comments in the pseudo-code line by line to help readers get a better understanding of the algorithm according to your second suggestion.

3.Value Chart example is to show how the interactive procedure works as well as the visualization method it applied. I have added some contents in Value Chart section to explain the example picture better.

Thanks again.

Bests,

YuYan

Perfect :)

Hi Yu Yan,

Nice draft! However, from my standpoint, you can still improve this page :

1. I suggest you to proofread the page, I’ve noticed some minor grammatical mistakes (e.g., “environment pollution”, “User Knowledge and Expertise that requiring manual analysis by the user” , etc.
2. Regarding the first paper, nothing has been mentioned about the conducted experiment and the outcome(s), I got the impression that you just used that to describe what DDS is all about, which is good, but If I’m not mistaken the goal was to present it in a way that students can understand the paper without reading the original one. Adding a short summary of the experiment, the design and the outcomes would help a lot.
3. The main goal of each paper is better to be more clearly stated at the beginning of each one’s section as well (Found them only in Abstract).
4. Abstract can be expanded a bit more, it’s too concise
5. I suggest you to consolidate the reference style in “References” section. (e.g., the third one)

All above matters aside, it was a nice and a right to the point draft and I enjoyed reading it.

Good job,

Yaashaar

Hi Yaashaar,

Thanks for your suggestion. I made the follow modifications based on you suggestions:

1. I have proofread the whole page and modified some grammatical mistakes.

2. I have added contents concerning the main goal of each paper in the first section of the page and also made a comparison of the two papers in the last section.

3. I have added more details to the abstract section.

4. I modified the third reference and also consolidate the others' reference style.

And for your second suggestion, I think in this wiki page it is enough for readers to understand the Interactive Preference Elicitation process by getting familiar with the interactive interface and visualization examples without looking into the details of experiments.

Thanks again.

Bests,

YuYan

Hi Yu,

Good job!

i have a couple of suggestions for your wiki page.

1. We were supposed to explain the background. It was better to explain everything (maybe in one sentence) and not to assume that readers know all of the background. The other thing is that the motivation of the the two papers and what exactly the two papers did and how they evaluate their work is not explicitly mentioned. I can find some of these information in your page, but I believe that it was better to explicitly mention these things.

Cheers,

Bahare

Hi Bahare,

Thanks for your suggestions. I will add some explanation or external links for the background knowledge. And will make a new section to mention what exactly the two papers did and how they evaluate their work. Thanks again.

Bests,

YuYan

Hi Bahare,

I have added some explanation as well as external links for the background knowledge. And make a new section Comparison that in the last part of the page to mention what exactly the two papers did and how they evaluate their work. Thanks again.

Bests,

YuYan