1. Matching SmartHouse Technology to Needs of the Disabled and Elderly Genevieve Davies, Nirmalie Wiratunga, Bruce Taylor and Susan Craw THE ROBERT GORDON UNIVERSITY ABERDEEN School of Computing Scott Sutherland School

2. Overview SmartHouse Technology Case Representation Iterative Retrieval Evaluation

3. SmartHouse Technology Humidity sensor Light IR Pressure Mat Remote Control Wall Switch Thermostat Switch Water Level Windows Open Window Sensor Access Ramp Basin Bath Blinds Clock Display Timer Community Alarm Cooker Curtains Dishwasher Extractor Fan Fridge Freezer Light Medication Dispenser Microwave Oven PC Entry Phone Radiator Sink Telephone Stereo TV Washing Machine WC

4. SmartHouse Textual Cases... Ms M is an indoor wheelchair user with cerebral palsy. She is a tenant in her own ground-floor flat, and whilst living moderately independently, did have support from care workers to assist her in getting dressed and bathed... She required an intercom that was both hands free and with video so that she could operate it from her wheel chair... also electrically operated locks were fitted on her external door... wheel-chair- indoor wheel-chair- outdoor house-typecare-staffable-into- bath Yesunknownground- floor-flat Yeswith-help Electrically-operated- locks-external-door Intercom-front-door YesVideo-hands-free

5. Case Representation Problem space: person description FieldBusArchitecture (1) Solution space: SmartHouse Devices

6. Retrieval With a DT Index Case Base C4.5 Decision Tree Index k-Nearest Neighbour Similarity Matching progress of retrieval Vote Tcl adaptation rules witch $idx { 0 {ProcBathroomAdapt()} 1 {ProcControllerAdapt()} 2 {ProcCookerDetectorAdapt()} 3 {ProcDoorAdapt()} Tcl iterative retrieval for {set i 0} {$i < $Counter} {incr i} { ProcMultipleConcepts() $i ProcRetrieveCases() $i ProcRetrieveAttributes() $i ProcWeightedAttributes() $i ProcAskUser() $i }... Set concept

7. Retrieval Example Insufficient cases for one shot retrieval Deal with each device separately Y (1 case, 50%), N (1 case, 50%)

8. Task Decomposition FieldBusArchitecture (1) Solution space: SmartHouse Devices 1 2 3 44

9. Generalised Concept CookerRelated Devices CaseX: ValueCaseY: Value auto-cooker-shut-off{gas, heat, timer}N detectors-over-cooker{gas, heat, smoke}unknown alarm-for-carersNN cooker-isolation-alarmNN fire-alarmYN gas-alarmYN FNeededNot-Needed Summarise each device group / sub-task Create index tree for each sub-task

10. Iterative Retrieval P = probe case CB = case base device-groups = 14 FOREACH sub-task {1 TO device-groups} concept <= generalised-concept (sub-task) tree <= build-tree (concept, CB) neighbours <= traverse (tree, P) k-sim-cases <= kNN (neighbours, P, sim-metric) sub-solution <= majority-solution (k-sim-cases) END FOREACH

11. Evaluation Leave-one-out testing –23 cases (11 + 12 provided by domain expert) –real case used separately as probe to system –22 cases in case base User Testing –cases created by expert –A and B fewer device requirements –C more challenging Retrieval Strategies –Single, one-shot –Multiple, iterative

12. Quality of System Solution Doors Device Group SolutionCategories SystemExpertTPTNFPFN alarm-when-openNo 0100 contacts-on-external-doorsYesNo0010 contacts-on-bedroom-doorNo 0100 contacts-on-bathroom-doorNo 0100 contacts-on-kitchen-doorNo 0100 intercom-to-front-doorAudioVideo-HF0010 powered-external-doorsYes 1000 electric-locks-external-doorsNoYes0001 Overlap Sim = (TP+TN)/(TP+TN+FP+FN) Recall (R)=TP/ (TP+FN) Precision (P)= TP / (TP+FP) Fmeasure (F)= 2PR/(P+R)

13. Leave-One-Out Testing Multiple –improvement in 8 of the 14 device groups –overall solution quality Sim 0.91% F 0.64% Interesting alternatives suggested –flood detectors vs. push-to-operate –pendant activated community alarm vs. pager Overly expensive suggestions –environment and lighting controllers –person with some mobility problems

14. Device Group No Of Devices SingleMultiple SimF F Bathroom20.850 0 Controllers2110.90.67 Cooker Detectors60.830 0 Doors80.850.570.890.71 Hearing Aids30.930.811 Movement Detectors50.860.460.860.46 Phone Related30.730.420.80.7 Remote Alarms10.90.80.90.67 Security20.85011 Taps20.9011 Technology Architecture10.9011 Visual Aids30.90 0 Water Detectors50.98011 Windows10.60.330.80.67 Overall Average 0.860.310.910.63

15. User Testing Patient A and B –2 out of 3 devices suggested for A –failure with controllers due to sparse case base –all 5 devices identified for B –decreased solution quality with increased neighbourhood –but Single achieves similar results Patient C more challenging –7 of the 9 devices identified by Multiple, compared to 2 –Multiple reused solutions from 9 different cases –R drops from 0.64 to 0.18 with Single

16. Conclusions Task decomposition is easy when there are fewer interactions between sub-tasks. Standard DT-based iterative retrieval strategy –focus on a sub-task at a time –addition of generalised concept Best use of case base with multiple indices Iterative retrieval provided better quality solutions compared to one-shot retrieval –empirical evaluation –subjective evaluation Use of multiple cases to solve different parts of a problem case was well received

17. Device Test Case ATest Case B group TPTP TNTN FPFP FNFN TPTP TNTN FPFP FNFN Bathroom02000200 Controllers01010200 Cooker Detectors06000600 Doors08001520 Hearing Aids03000300 Movement Detectors05000500 Phone Related12001200 Remote Alarms01000100 Security11000200 Taps02000200 Technology Architecture01000100 Visual Aids03000300 Water Detectors05003200 Windows01000100 Total 2410153720

18. Device group SINGLEMULTIPLE TPTNFPFNTPTNFPFN Bathroom02000200 Controllers02000200 Cooker Detectors04020402 Doors05031502 Hearing Aids02011020 Movement Detectors03022030 Phone Related11101110 Remote Alarms10001000 Security01011100 Taps02000200 Technology Architecture01000100 Visual Aids03000300 Water Detectors05000500 Windows01000100 Total 2 321 97 2764 Recall 0.180.64 Precision 0.670.54 Sim 0.77