skip to main content
research-article

AnchorViz: Facilitating Semantic Data Exploration and Concept Discovery for Interactive Machine Learning

Published:09 August 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

When building a classifier in interactive machine learning (iML), human knowledge about the target class can be a powerful reference to make the classifier robust to unseen items. The main challenge lies in finding unlabeled items that can either help discover or refine concepts for which the current classifier has no corresponding features (i.e., it has feature blindness). Yet it is unrealistic to ask humans to come up with an exhaustive list of items, especially for rare concepts that are hard to recall. This article presents AnchorViz, an interactive visualization that facilitates the discovery of prediction errors and previously unseen concepts through human-driven semantic data exploration. By creating example-based or dictionary-based anchors representing concepts, users create a topology that (a) spreads data based on their similarity to the concepts and (b) surfaces the prediction and label inconsistencies between data points that are semantically related. Once such inconsistencies and errors are discovered, users can encode the new information as labels or features and interact with the retrained classifier to validate their actions in an iterative loop. We evaluated AnchorViz through two user studies. Our results show that AnchorViz helps users discover more prediction errors than stratified random and uncertainty sampling methods. Furthermore, during the beginning stages of a training task, an iML tool with AnchorViz can help users build classifiers comparable to the ones built with the same tool with uncertainty sampling and keyword search, but with fewer labels and more generalizable features. We discuss exploration strategies observed during the two studies and how AnchorViz supports discovering, labeling, and refining of concepts through a sensemaking loop.

