MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087339015 · doi:10.1145/1111449.1111491

Who's asking for help?

2006· article· en· W2087339015 on OpenAlexafffund
Bowen Hui, Craig Boutilier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer sciencePersonalizationUser modelingHuman–computer interactionBayesian networkScope (computer science)Probabilistic logicUsabilityTask (project management)IntrusivenessSoftwareUser interfaceDynamic Bayesian networkMachine learningArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated software customization is drawing increasing attention as a means to help users deal with the scope, complexity, potential intrusiveness, and ever-changing nature of modern software. The ability to automatically customize functionality, interfaces, and advice to specific users is made more difficult by the uncertainty about the needs of specific individuals and their preferences for interaction. Following recent probabilistic techniques in user modeling, we model our user with a dynamic Bayesian network (DBN) and propose to explicitly infer the type --- a composite of personality and affect variables --- in real time. We design the system to reason about the impact of its actions given the user's current attitudes. To illustrate the benefits of this approach, we describe a DBN model for a text-editing help task. We show, through simulations, that user types can be inferred quickly, and that a myopic policy offers considerable benefit by adapting to both different types and changing attitudes. We then develop a more realistic user model, using behavioural data from 45 users to learn model parameters and the topology of our proposed user types. With the new model, we conduct a usability experiment with 4 users and 4 different policies. These experiments, while preliminary, show encouraging results for our adaptive policy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207