MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593509409 · doi:10.1145/3025171.3025207

Deep Sequential Recommendation for Personalized Adaptive User Interfaces

2017· article· en· W2593509409 on OpenAlexaff
Harold Soh, Scott Sanner, Madeleine White, Greg A. Jamieson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUsabilityAdaptation (eye)Human–computer interactionUser interfaceMetric (unit)EmbeddingCollaborative filteringUser modelingArtificial intelligenceRecommender systemMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptive user-interfaces (AUIs) can enhance the usability of complex software by providing real-time contextual adaptation and assistance. Ideally, AUIs should be personalized and versatile, i.e., able to adapt to each user who may perform a variety of complex tasks. But this is difficult to achieve with many interaction elements when data-per-user is sparse. In this paper, we propose an architecture for personalized AUIs that leverages upon developments in (1) deep learning, particularly gated recurrent units, to efficiently learn user interaction patterns, (2) collaborative filtering techniques that enable sharing of data among users, and (3) fast approximate nearest-neighbor methods in Euclidean spaces for quick UI control and/or content recommendations. Specifically, interaction histories are embedded in a learned space along with users and interaction elements; this allows the AUI to query and recommend likely next actions based on similar usage patterns across the user base. In a comparative evaluation on user-interface, web-browsing and e-learning datasets, the deep recurrent neural-network (DRNN) outperforms state-of-the-art tensor-factorization and metric embedding methods.

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 score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations57
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207