References

  1. Charu C. Aggarwal and ChengXiang Zhai. 2012. Mining Text Data. Springer Science 8 Business Media. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Jae-wook Ahn and Peter Brusilovsky. 2009. Adaptive visualization of search results: Bringing user models to visual analytics. Information Visualization 8, 3 (2009), 167--179. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Saleema Amershi, Maya Cakmak, William Bradley Knox, and Todd Kulesza. 2014. Power to the people: The role of humans in interactive machine learning. AI Magazine 35, 4 (2014), 105--120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Saleema Amershi, Max Chickering, Steven M. Drucker, Bongshin Lee, Patrice Simard, and Jina Suh. 2015. Modeltracker: Redesigning performance analysis tools for machine learning. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 337--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Saleema Amershi, James Fogarty, and Daniel Weld. 2012. Regroup: Interactive machine learning for on-demand group creation in social networks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Joshua Attenberg, Panos Ipeirotis, and Foster Provost. 2015. Beat the machine: Challenging humans to find a predictive model’s “unknown unknowns”. Journal of Data and Information Quality (JDIQ) 6, 1 (2015), 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Josh Attenberg and Foster Provost. 2010. Why label when you can search?: Alternatives to active learning for applying human resources to build classification models under extreme class imbalance. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 423--432. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Michael Brooks, Saleema Amershi, Bongshin Lee, Steven M. Drucker, Ashish Kapoor, and Patrice Simard. 2015. FeatureInsight: Visual support for error-driven feature ideation in text classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST’15). IEEE, 105--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Mackinlay Card. 1999. Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think. Morgan-Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Duen Horng Chau, Aniket Kittur, Jason I. Hong, and Christos Faloutsos. 2011. Apolo: Making sense of large network data by combining rich user interaction and machine learning. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 167--176. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Nan-Chen Chen, Jina Suh, Johan Verwey, Gonzalo Ramos, Steven Drucker, and Patrice Simard. 2018. AnchorViz: Facilitating classifier error discovery through interactive semantic data exploration. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 269--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Justin Cheng and Michael S. Bernstein. 2015. Flock: Hybrid crowd-machine learning classifiers. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8 Social Computing. ACM, 600--611. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jason Chuang, Sonal Gupta, Christopher Manning, and Jeffrey Heer. 2013. Topic model diagnostics: Assessing domain relevance via topical alignment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. 612--620. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Aron Culotta, Trausti Kristjansson, Andrew McCallum, and Paul Viola. 2006. Corrective feedback and persistent learning for information extraction. Artificial Intelligence 170, 14–15 (2006), 1101--1122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Pedro Domingos. 2012. A few useful things to know about machine learning. Commun. ACM 55, 10 (2012), 78--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. Endert, W. Ribarsky, C. Turkay, B. L. Wong, Ian Nabney, I. Díaz Blanco, and F. Rossi. 2017. The state of the art in integrating machine learning into visual analytics. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 36. Wiley Online Library, 458--486.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jerry Alan Fails and Dan R. Olsen, Jr. 2003. Interactive machine learning. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI’03). ACM, New York, 39--45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. James Fogarty, Desney Tan, Ashish Kapoor, and Simon Winder. 2008. CueFlik: Interactive concept learning in image search. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 29--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Thomas M. J. Fruchterman and Edward M. Reingold. 1991. Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software: Practice and Experience 21, 11 (1991), 1129--1164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Björn Hartmann, Leith Abdulla, Manas Mittal, and Scott R. Klemmer. 2007. Authoring sensor-based interactions by demonstration with direct manipulation and pattern recognition. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 145--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Florian Heimerl, Charles Jochim, Steffen Koch, and Thomas Ertl. 2012. FeatureForge: A novel tool for visually supported feature engineering and corpus revision. In COLING.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Patrick E Hoffman. {n.d.}. Table Visualizations: A Formal Model and Its Applications. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Massachusetts. Lowell. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Rong Hu, Sarah Jane Delany, and Brian Mac Namee. 2010. EGAL: Exploration guided active learning for TCBR. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning. Springer, 156--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Xinran Hu, Lauren Bradel, Dipayan Maiti, Leanna House, and Chris North. 2013. Semantics of directly manipulating spatializations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 19, 12 (2013), 2052--2059. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Camille Jandot, Patrice Simard, Max Chickering, David Grangier, and Jina Suh. 2016. Interactive semantic featuring for text classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.07545 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Ian Jolliffe. 2011. Principal component analysis. In International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science. Springer, 1094--1096.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Hannah Kim, Jaegul Choo, Haesun Park, and Alex Endert. 2016. InterAxis: Steering scatterplot axes via observation-level interaction. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22, 1 (2016), 131--140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Josua Krause, Adam Perer, and Enrico Bertini. 2014. INFUSE: Interactive feature selection for predictive modeling of high dimensional data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12 (2014), 1614--1623.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Josua Walter Hugo Krause. 2018. Using Visual Analytics to Explain Black-Box Machine Learning. Ph.D. Dissertation. New York University Tandon School of Engineering.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Todd Kulesza, Saleema Amershi, Rich Caruana, Danyel Fisher, and Denis Charles. 2014. Structured labeling for facilitating concept evolution in machine learning. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3075--3084. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Todd Kulesza, Simone Stumpf, Weng-Keen Wong, Margaret M. Burnett, Stephen Perona, Andrew Ko, and Ian Oberst. 2011. Why-oriented end-user debugging of naive Bayes text classification. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 1, 1 (2011), 2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Himabindu Lakkaraju, Ece Kamar, Rich Caruana, and Eric Horvitz. 2017. Identifying unknown unknowns in the open world: Representations and policies for guided exploration. In Proceedings of AAAI. 2124--2132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Ken Lang. 1995. Newsweeder: Learning to filter netnews. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Machine Learning, Vol. 10. 331--339. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Hanseung Lee, Jaeyeon Kihm, Jaegul Choo, John Stasko, and Haesun Park. 2012. iVisClustering: An interactive visual document clustering via topic modeling. Computer Graphics Forum 31, 3pt3 (June 2012), 1155--1164. 00041 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. David D. Lewis and Jason Catlett. 