For your cyclical theoretical framework, a more formal and descriptive name would enhance its academic presentation. Here are some appropriate naming options:
"Collaborative Filtering Feedback Loop Model for Travel Planning"
This would be an excellent name for Figure 1.1 in your research document, as it precisely describes both the methodology (collaborative filtering) and the cyclical nature (feedback loop) of your system.
When referencing this in your document, you could use:
Figure 1.1: Collaborative Filtering Feedback Loop Model for Travel PlanningThis naming convention clearly communicates to readers that your theoretical framework represents a continuous process where user feedback drives system improvement, which is central to how collaborative filtering algorithms evolve and refine their recommendations over time.
The name also positions your work within established theoretical traditions while highlighting the innovative application to travel planning specifically.
Here's a cleaner version of the Collaborative Filtering Feedback Loop Model with the same flow but a more organized presentation:
This refined diagram maintains the same cyclical flow while providing a cleaner, more professional presentation suitable for academic documentation:
The solid arrows represent the primary flow through the system, while the dotted arrow shows how user feedback ultimately refines the understanding of user preferences, completing the cycle.
This cleaner presentation makes the theoretical framework more accessible while maintaining the essential cyclical nature that captures how TravelPlanner continuously improves through user interactions and feedback.