Device-Aware Rule Recommendation for the Internet of Things
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With over 34 billion IoT devices to be installed by 2020, the Internet of Things (IoT) is fundamentally changing our lives. One of the greatest benefits of the IoT is the powerful automations achieved by applying rules to IoT devices. For instance, a rule named "Make me a cup of coffee when I wake up'' automatically turns on the coffee machine when the sensor in the bedroom detects motion in the morning. With large numbers of possible rules out there, a recommendation system is of great necessity to help users find rules they need. However, little effort has been made to design a model tailored for the IoT rule recommendation, which comes with lots of new challenges compared with traditional recommendation tasks. We not only need to re-define "users'' and "items'' in the recommendation task, but also have to consider a new type of entities, devices, and the extra information and constraints brought by them. To handle these challenges, we propose a novel efficient recommendation algorithm, which not only considers the implicit feedback of users on rules, but also takes user-rule-device interactions and the match between rule device requirements and user device possessions into account. In collaboration with Samsung, one of the leading companies in this field, we have designed an IoT rule recommendation framework and evaluated our algorithm on a real-life industry dataset. Experiments show the effectiveness and efficiency of our method.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".