Computational Methodologies for Understanding, Automating, and Evaluating User Interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on the success of the first two workshops on user interfaces (UIs) at CHI 2022 and CHI 2023, this workshop aims to advance the research field by further exploring current research trends, such as applying large language models and visual language models. Previous work has explored computational approaches to understanding and adapting UIs using constraint-based optimization models and machine learning-based data-driven approaches. In addition to further delving into these established UI research areas, we aim to trigger the exploration into the application of the latest advancements in general-purpose large language and vision-language models within the UI domain. We will encourage participants to explore novel methods for understanding, automating, and evaluating UIs. The proposed workshop seeks to bring together academic researchers and industry practitioners interested in computational approaches for UIs to discuss the needs and opportunities for future user interface algorithms, models, and applications.
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 | 0.019 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".