pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23085 · v1 · pith:TXIVNADJnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 💻 cs.HC

Remind Me To Check The Stove Before I Leave The House: Authoring Personalized Context-Aware Smart Home Reminders Using Everyday Language

Reina Szeyi Chan , Sujendra Jayant Gharat , Maya Lampi , Yueran Jia , Avi K Srinivasan , Xiang Zhi Tan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 05:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords smart home remindersnatural language authoringcontext-aware systemsconversational interfacesuser studiesexecutable logicsensor-based conditionsactivity-based triggers
0
0 comments X

The pith

A pipeline translates everyday language into executable logic for context-aware smart home reminders with time, activity, sensor, and state conditions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper describes a system pipeline that accepts natural language requests and converts them into structured representations and executable reminder logic. The logic can combine time-based, activity-based, sensor-based, and state-based conditions to trigger reminders in smart homes. Two user studies examine how people express reminder intent and test whether conversational guidance improves the authoring process. A sympathetic reader would care because existing reminder systems are limited to fixed schedules or simple triggers and cannot easily use the rich sensing available in modern homes.

Core claim

The paper claims that a pipeline supporting natural language and conversational interaction translates user requests into structured representations and executable logic incorporating time-based, activity-based, sensor-based, and state-based conditions, and that conversational guidance helps users structure diverse and ambiguous expressions into flexible reminders, as shown by analysis of 233 reminders from 40 participants and evaluation with 10 participants.

What carries the argument

The system pipeline that translates user requests into structured representations and executable logic for reminders.

If this is right

  • Users can author reminders that combine multiple condition types without writing code or complex rules.
  • Conversational guidance structures user expressions into executable logic more effectively than direct input alone.
  • Analysis of user-authored reminders reveals common challenges in expressing complex logic such as time, activity, sensors, and states.
  • The approach supports personalized reminders that leverage smart home sensing beyond fixed schedules or location triggers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mapping step succeeds at scale, it could allow non-technical users to create reminders that adapt to daily routines and sensor data.
  • Errors in logic translation could lead to reminders that fail to trigger or trigger at wrong times in real homes.
  • The method might extend to other smart home tasks such as automation rules or alerts if the same translation pipeline is reused.
  • Voice-based interaction could make the system more usable for users who prefer speaking over typing.

Load-bearing premise

The natural language understanding component can reliably map diverse and ambiguous user expressions to correct executable logic without introducing errors that invalidate the reminders.

What would settle it

A controlled test in which participants give ambiguous natural language requests for reminders and the generated logic is checked against actual sensor traces to measure the rate of incorrect triggers or missed conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23085 by Avi K Srinivasan, Maya Lampi, Reina Szeyi Chan, Sujendra Jayant Gharat, Xiang Zhi Tan, Yueran Jia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The users can create reminders using natural language through a chat interface. These reminders are then [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An overview of the reminders authoring pipeline for the reminder triggers used in Study 1. This is where user input, intent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example of the chat-based reminder authoring interface used by participants during the study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Study 1 results overview. Sankey diagram illustrating the distribution of results across categories. Reminders are first grouped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the number of conversation turns per interaction across scenarios in Study 1 (left) and Study 2 (right). A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of the updated reminder authoring pipeline used in Study 2. Components that were revised from Study 1 are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Study 2 results overview. Sankey diagram illustrating the distribution of results across categories. The diagram follows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of reminder authoring interactions in Scenario 3 between Study 1 (left) and Study 2 (right). In Study 1, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Reminder systems commonly rely on fixed schedules, location triggers, or simple rules, limiting their ability to leverage the rich sensing capabilities of modern smart homes. A key challenge lies in enabling users to specify context-aware reminders without requiring complex configurations. We present a system pipeline that supports reminder authoring through natural language and conversational interaction. The pipeline translates user requests into structured representations and executable logic, incorporating time-based, activity-based, sensor-based, and state-based conditions. We conducted two studies to examine how users express reminder intent and how conversational support influences the authoring process. In Study 1 (N=40), we analyzed 233 user-authored reminders and identified challenges in expressing reminders with diverse and complex logic. Based on these findings, we refined the system and evaluated it in Study 2 (N=10), demonstrating improved handling of time-based, activity-based, sensor-based, and state-based conditions. Our results highlight the diversity and ambiguity of user expressions and show that conversational guidance can help structure these expressions into flexible, context-aware reminders.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents a pipeline for authoring context-aware smart home reminders via natural language and conversational interaction. User requests are translated into structured representations and executable logic that incorporate time-based, activity-based, sensor-based, and state-based conditions. Study 1 (N=40) analyzes 233 user-authored reminders to identify challenges in expressing complex logic; Study 2 (N=10) evaluates a refined system and reports improved handling of the four condition types.

