Context-Aware Conversational Recommendation of Trigger-Action Rules in IoT Programming
Abstract
Trigger-action (TA) programming is a programming paradigm that allows end-users to automate and connect IoT devices and online services using if-trigger-then-action rules. Early studies have demonstrated this paradigms usability, but more recent work has also highlighted complexities that arise in realistic scenarios. To facilitate end-users in TA programming, we propose AutoTAR, a context-aware conversational recommendation technique for recommending TA rules. AutoTAR leverages a TA knowledge graph to encode semantic features and abstract functionalities of rules, and then takes a two-phase method to recommend TA rules to end-users: during the context-aware recommendation phase, it elicits user preferences from programming context and recommends the top-N rules using a mixed content and collaborative technique; during the conversational recommendation phase, it justifies recommendations by iteratively raising questions and collecting feedback from end-users.
We evaluate AutoTAR on Mturk and real data collected from the IFTTT community. The results show that our method outperforms state-of-the-arts significantly — its context-aware recommendation outperforms RecRules by 26% on R@5 and 21% on NDCG@5; its conversational recommendation outperforms LARecommender (a conversational recommender with the LA model) by 67.64% on accuracy. In addition, AutoTAR is effective in solving three problems frequently occurring in TA rule recommendations, i.e., the cold-start problem, the repeat-consumption problem, and the incomplete-intent problem.
References
- 1. InsiderIntelligence, Business insider: How IoT devices smart home automation is entering our homes in 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/iot-smart-home-automation. Google Scholar
- 2. , A review on intelligent process for smart home applications based on IoT: Coherent taxonomy, motivation, open challenges, and recommendations,” Artif. Intell. Rev. 53(1) (2020) 141–165. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
- 3. IFTTT, www.ifttt.com. Google Scholar
- 4. Microsoft-Power-Automate, www.docs.microsoft.com/en-us/power-automate. Google Scholar
- 5. Zapier, www.zapier.com. Google Scholar
- 6. Mozilla, www.iot.mozilla.org. Google Scholar
- 7. , Practical trigger-action programming in the smart home, in Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2014, pp. 803–812. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 8. , Trace2TAP: Synthesizing trigger-action programs from traces of behavior, in Proc. ACM Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2020, pp. 1–26. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 9. , IoT bugs and development challenges, in 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 2021, pp. 460–472. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 10. , Mashup recommendation for trigger action programming, in Int. Conf. Web Engineering, 2018, pp. 177–184. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 11. , “RecRules: Recommending if-then rules for end-user development, ACM Trans.Intell. Syst. Technol. 10(5) (2019) 1–27. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
- 12. , TAPrec: supporting the composition of trigger-action rules through dynamic recommendations, in Proc. 25th Int. Conf. Intelligent User Interfaces, 2020, pp. 579–588. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 13. , Latent attention for if-then program synthesis, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2016, pp. 4574–4582. Google Scholar
- 14. D. Dalal and B. V. Galbraith, Evaluating sequence-to-sequence learning models for if-then program synthesis, arXiv:2002.03485. Google Scholar
- 15. , Language to code: Learning semantic parsers for if-this-then-that recipes, in Proc. 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 7th Int. Joint Conf. Natural Language Processing, 2015, pp. 878–888. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 16. , HeyTAP: Bridging the gaps between users’ needs and technology in if-then rules via conversation, in Proc. Int. Conf.Advanced Visual Interfaces, 2020, pp. 1–9. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 17. , A high-level semantic approach to end-user development in the internet of things, Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 125 (2019) 41–54. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
- 18. , How users interpret bugs in trigger-action programming, in Proc. 2019 CHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2019, pp. 1–12. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 19. , Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification, in Proc. 2014 Conf. Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing,
Association for Computational Linguistics , 2014, pp. 1746–1751. Crossref, Google Scholar - 20. , Using a deep learning model, content features, and author metadata to recommend research papers, in 21st Int. Conf. Information Reuse and Integration for Data Science, 2020, pp. 265–270. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 21. , Recommendation for repeat consumption from user implicit feedback, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 28(11) (2016) 3083–3097, 2016. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
- 22. , Learning to rank for information retrieval, Found. Trends Inf. Retr. 3 (2009) 225–331. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 23. , One-class collaborative filtering, in 2008 Eighth IEEE Int.Conf. Data Mining, 2008, pp. 502–511. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 24. , An empirical study of learning to rank techniques for effort-aware defect prediction, in 2019 IEEE 26th Int. Conf. Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, 2019, pp. 298–309. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 25. , Towards question-based recommender systems, in Proc. 43rd Int. ACM SIGIR Conf. Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2020, pp. 881–890. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 26. SPARQL, https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-overview-20130321/. Google Scholar
- 27. , Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender algorithms: A survey, IEEE Access 6 (2018) 74003–74024. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
- 28. , Advanced Data Mining Techniques (Springer, 2008). Google Scholar
- 29. , IR evaluation methods for retrieving highly relevant documents, in ACM SIGIR Forum, 2017, pp. 243–250. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 30. DBpedia, https://www.dbpedia.org. Google Scholar
- 31. OpenCyc, https://github.com/asanchez75/opencyc. Google Scholar
- 32. Wikidata, https://Wikidata.org. Google Scholar
- 33. YAGO, https://yago-knowledge.org. Google Scholar
- 34. , Hybrid recommender systems: A systematic literature review, Intell. Data Anal. 21(6) (2017) 1487–1524. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
- 35. , PathSim: Meta path-based top-k similarity search in heterogeneous information networks, Proc. VLDB Endow. 4(11) (2011) 992–1003. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 36. , Collaborative filtering with entity similarity regularization in heterogeneous information networks, in Proc. IJCAI-13 HINA Workshop (IJCAI-HINA’13),
Beijing, China , 2013, pp. 1–6. Google Scholar - 37. , Personalized entity recommendation: A heterogeneous information network approach, in Proc. 7th ACM Int. Conf. Web Search and Data Mining, 2014, pp. 283–292. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 38. , DKN: Deep knowledge-aware network for news recommendation, in Proc. World Wide Web Conf., 2018, pp. 1835–1844. Google Scholar
- 39. , Location embeddings for next trip recommendation, in Companion Proc. 2019 World Wide Web Conf., 2019, pp. 896–903. Crossref, Google Scholar
- 40. , Recommendations for creating trigger-action rules in a block-based environment, Behav. Inf. Technol. 40(10) (2021) 1–11. Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
- 41. , Learning to recommend trigger-action rules for end-user development, in Int. Conf. Software and Software Reuse, 2020, pp. 190–207. Crossref, Google Scholar
| Remember to check out the Most Cited Articles! |
|---|
|
Check out our titles in C++ Programming! |
