A Machine Learning Approach for Automated Filling of Categorical Fields in Data Entry Forms
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
Users frequently interact with software systems through data entry forms. However, form filling is time-consuming and error-prone. Although several techniques have been proposed to auto-complete or pre-fill fields in the forms, they provide limited support to help users fill categorical fields, i.e., fields that require users to choose the right value among a large set of options. In this article, we propose LAFF, a learning-based automated approach for filling categorical fields in data entry forms. LAFF first builds Bayesian Network models by learning field dependencies from a set of historical input instances, representing the values of the fields that have been filled in the past. To improve its learning ability, LAFF uses local modeling to effectively mine the local dependencies of fields in a cluster of input instances. During the form filling phase, LAFF uses such models to predict possible values of a target field, based on the values in the already-filled fields of the form and their dependencies; the predicted values (endorsed based on field dependencies and prediction confidence) are then provided to the end-user as a list of suggestions. We evaluated LAFF by assessing its effectiveness and efficiency in form filling on two datasets, one of them proprietary from the banking domain. Experimental results show that LAFF is able to provide accurate suggestions with a Mean Reciprocal Rank value above 0.73. Furthermore, LAFF is efficient, requiring at most 317 ms per suggestion.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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