Computational Approaches for Understanding, Generating, and Adapting User Interfaces
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
Computational approaches for user interfaces have been used in adapting interfaces for different modalities, usage scenarios and device form factors, understanding screen semantics for accessibility, task-automation, information extraction, and in assisting interface design. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) have drawn considerable attention across HCI and related fields such as computer vision and natural language processing, leading to new ML-based user interface approaches. Similarly, significant progress has been made with more traditional optimization- and planning-based approaches to accommodate the need for adapting UIs for screens with different sizes, orientations and aspect ratios, and in emerging domains such as VR/AR and 3D interfaces. The proposed workshop seeks to bring together researchers interested in all kinds of computational approaches for user interfaces across different sectors as a community, including those who develop algorithms and models and those who build applications, to discuss common issues including the need for resources, opportunities for new applications, design implications for human-AI interaction in this domain, and practical challenges such as user privacy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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