Topic modeling algorithms are widely used to analyze the thematic composition of text corpora but remain difficult to interpret and adjust. Addressing these limitations, we present a modular visual analytics framework, tackling the understandability and adaptability of topic models through a user-driven reinforcement learning process which does not require a deep understanding of the underlying topic modeling algorithms. Given a document corpus, our approach initializes two algorithm configurations based on a parameter space analysis that enhances document separability. We abstract the model complexity in an interactive visual workspace for exploring the automatic matching results of two models, investigating topic summaries, analyzing parameter distributions, and reviewing documents. The main contribution of our work is an iterative decision-making technique in which users provide a document-based relevance feedback that allows the framework to converge to a user-endorsed topic distribution. We also report feedback from a two-stage study which shows that our technique results in topic model quality improvements on two independent measures.

To effectively assess the potential consequences of human interventions in model-driven analytics systems, we establish the concept of speculative execution as a visual analytics paradigm for creating user-steerable preview mechanisms. This paper presents an explainable, mixed-initiative topic modeling framework that integrates speculative execution into the algorithmic decisionmaking process. Our approach visualizes the model-space of our novel incremental hierarchical topic modeling algorithm, unveiling its inner-workings. We support the active incorporation of the user's domain knowledge in every step through explicit model manipulation interactions. In addition, users can initialize the model with expected topic seeds, the backbone priors. For a more targeted optimization, the modeling process automatically triggers a speculative execution of various optimization strategies, and requests feedback whenever the measured model quality deteriorates. Users compare the proposed optimizations to the current model state and preview their effect on the next model iterations, before applying one of them. This supervised human-in-the-loop process targets maximum improvement for minimum feedback and has proven to be effective in three independent studies that confirm topic model quality improvements.

Visual analytics systems integrate interactive visualizations and machine learning to enable expert users to solve complex analysis tasks. Applications combine techniques from various fields of research and are consequently not trivial to evaluate. The result is a lack of structure and comparability between evaluations. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive overview of evaluations in the field of human‐centered machine learning. We particularly focus on human‐related factors that influence trust, interpretability, and explainability. We analyze the evaluations presented in papers from top conferences and journals in information visualization and human‐computer interaction to provide a systematic review of their setup and findings. From this survey, we distill design dimensions for structured evaluations, identify evaluation gaps, and derive future research opportunities.

No abstract

Figure 1: VIANA is a system for interactive annotation of argumentation. It offers five different analysis layers, each represented by a different view and tailored to a specific task. The layers are connected with semantic transitions. With increasing progress of the analysis, users can abstract away from the text representation and seamlessly transition towards distant reading interfaces. ABSTRACTArgumentation Mining addresses the challenging tasks of identifying boundaries of argumentative text fragments and extracting their relationships. Fully automated solutions do not reach satisfactory accuracy due to their insufficient incorporation of semantics and domain knowledge. Therefore, experts currently rely on time-consuming manual annotations. In this paper, we present a visual analytics system that augments the manual annotation process by automatically suggesting which text fragments to annotate next. The accuracy of those suggestions is improved over time by incorporating linguistic knowledge and language modeling to learn a measure of argument similarity from user interactions. Based on a long-term collaboration with domain experts, we identify and model five high-level analysis tasks. We enable close reading and note-taking, annotation of arguments, argument reconstruction, extraction of argument relations, and exploration of argument graphs. To avoid context switches, we transition between all views through seamless morphing, visually anchoring all text-and graph-based layers. We evaluate our system with a two-stage expert user study based on a corpus of presidential debates. The results show that experts prefer our system over existing solutions due to the speedup provided by the automatic suggestions and the tight integration between text and graph views.