Significance. If the translation step is shown to be reliable, the work would offer a practical advance in making rich smart-home sensing usable for everyday reminders without manual rule configuration. The empirical catalog of expression challenges and the demonstrated value of conversational scaffolding would be useful contributions to HCI and IoT interface design.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Study descriptions] Abstract and Study 1/Study 2 descriptions: the central claim that the pipeline 'translates user requests into ... executable logic' and that conversational guidance produces 'flexible, context-aware reminders' rests on an untested assumption. No quantitative metrics (error rates, precision/recall of logic generation, inter-rater agreement between generated logic and original user intent, or counts of invalid reminders) are reported for either study, leaving the reliability of the NL-to-logic mapping unverified.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Study 2] The N=10 sample in Study 2 is small even for a qualitative evaluation; the manuscript should explicitly discuss this limitation and any steps taken to mitigate it.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback highlighting the need for quantitative validation of the NL-to-logic translation. We address this point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Study descriptions] Abstract and Study 1/Study 2 descriptions: the central claim that the pipeline 'translates user requests into ... executable logic' and that conversational guidance produces 'flexible, context-aware reminders' rests on an untested assumption. No quantitative metrics (error rates, precision/recall of logic generation, inter-rater agreement between generated logic and original user intent, or counts of invalid reminders) are reported for either study, leaving the reliability of the NL-to-logic mapping unverified.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript lacks quantitative metrics (e.g., error rates, precision/recall, inter-rater agreement, or counts of invalid translations) to directly verify the reliability of the NL-to-logic mapping. Study 1 focused on cataloging expression challenges across 233 user-authored reminders, while Study 2 assessed the effect of conversational scaffolding on authoring outcomes; neither included a formal accuracy evaluation of the translation step itself. This is a substantive gap in supporting the central claims. In revision we will add a quantitative analysis of translation fidelity, such as inter-rater agreement between generated logic and original intent plus counts of reminders requiring manual correction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical system description with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper describes a natural-language-to-logic pipeline for smart-home reminders and reports two user studies on expression challenges and conversational authoring. No equations, parameters, or first-principles derivations appear; the central claims rest on observed user behavior and qualitative system refinement rather than any self-referential mapping or self-citation chain. The translation step is presented as an implemented component whose reliability is left as an empirical question for future measurement, not asserted by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no information on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5741 in / 954 out tokens · 47708 ms · 2026-05-25T05:01:34.754841+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Home Assistant

    2025. Home Assistant. https://www.home-assistant.io/. Accessed: 2025-10-30

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    2025. IFTTT. https://ifttt.com/. Accessed: 2025-10-30

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Microsoft Power Automate: Intelligent Robotic Process Automation

    2025. Microsoft Power Automate: Intelligent Robotic Process Automation. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/power-platform/products/power- automate. Accessed: 2025-10-30

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    zapier: Automate AI Workflows, Agents, and Apps

    2025. zapier: Automate AI Workflows, Agents, and Apps. https://zapier.com/. Accessed: 2025-10-30

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Elkobaisi, and Kyandoghere Kyamakya

    Fadi Al Machot, Mohammed R. Elkobaisi, and Kyandoghere Kyamakya. 2020. Zero-shot human activity recognition using non-visual sensors. Sensors20, 3 (2020), 825

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Sheik Murad Hassan Anik, Xinghua Gao, Hao Zhong, Xiaoyin Wang, and Na Meng. 2025. Programming of automation configuration in smart home systems: Challenges and opportunities.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology(2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Aaron Bangor, Philip T Kortum, and James T Miller. 2008. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale.Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction24, 6 (2008), 574–594

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Damien Bouchabou, Juliette Grosset, Sao Mai Nguyen, Christophe Lohr, and Xavier Puig. 2023. A smart home digital twin to support the recognition of activities of daily living.Sensors23, 17 (2023), 7586

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Will Brackenbury, Abhimanyu Deora, Jillian Ritchey, Jason Vallee, Weijia He, Guan Wang, Michael L Littman, and Blase Ur. 2019. How users interpret bugs in trigger-action programming. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Robin N Brewer, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Siân E Lindley. 2017. How to remember what to remember: exploring possibilities for digital reminder systems.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies1, 3 (2017), 1–20

