Using salience to segment desktop activity into projects

ABSTRACT

Knowledge workers must manage large numbers of simultaneous, ongoing projects that collectively involve huge numbers of resources (documents, emails, web pages, calendar items, etc). An activity database that captures the relationships among projects, resources, and time can drive a variety of tools that save time and increase productivity. To maximize net time savings, we would prefer to build such a database automatically, or with as little user effort as possible. In this paper, we present several sets of features and algorithms for predicting the project associated with each action a user performs on the desktop. Key to our methods is salience, the notion that more recent activity is more informative. By developing novel features that represent salience, we were able to learn models that outperform both a simple benchmark and an expert system tuned specifically for this task on real-world data from five users.

REFERENCES

• 1: W. Cohen, V. Carvalho, and T. Mitchell. Learning to classify email into speech acts. In Proc. Conf. Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Barcelona, 2004.
• 2: Koby Crammer , Ofer Dekel , Joseph Keshet , Shai Shalev-Shwartz , Yoram Singer, Online Passive-Aggressive Algorithms, The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7, p.551-585, 12/1/2006
• 3: Anton N. Dragunov , Thomas G. Dietterich , Kevin Johnsrude , Matthew McLaughlin , Lida Li , Jonathan L. Herlocker, TaskTracer: a desktop environment to support multi-tasking knowledge workers, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, January 10-13, 2005, San Diego, California, USA [doi>10.1145/1040830.1040855]
• 4: M. Dredze and H. Wallach. User models for email activity management. In Workshop on Ubiquitous User Modeling, Int. Conf. Intelligent User Interfaces, 2008.
• 5: Y. Huang, D. Govindaraju, T. Mitchell, V. Carvalho, and W. Cohen. Inferring ongoing activities of workstation users by clustering email. In Proc. Conf. Email and Anti-Spam, Mountain View, CA, 2004.
• 6: T. Joachims. Making large-scale SVM learning practical, chapter 11. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
• 7: T. Joachims. Learning to align sequences: A maximum-margin approach. Technical report, Cornell University, 2003.
• 8: R. Khoussainov and N. Kushmerick. Email task management: An iterative relational learning approach. In Proc. Conf. Email and Anti-Spam, 2005.
• 9: Nicholas Kushmerick , Tessa Lau, Automated email activity management: an unsupervised learning approach, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, January 10-13, 2005, San Diego, California, USA [doi>10.1145/1040830.1040854]
• 10: D. C. Liu , J. Nocedal, On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization, Mathematical Programming: Series A and B, v.45 n.3, p.503-528, Dec. 1989 [doi>10.1007/BF01589116]
• 11: A. Mccallum. A comparison of event models for Naive Bayes text classification. In In AAAI-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization, pages 41--48. AAAI Press, 1998.
• 12: Jianqiang Shen , Lida Li , Thomas G. Dietterich , Jonathan L. Herlocker, A hybrid learning system for recognizing user tasks from desktop activities and email messages, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, January 29-February 01, 2006, Sydney, Australia [doi>10.1145/1111449.1111473]
• 13: Vladimir N. Vapnik, The nature of statistical learning theory, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, 1995

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)

General Terms:
Algorithms

Keywords:
activity recognition, information workers, interruption recovery, logistic regression, machine learning, time tracking