Towards maximizing the accuracy of human-labeled sensor data

International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Proceedings IUI

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 259-268

  Rosenthal, Stephanie L ^a   Dey, Anind K ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Active learning; Labeling sensor data

Indexed keywords

ACCURATE RESPONSE; ACTIVE LEARNING; DATA CLASSIFICATION; DATA FEATURE; HUMAN RESPONSE; INTERRUPTIBILITY; SENSOR DATA; USER FEEDBACK; WORK ACTIVITIES;

FORECASTING; LABELING; SENSORS; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

USER INTERFACES;

EID: 77951179502     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1719970.1720006     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Amazon.com Mechanical Turk - Artificial, Artificial Intelligence, https://www.mturk.com/mturk/, 2009
2. S. Antifakos, A. Schwaninger, and B. Schiele. Evaluating the Effects of Displaying Uncertainty in Context-aware Applications. Proc. UbiComp 2004, 54-69, 2004.
3. S. Banbury, et al. Being certain about uncertainty: How the Representation of System Reliability Affects Pilot Decision Making. Proc. HFES, Aerospace Systems, 36-39(4), 1998.
4. V. Bellotti and K. Edwards. Intelligibility and accountability: human considerations in context-aware systems. Human.- Computer Interaction 16(2), 193-212, 2001.
5. S. Carter, J. Mankoff. When participants do the capturing: the role of media in diary studies. Proc. CHI 2005, 899-908, 2005.
6. D. Cohn, L. Atlas and R. Ladner. Improving Generalization with Active Learning. Machine Learning. 0885-6125:15(2), 201-221, 1994.
7. S. Consolvo, et al. Activity Sensing in the Wild: a Field Trial of Ubifit Garden. Proc. CHI 2008, 1797-1806, 2008.
8. A. Culotta, T. Kristjansson, A. McCallum, P. Viola, Corrective Feedback and Persistent Learning for Information Extraction. Artificial Intelligence, 170(14-15), 1101-1122, 2006.
9. P. Donmez and J. G. Carbonell. Proactive learning: costsensitive active learning with multiple imperfect oracles. Proc of CIKM '08, 619-628, 2008.
10. T. Erickson and W. A. Kellogg. Social translucence: an approach to designing systems that support social processes. ACM ToCHI 7(1) 59-83, 2001.
11. A. Faulring, et al. Successful User Interfaces for RADAR. CHI 2008 Workshop on Usable Artificial Intelligence, 2008.
12. J. Fogarty, et. al. Predicting human interruptibility with sensors. ACM ToCHI 12(1), pp. 119-146, 2005.
13. R. Hoffmann, et al. Amplifying community content creation with mixed initiative information extraction. Proc. CHI '09, 1849-1858, 2009.
14. E. Horvitz. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. Proc. of CHI '99, 159-166, 1999.
15. E. Horvitz, P. Koch, J. Apacible. BusyBody: creating and fielding personalized models of the cost of interruption. Proc. CSCW 2004, 507-510, 2004.
16. J. Mankoff, G. Abowd, S.E. Hudson, OOPS: a toolkit supporting mediation techniques for resolving ambiguity in recognition-based interfaces. Computers & Graphics, 24(6), 819-834, 2000.
17. S. Mcnee, et al. Confidence Displays and Training in Recommender Systems. Proc. INTERACT, 176-183, 2003.
18. T. Mitchell. Machine Learning. McGraw Hill, 1997.
19. J. Pearson, J., et. al. Adaptive language behavior in HCI: how expectations and beliefs about a system affect users' word choice. Proc. CHI '06, 1177-1180, 2006.
20. H. Raghavan, O. Madani, R. Jones. Active Learning with Feedback on Features and Instances. Journal of Machine Learning Research 7, 1655-1686, 2006.
21. Y. Rui, et al. Relevance Feedback: a Power Tool for Interactive Content-based Image Retrieval. IEEE Trans. on Circuits/Systems for Video Technology, 8(5): 644-655, 1998. (Pubitemid 128743730)
22. G. Salton and C. Buckley. Improving Retrieval Performance by Relevance Feedback. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(4): 288-297, 1990.
23. T. Salvador and K. Anderson. Practical Considerations of Context for Context Based Systems: An Example from an Ethnographic Case Study of a Man Diagnosed with Early Onset Alzheimer's Disease. UbiComp 2003, 243-255, 2003.
24. C. Scaffidi. Topes: Enabling End-User Programmers to Validate and Reformat Data. Technical Report CMU-ISR-09-105, 2009.
25. N. Shadbolt, A. Burton. Knowledge Elicitation. Evaluation of Human Work: Practical Ergonomics Methods, 321-345, 1990.
26. M. Shilman, D. S. Tan, P. Simard, CueTIP: a mixed-initiative interface for correcting handwriting errors. Proc. UIST '06. 323-332, 2006.
27. A. Steinfeld, et al. The RADAR Test Methodology: Evaluating a Multi-Task Machine Learning System with Humans in the Loop. Technical Report CMU-CS-06-125, Carnegie Mellon University, 2006.
28. S. Stumpf, et al. Predicting User Tasks: I know What You're Doing. AAAI 2005 Workshop, 2005.
29. S. Stumpf, et al. Toward Harnessing User Feedback for Machine Learning. Proc. IUI 2007, 82 - 91, 2007.
30. L. von Ahn and L. Dabbish. Labeling Images with a Computer Game. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Proc. CHI 2004, 319-326, 2004.
31. L. von Ahn, et al. reCAPTCHA: Human-Based Character Recognition via Web Security Measures. Science, 1465-1468, 2008.