Journal Home Online First Current Issue Archive For Authors Journal Information 中文版

Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering >> 2020, Volume 21, Issue 4 doi: 10.1631/FITEE.1900549

Interactive visual labelling versus active learning: an experimental comparison

1. 1Institute of Computer Graphics and Knowledge Visualisation, Graz University of Technology, Graz 8010, Austria
2. 2School of Computer Science and Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore
3. 3InfoVis Group, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T1Z4, Canada
4. 4Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg 20146, Germany
5. 5Institute of Interactive Systems and Data Science, Graz University of Technology, Graz 8010, Austria

Available online: 2020-05-13

Next Previous

Abstract

Methods from supervised machine learning allow the classification of new data automatically and are tremendously helpful for data analysis. The quality of supervised maching learning depends not only on the type of algorithm used, but also on the quality of the labelled dataset used to train the classifier. Labelling instances in a training dataset is often done manually relying on selections and annotations by expert analysts, and is often a tedious and time-consuming process. Active learning algorithms can automatically determine a subset of data instances for which labels would provide useful input to the learning process. Interactive visual labelling techniques are a promising alternative, providing effective visual overviews from which an analyst can simultaneously explore data records and select items to a label. By putting the analyst in the loop, higher accuracy can be achieved in the resulting classifier. While initial results of interactive visual labelling techniques are promising in the sense that user labelling can improve supervised learning, many aspects of these techniques are still largely unexplored. This paper presents a study conducted using the mVis tool to compare three interactive visualisations, similarity map, scatterplot matrix (SPLOM), and parallel coordinates, with each other and with active learning for the purpose of labelling a multivariate dataset. The results show that all three interactive visual labelling techniques surpass active learning algorithms in terms of classifier accuracy, and that users subjectively prefer the similarity map over SPLOM and parallel coordinates for labelling. Users also employ different labelling strategies depending on the visualisation used.

Related Research