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Julia Brich, Marcel Walch, Michael Rietzler, Michael Weber, and Florian Schaub. 2017. Exploring end user programming needs in home automation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)24, 2 (2017), 1–35

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    John Brooke et al. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale.Usability evaluation in industry189, 194 (1996), 4–7

    work page 1996

  13. [13]

    Hapugahage Thilak Chaminda, Vitaly Klyuev, and Keitaro Naruse. 2012. A smart reminder system for complex human activities. In2012 14th international conference on advanced communication technology (ICACT). IEEE, 235–240

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    Szeyi Chan, Jiachen Li, Siman Ao, Yufei Wang, Ibrahim Bilau, Brian D Jones, Eunhwa Yang, Elizabeth D Mynatt, and Xiang Zhi Tan. 2025. Insights from Designing Context-Aware Meal Preparation Assistance for Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Their Care Partners. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. 3263–3279

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Haotian Chi, Chenglong Fu, Qiang Zeng, and Xiaojiang Du. 2022. Delay wreaks havoc on your smart home: Delay-based automation interference attacks. In2022 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP). IEEE, 285–302

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Meghan Clark, Prabal Dutta, and Mark W Newman. 2016. Towards a natural language programming interface for smart homes. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct. 49–52

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Diane J Cook, Aaron S Crandall, Brian L Thomas, and Narayanan C Krishnan. 2012. CASAS: A smart home in a box.Computer46, 7 (2012), 62–69

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    Fulvio Corno, Luigi De Russis, and Alberto Monge Roffarello. 2020. HeyTAP: Bridging the gaps between users’ needs and technology in IF-THEN rules via conversation. InProceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. 1–9

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Anind K Dey and Gregory D Abowd. 2000. Cybreminder: A context-aware system for supporting reminders. InInternational Symposium on Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing. Springer, 172–186

    work page 2000

  20. [20]

    Fiona Draxler, Julia Maria Brenner, Manuela Eska, Albrecht Schmidt, and Lewis L Chuang. 2022. Agenda-and activity-based triggers for microlearning. InProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 620–632

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Simone Gallo, Alessio Malizia, Fabio Paternò, et al. 2023. Towards a Chatbot for Creating Trigger-Action Rules based on ChatGPT and Rasa.. In IS-EUD Workshops

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Radhika Garg and Christopher Moreno. 2019. Understanding motivators, constraints, and practices of sharing internet of things.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies3, 2 (2019), 1–21

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Giuseppe Ghiani, Marco Manca, Fabio Paternò, and Carmen Santoro. 2017. Personalization of context-dependent applications through trigger-action rules.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)24, 2 (2017), 1–33

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Sam J Gilbert, Arabella Bird, Jason M Carpenter, Stephen M Fleming, Chhavi Sachdeva, and Pei-Chun Tsai. 2020. Optimal use of reminders: Metacognition, effort, and cognitive offloading.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General149, 3 (2020), 501

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    David Graus, Paul N Bennett, Ryen W White, and Eric Horvitz. 2016. Analyzing and predicting task reminders. InProceedings of the 2016 Conference on User Modeling Adaptation and Personalization. 7–15. Manuscript submitted to ACM 28 Chan et al

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Ipek Gurol-Urganci, Thyra de Jongh, Vlasta Vodopivec-Jamsek, Rifat Atun, and Josip Car. 2013. Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments.Cochrane database of systematic reviews12 (2013)

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    Jason L Hicks, Richard L Marsh, and Gabriel I Cook. 2005. Task interference in time-based, event-based, and dual intention prospective memory conditions.Journal of Memory and Language53, 3 (2005), 430–444

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    Alexis Hiniker, Sungsoo Hong, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Julie A Kientz. 2016. MyTime: designing and evaluating an intervention for smartphone non-use. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 4746–4757

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Joyce Ho and Stephen S Intille. 2005. Using context-aware computing to reduce the perceived burden of interruptions from mobile devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 909–918

    work page 2005

  30. [30]

    Hsiu-Fang Hsieh and Sarah E Shannon. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.Qualitative health research15, 9 (2005), 1277–1288

    work page 2005

  31. [31]

    Justin Huang and Maya Cakmak. 2015. Supporting mental model accuracy in trigger-action programming. InProceedings of the 2015 acm international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. 215–225

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Anish Jindal, Bharat Singh Bhambhu, Mukesh Singh, Neeraj Kumar, and Kshirasagar Naik. 2019. A heuristic-based appliance scheduling scheme for smart homes.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics16, 5 (2019), 3242–3255

