2008 |
12 | EE | Richard Burns,
Stephanie Elzer,
Sandra Carberry:
Estimating Effort for Trend Messages in Grouped Bar Charts.
Diagrams 2008: 353-356 |
11 | EE | Peng Wu,
Sandra Carberry,
Daniel Chester,
Stephanie Elzer:
Decision Tree Induction for Identifying Trends in Line Graphs.
ISMIS 2008: 399-409 |
2007 |
10 | EE | Sandra Carberry,
Stephanie Elzer:
Exploiting Evidence Analysis in Plan Recognition.
User Modeling 2007: 7-16 |
2006 |
9 | EE | Stephanie Elzer,
Sandra Carberry,
Seniz Demir:
Communicative Signals as the Key to Automated Understanding of Simple Bar Charts.
Diagrams 2006: 25-39 |
8 | EE | Sandra Carberry,
Stephanie Elzer,
Seniz Demir:
Information graphics: an untapped resource for digital libraries.
SIGIR 2006: 581-588 |
7 | EE | Stephanie Elzer,
Nancy Green,
Sandra Carberry,
James Hoffman:
A Model of Perceptual Task Effort for Bar Charts and its Role in Recognizing Intention.
User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 16(1): 1-30 (2006) |
2005 |
6 | EE | Stephanie Elzer,
Sandra Carberry,
Daniel Chester,
Seniz Demir,
Nancy Green,
Ingrid Zukerman,
Keith Trnka:
Exploring and Exploiting the Limited Utility of Captions in Recognizing Intention in Information Graphics.
ACL 2005 |
5 | EE | Stephanie Elzer,
Sandra Carberry,
Ingrid Zukerman,
Daniel Chester,
Nancy Green,
Seniz Demir:
A Probabilistic Framework for Recognizing Intention in Information Graphics.
IJCAI 2005: 1042-1047 |
4 | EE | Daniel Chester,
Stephanie Elzer:
Getting Computers to See Information Graphics So Users Do Not Have to.
ISMIS 2005: 660-668 |
2004 |
3 | EE | Stephanie Elzer,
Nancy Green,
Sandra Carberry,
James Hoffman:
Incorporating Perceptual Task Effort into the Recognition of Intention in Information Graphics.
Diagrams 2004: 255-268 |
2003 |
2 | EE | Stephanie Elzer,
Nancy Green,
Sandra Carberry,
Kathleen F. McCoy:
Extending Plan Inference Techniques to Recognize Intentions in Information Graphics.
User Modeling 2003: 122-132 |
1999 |
1 | | Sandra Carberry,
Jennifer Chu-Carroll,
Stephanie Elzer:
Constructing and Utilizing a Model of User Preferences in Collaborative Consultation Dialogues.
Computational Intelligence 15: 185-217 (1999) |