An Empirical Approach to Modeling User-System Interaction Conflicts in Smart Homes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conflict is one of the important factors affecting user satisfaction and trust in smart environments, yet conflict modeling in mixed initiative smart environments has not been sufficiently explored. Most of the existing literature on conflict in smart homes are centered on conflicts between users. Although research has shown that about 75% of conflicts are between users and system [1], only a few studies have considered user-system conflicts in smart homes. The aim of this article is to empirically propose both a definition and a run-time detection method for conflicts between users and smart home systems. Our empirical study is based on conflict sample scenarios collected from 163 users. Using clustering on these scenarios, we form an empirical definition of user-system conflict in smart homes. We also propose two functions that characterize each class of the collected scenarios, and we detect conflicts from this characterization. Our conflict detection model could help users achieve a more satisfactory experience in smart homes. Moreover, the model can offer benefits for system developers to design and deploy more reliable smart homes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it