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Evan King, Haoxiang Yu, Sangsu Lee, and Christine Julien. 2024. Sasha: creative goal-oriented reasoning in smart homes with large language models. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies8, 1 (2024), 1–38

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Minsam Ko, Seungwoo Choi, Koji Yatani, and Uichin Lee. 2016. Lock n’LoL: group-based limiting assistance app to mitigate smartphone distractions in group activities. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 998–1010

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    Matthew Lariviere, Fiona Poland, John Woolham, Stanton Newman, and Chris Fox. 2021. Placing assistive technology and telecare in everyday practices of people with dementia and their caregivers: findings from an embedded ethnography of a national dementia trial.BMC geriatrics21, 1 (2021), 121

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Xiaoyi Liu, Yingtian Shi, Chun Yu, Cheng Gao, Tianao Yang, Chen Liang, and Yuanchun Shi. 2023. Understanding in-situ programming for smart home automation.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies7, 2 (2023), 1–31

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    Pamela J Ludford, Dan Frankowski, Ken Reily, Kurt Wilms, and Loren Terveen. 2006. Because I carry my cell phone anyway: functional location-based reminder applications. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. 889–898

    work page 2006

  38. [38]

    Niharika Mathur, Kunal Dhodapkar, Tamara Zubatiy, Jiachen Li, Brian Jones, and Elizabeth Mynatt. 2022. A collaborative approach to support medication management in older adults with mild cognitive impairment using conversational assistants (CAs). InProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–14

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Philipp Mayring. 2021. Qualitative content analysis: A step-by-step guide. (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    McKenna McCall, Eric Zeng, Faysal Hossain Shezan, Mitchell Yang, Lujo Bauer, Abhishek Bichhawat, Camille Cobb, Limin Jia, and Yuan Tian. 2023. Towards Usable Security Analysis Tools for {Trigger-Action} Programming. InNineteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2023). 301–320

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Sarah Mennicken, Jo Vermeulen, and Elaine M Huang. 2014. From today’s augmented houses to tomorrow’s smart homes: new directions for home automation research. InProceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing. 105–115

    work page 2014

  42. [42]

    Xianghang Mi, Feng Qian, Ying Zhang, and XiaoFeng Wang. 2017. An empirical characterization of IFTTT: ecosystem, usage, and performance. In Proceedings of the 2017 internet measurement conference. 398–404

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    Bryan David Minor, Janardhan Rao Doppa, and Diane J Cook. 2017. Learning activity predictors from sensor data: Algorithms, evaluation, and applications.IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering29, 12 (2017), 2744–2757

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Alessandro A Nacci, Vincenzo Rana, Bharathan Balaji, Paola Spoletini, Rajesh Gupta, Donatella Sciuto, and Yuvraj Agarwal. 2018. BuildingRules: A Trigger-Action–Based System to Manage Complex Commercial Buildings.ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems2, 2 (2018), 1–22

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Inbal Nahum-Shani, Shawna N Smith, Bonnie J Spring, Linda M Collins, Katie Witkiewitz, Ambuj Tewari, and Susan A Murphy. 2016. Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support.Annals of behavioral medicine(2016), 1–17

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    Chandrakana Nandi and Michael D Ernst. 2016. Automatic trigger generation for rule-based smart homes. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM Workshop on Programming Languages and Analysis for Security. 97–102

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    Fabian Okeke, Michael Sobolev, Nicola Dell, and Deborah Estrin. 2018. Good vibrations: can a digital nudge reduce digital overload?. InProceedings of the 20th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services. 1–12

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Alisha Pradhan, Amanda Lazar, and Leah Findlater. 2020. Use of intelligent voice assistants by older adults with low technology use.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)27, 4 (2020), 1–27

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Nisha Raghunath, Jessamyn Dahmen, Katelyn Brown, Diane Cook, and Maureen Schmitter-Edgecombe. 2020. Creating a digital memory notebook application for individuals with mild cognitive impairment to support everyday functioning.Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology (2020)

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Laura Ramos, Elise Van Den Hoven, and Laurie Miller. 2016. Designing for the Other’Hereafter’ When Older Adults Remember about Forgetting. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 721–732

    work page 2016

  51. [51]

    Evan F Risko and Sam J Gilbert. 2016. Cognitive offloading.Trends in cognitive sciences20, 9 (2016), 676–688

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    Mahadev Satyanarayanan. 2002. Pervasive computing: Vision and challenges.IEEE Personal communications8, 4 (2002), 10–17

    work page 2002

  53. [53]