1994. Heterogeneous uncertainty sampling for supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Machine Learning. 148--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. David D. Lewis and William A. Gale. 1994. A sequential algorithm for training text classifiers. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Shusen Liu, Dan Maljovec, Bei Wang, Peer-Timo Bremer, and Valerio Pascucci. 2015. Visualizing high-dimensional data: Advances in the past decade. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 3 (2017), 1249–1268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Shixia Liu, Xiting Wang, Mengchen Liu, and Jun Zhu. 2017. Towards better analysis of machine learning models: A visual analytics perspective. Visual Informatics 1, 1 (2017), 48--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Shixia Liu, Jiannan Xiao, Junlin Liu, Xiting Wang, Jing Wu, and Jun Zhu. 2018. Visual diagnosis of tree boosting methods. IEEE Transactions on Visualization 8 Computer Graphics 1 (2018), 1--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Yafeng Lu, Rolando Garcia, Brett Hansen, Michael Gleicher, and Ross Maciejewski. 2017. The state-of-the-art in predictive visual analytics. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 36. Wiley Online Library, 539--562. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9, Nov (2008), 2579--2605.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Brian Mac Namee, Rong Hu, and Sarah Jane Delany. 2010. Inside the selection box: Visualising active learning selection strategies. In Proceedings of The Challenges of Data Visualization Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) Workshop. Dublin Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Christopher D. Manning and Hinrich Schütze. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Christopher Meek. 2016. A characterization of prediction errors. CoRR abs/1611.05955 (2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.05955Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Gregory Murphy. 2004. The Big Book of Concepts. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. R. M. Nosofsky. 1986. Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 115 1 (1986), 39--61.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Kai A. Olsen, James G. Williams, Kenneth M. Sochats, and Stephen C. Hirtle. 1992. Ideation through visualization: The VIBE system. Multimedia Review 3 (1992), 48--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. 2005. The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, Vol. 5. 2--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Hema Raghavan, Omid Madani, and Rosie Jones. 2005. InterActive feature selection. In Proceedings of IJCAI, Vol. 5. 841--846. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. D. Ren, S. Amershi, B. Lee, J. Suh, and J. D. Williams. 2017. Squares: Supporting interactive performance analysis for multiclass classifiers. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (Jan. 2017), 61--70. 00000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Eleanor Rosch and Carolyn B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7, 4 (1975), 573--605.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Daniel M. Russell, Mark J. Stefik, Peter Pirolli, and Stuart K. Card. 1993. The cost structure of sensemaking. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’93). ACM, New York, 269--276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. John W. Sammon. 1969. A nonlinear mapping for data structure analysis. IEEE Transactions on Computers 100, 5 (1969), 401--409. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Sam Scott and Stan Matwin. 1999. Feature engineering for text classification. In Proceedings of ICML, Vol. 99. 379--388. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Burr Settles. 2011. Closing the loop: Fast, interactive semi-supervised annotation with queries on features and instances. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 1467--1478. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Burr Settles. 2012. Active learning. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning 6, 1 (2012), 1--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. John Sharko, Georges Grinstein, and Kenneth A Marx. 2008. Vectorized radviz and its application to multiple cluster datasets. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 14, 6 (2008). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Ben Shneiderman. 1992. Tree visualization with tree-maps: 2-d space-filling approach. ACM Trans. Graph. 11, 1 (Jan. 1992), 92--99. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Edward E. Smith and Douglas L. Medin. 1981. Categories and Concepts. Vol. 9. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Robert R. Sokal. 1958. A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationship. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 28 (1958), 1409--1438.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Ji Soo Yi, Rachel Melton, John Stasko, and Julie A. Jacko. 2005. Dust 8 magnet: Multivariate information visualization using a magnet metaphor. Information Visualization 4, 4 (2005), 239--256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Simone Stumpf, Vidya Rajaram, Lida Li, Weng-Keen Wong, Margaret Burnett, Thomas Dietterich, Erin Sullivan, and Jonathan Herlocker. 2009. Interacting meaningfully with machine learning systems: Three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67, 8 (2009), 639--662. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Maite Taboada, Julian Brooke, Milan Tofiloski, Kimberly Voll, and Manfred Stede. 2011. Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Computational Linguistics 37, 2 (2011), 267--307. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Justin Talbot, Bongshin Lee, Ashish Kapoor, and Desney S. Tan. 2009. EnsembleMatrix: Interactive visualization to support machine learning with multiple classifiers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’09). ACM, New York, 1283--1292. 00097. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Stef Van Den Elzen and Jarke J van Wijk. 2011. Baobabview: Interactive construction and analysis of decision trees. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST’11). IEEE, 151--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Alfredo Vellido Alcacena, José David Martín, Fabrice Rossi, and Paulo J. G. Lisboa. 2011. Seeing is believing: The importance of visualization in real-world machine learning applications. In Proceedings of the 19th European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning, ESANN 2011: Bruges, Belgium, April 27-28-29, 2011. 219--226.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Byron C. Wallace, Kevin Small, Carla E. Brodley, Joseph Lau, and Thomas A. Trikalinos. 2012. Deploying an interactive machine learning system in an evidence-based practice center: abstrackr. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium. ACM, 819--824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Malcolm Ware, Eibe Frank, Geoffrey Holmes, Mark Hall, and Ian H. Witten. 2001. Interactive machine learning: Letting users build classifiers. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 55, 3 (2001), 281--292. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Yiming Yang and Jan O. Pedersen. 1997. A comparative study on feature selection in text categorization. In ICML, Vol. 97. 412--420. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. J. Zhang, Y. Wang, P. Molino, L. Li, and D. S. Ebert. 2018. Manifold: A model-agnostic framework for interpretation and diagnosis of machine learning models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. AnchorViz: Facilitating Semantic Data Exploration and Concept Discovery for Interactive Machine Learning

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
      ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems  Volume 10, Issue 1
      Special Issue on IUI 2018
      March 2020
      347 pages
      ISSN:2160-6455
      EISSN:2160-6463
      DOI:10.1145/3352585
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 9 August 2019
      • Accepted: 1 November 2018
      • Revised: 1 September 2018
      • Received: 1 May 2018
      Published in tiis Volume 10, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format