Many evaluation methods have been used to assess the usefulness of Visual Analytics (VA) solutions. These methods stem from a variety of origins with different assumptions and goals, which cause confusion about their proofing capabilities. Moreover, the lack of discussion about the evaluation processes may limit our potential to develop new evaluation methods specialized for VA. In this paper, we present an analysis of evaluation methods that have been used to summatively evaluate VA solutions. We provide a survey and taxonomy of the evaluation methods that have appeared in the VAST literature in the past two years. We then analyze these methods in terms of validity and generalizability of their findings, as well as the feasibility of using them. We propose a new metric called summative quality to compare evaluation methods according to their ability to prove usefulness, and make recommendations for selecting evaluation methods based on their summative quality in the VA domain.
Multiple studies have surveyed existing evaluation practices. Lam @cite_59 suggest that it is reasonable to generate a taxonomy of evaluation studies by defining scenarios of evaluation practices that are common in the literature. Their extensive survey is unique and provides many insights for researchers. Specifically, seven scenarios of evaluation practices are discussed along with the goals of each, with examplar studies and methods used in each scenario. Isenberg @cite_48 continue this effort by extending the number of surveyed studies and introducing an eighth scenario of evaluation practices. These studies helped us build the backbone of our taxonomy as explained in Section . The initial code to group evaluation methods in our survey was derived from Lam and Isenberg . We then gradually modified the coding of evaluation methods according to the studies we surveyed. In contrast to the grouping approach according to common evaluation practices taken by previous surveys, we focus on grouping evaluation methods based on the similarities in each method's (sub)activities, with the ultimate goal of analyzing the potential risks associated with them, rather than simply describing the existing evaluation practices.
@cite_48 @cite_59
2048679005 2099883114 179757531 2963686848
We consider the problem of using a large unlabeled sample to boost performance of a learning algorit,hrn when only a small set of labeled examples is available. In particular, we consider a problem setting motivated by the task of learning to classify web pages, in which the description of each example can be partitioned into two distinct views. For example, the description of a web page can be partitioned into the words occurring on that page, and the words occurring in hyperlinks t,hat point to that page. We assume that either view of the example would be sufficient for learning if we had enough labeled data, but our goal is to use both views together to allow inexpensive unlabeled data to augment, a much smaller set of labeled examples. Specifically, the presence of two distinct views of each example suggests strategies in which two learning algorithms are trained separately on each view, and then each algorithm’s predictions on new unlabeled examples are used to enlarge the training set of the other. Our goal in this paper is to provide a PAC-style analysis for this setting, and, more broadly, a PAC-style framework for the general problem of learning from both labeled and unlabeled data. We also provide empirical results on real web-page data indicating that this use of unlabeled examples can lead to significant improvement of hypotheses in practice. *This research was supported in part by the DARPA HPKB program under contract F30602-97-1-0215 and by NSF National Young investigator grant CCR-9357793. 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. TO copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and or a fee. COLT 98 Madison WI USA Copyright ACM 1998 l-58113-057--0 98 7... 5.00 92 Tom Mitchell School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891 mitchell+@cs.cmu.edu Display Omitted Active learning is promising in the areas with complex topics in systematic reviews.Certainty criteria is promising to accelerate screening regardless of the topic.Certainty criteria performs as well as uncertainty criteria in classification.Weighting positive instances is promising to overcome the data imbalance.Unsupervised methods enhance the classification performance. In systematic reviews, the growing number of published studies imposes a significant screening workload on reviewers. Active learning is a promising approach to reduce the workload by automating some of the screening decisions, but it has been evaluated for a limited number of disciplines. The suitability of applying active learning to complex topics in disciplines such as social science has not been studied, and the selection of useful criteria and enhancements to address the data imbalance problem in systematic reviews remains an open problem. We applied active learning with two criteria (certainty and uncertainty) and several enhancements in both clinical medicine and social science (specifically, public health) areas, and compared the results in both. The results show that the certainty criterion is useful for finding relevant documents, and weighting positive instances is promising to overcome the data imbalance problem in both data sets. Latent dirichlet allocation (LDA) is also shown to be promising when little manually-assigned information is available. Active learning is effective in complex topics, although its efficiency is limited due to the difficulties in text classification. The most promising criterion and weighting method are the same regardless of the review topic, and unsupervised techniques like LDA have a possibility to boost the performance of active learning without manual annotation. Many methods, including supervised and unsupervised algorithms, have been developed for extractive document summarization. Most supervised methods consider the summarization task as a two-class classification problem and classify each sentence individually without leveraging the relationship among sentences. The unsupervised methods use heuristic rules to select the most informative sentences into a summary directly, which are hard to generalize. In this paper, we present a Conditional Random Fields (CRF) based framework to keep the merits of the above two kinds of approaches while avoiding their disadvantages. What is more, the proposed framework can take the outcomes of previous methods as features and seamlessly integrate them. The key idea of our approach is to treat the summarization task as a sequence labeling problem. In this view, each document is a sequence of sentences and the summarization procedure labels the sentences by 1 and 0. The label of a sentence depends on the assignment of labels of others. We compared our proposed approach with eight existing methods on an open benchmark data set. The results show that our approach can improve the performance by more than 7.1 and 12.1 over the best supervised baseline and unsupervised baseline respectively in terms of two popular metrics F1 and ROUGE-2. Detailed analysis of the improvement is presented as well. Abstract Context For many years, we have observed industry struggling in defining a high quality requirements engineering (RE) and researchers trying to understand industrial expectations and problems. Although we are investigating the discipline with a plethora of empirical studies, they still do not allow for empirical generalisations. Objective To lay an empirical and externally valid foundation about the state of the practice in RE, we aim at a series of open and reproducible surveys that allow us to steer future research in a problem-driven manner. Method We designed a globally distributed family of surveys in joint collaborations with different researchers and completed the first run in Germany. The instrument is based on a theory in the form of a set of hypotheses inferred from our experiences and available studies. We test each hypothesis in our theory and identify further candidates to extend the theory by correlation and Grounded Theory analysis. Results In this article, we report on the design of the family of surveys, its underlying theory, and the full results obtained from Germany with participants from 58 companies. The results reveal, for example, a tendency to improve RE via internally defined qualitative methods rather than relying on normative approaches like CMMI. We also discovered various RE problems that are statistically significant in practice. For instance, we could corroborate communication flaws or moving targets as problems in practice. Our results are not yet fully representative but already give first insights into current practices and problems in RE, and they allow us to draw lessons learnt for future replications. Conclusion Our results obtained from this first run in Germany make us confident that the survey design and instrument are well-suited to be replicated and, thereby, to create a generalisable empirical basis of RE in practice.