MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396832321 · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642068

OmniActions: Predicting Digital Actions in Response to Real-World Multimodal Sensory Inputs with LLMs

2024· article· en· W4396832321 on OpenAlexaff
Jiahao Nick Li, Yan Xu, Tovi Grossman, Stephanie Santosa, M. Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPipeline (software)Context (archaeology)Action (physics)Multimodal interactionTask (project management)MultimodalityInteraction designMultimediaWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The progression to “Pervasive Augmented Reality” envisions easy access to multimodal information continuously. However, in many everyday scenarios, users are occupied physically, cognitively or socially. This may increase the friction to act upon the multimodal information that users encounter in the world. To reduce such friction, future interactive interfaces should intelligently provide quick access to digital actions based on users’ context. To explore the range of possible digital actions, we conducted a diary study that required participants to capture and share the media that they intended to perform actions on (e.g., images or audio), along with their desired actions and other contextual information. Using this data, we generated a holistic design space of digital follow-up actions that could be performed in response to different types of multimodal sensory inputs. We then designed OmniActions, a pipeline powered by large language models (LLMs) that processes multimodal sensory inputs and predicts follow-up actions on the target information grounded in the derived design space. Using the empirical data collected in the diary study, we performed quantitative evaluations on three variations of LLM techniques (intent classification, in-context learning and finetuning) and identified the most effective technique for our task. Additionally, as an instantiation of the pipeline, we developed an interactive prototype and reported preliminary user feedback about how people perceive and react to the action predictions and its errors.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207