    2016.Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research

    Jeff Sauro and James R Lewis. 2016.Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research. Morgan Kaufmann. Manuscript submitted to ACM Authoring Personalized Context-Aware Smart Home Reminders Using Everyday Language 29

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Marcia Y Shade, Kyle Rector, Rasila Soumana, and Kevin Kupzyk. 2020. Voice assistant reminders for pain self-management tasks in aging adults. Journal of gerontological nursing46, 10 (2020), 27–33

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Rebekah E Smith, Ute J Bayen, and Claudia Martin. 2010. The cognitive processes underlying event-based prospective memory in school-age children and young adults: a formal model-based study.Developmental Psychology46, 1 (2010), 230

    work page 2010

  56. [56]

    Timothy Sohn, Kevin A Li, Gunny Lee, Ian Smith, James Scott, and William G Griswold. 2005. Place-its: A study of location-based reminders on mobile phones. InInternational Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. Springer, 232–250

    work page 2005

  57. [57]

    Yunpeng Song, Yiheng Bian, Xiaorui Wang, and Zhongmin Cai. 2024. Learning from User-driven Events to Generate Automation Sequences. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies7, 4 (2024), 1–22

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    Katarzyna Stawarz, Anna L Cox, and Ann Blandford. 2014. Don’t forget your pill! Designing effective medication reminder apps that support users’ daily routines. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2269–2278

    work page 2014

  59. [59]

    Katarzyna Stawarz, Anna L Cox, and Ann Blandford. 2015. Beyond self-tracking and reminders: designing smartphone apps that support habit formation. InProceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. 2653–2662

    work page 2015

  60. [60]

    Katarzyna Stawarz, Marcela D Rodríguez, Anna L Cox, and Ann Blandford. 2016. Understanding the use of contextual cues: design implications for medication adherence technologies that support remembering.Digital health2 (2016), 2055207616678707

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    Kelsey R Thomas and Michael Marsiske. 2014. Verbal prompting to improve everyday cognition in MCI and unimpaired older adults.Neuropsychology 28, 1 (2014), 123

    work page 2014

  62. [62]

    Megha Thukral, Sourish Gunesh Dhekane, Shruthi K Hiremath, Harish Haresamudram, and Thomas Ploetz. 2025. Layout-agnostic human activity recognition in smart homes through textual descriptions of sensor triggers (tdost).Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies9, 1 (2025), 1–38

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Blase Ur, Elyse McManus, Melwyn Pak Yong Ho, and Michael L Littman. 2014. Practical trigger-action programming in the smart home. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 803–812

    work page 2014

  64. [64]

    Blase Ur, Melwyn Pak Yong Ho, Stephen Brawner, Jiyun Lee, Sarah Mennicken, Noah Picard, Diane Schulze, and Michael L Littman. 2016. Trigger- action programming in the wild: An analysis of 200,000 ifttt recipes. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3227–3231

    work page 2016

  65. [65]

    Anna Vettoruzzo, Mohamed-Rafik Bouguelia, and Thorsteinn Rögnvaldsson. 2025. Efficient few-shot human activity recognition via meta-learning and data augmentation.Neural Computing and Applications(2025), 1–17

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    Charlie Wilson, Tom Hargreaves, and Richard Hauxwell-Baldwin. 2017. Benefits and risks of smart home technologies.Energy policy103 (2017), 72–83

    work page 2017

  67. [67]

    Imam Nur Bani Yusuf, Lingxiao Jiang, and David Lo. 2022. Accurate generation of trigger-action programs with domain-adapted sequence-to-sequence learning. InProceedings of the 30th IEEE/ACM international conference on program comprehension. 99–110

    work page 2022

  68. [68]

    Eric Zeng, Shrirang Mare, and Franziska Roesner. 2017. End user security and privacy concerns with smart homes. Inthirteenth symposium on usable privacy and security (SOUPS 2017). 65–80

    work page 2017

  69. [69]

    Lefan Zhang, Weijia He, Jesse Martinez, Noah Brackenbury, Shan Lu, and Blase Ur. 2019. AutoTap: Synthesizing and repairing trigger-action programs using LTL properties. In2019 IEEE/ACM 41st international conference on software engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 281–291

    work page 2019

  70. [70]

    Lefan Zhang, Weijia He, Olivia Morkved, Valerie Zhao, Michael L Littman, Shan Lu, and Blase Ur. 2020. Trace2tap: Synthesizing trigger-action programs from traces of behavior.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies4, 3 (2020), 1–26. Manuscript submitted to ACM

    work page 2020