skip to main content
10.1145/3377325.3377514acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Parallel embeddings: a visualization technique for contrasting learned representations

Published:17 March 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

We introduce "Parallel Embeddings", a new technique that generalizes the classical Parallel Coordinates visualization technique to sequences of learned representations. This visualization technique is designed for concept-oriented "model comparison" tasks, allowing data scientists to understand qualitative differences in how models interpret input data. We compare user performance with our tool against Tensor Board Embedding Projector for understanding model accuracy and qualitative model differences. With our tool, users were more accurate and learned strategies for the tasks more quickly. Furthermore, users' analytical process in the comparison condition was positively influenced by using our tool beforehand.

References

  1. Eric Alexander and Michael Gleicher. 2015. Task-driven comparison of topic models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22, 1 (2015), 320--329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 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
  3. Dustin Arendt and Meg Pirrung. 2017. The "y" of it Matters, Even for Storyline Visualization. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST). IEEE, 81--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. David Bau, Bolei Zhou, Aditya Khosla, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. 2017. Network dissection: Quantifying interpretability of deep visual representations. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 6541--6549.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. James Bergstra and Yoshua Bengio. 2012. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research 13, Feb (2012), 281--305.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Pierre Dragicevic. 2016. Fair statistical communication in HCI. In Modern Statistical Methods for HCI. Springer, 291--330.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Tim Dwyer and Lev Nachmanson. 2009. Fast edge-routing for large graphs. In International Symposium on Graph Drawing. Springer, 147--158.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Niklas Elmqvist and Jean-Daniel Fekete. 2009. Hierarchical aggregation for information visualization: Overview, techniques, and design guidelines. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16, 3 (2009), 439--454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Matthias Feurer, Aaron Klein, Katharina Eggensperger, Jost Springenberg, Manuel Blum, and Frank Hutter. 2015. Efficient and Robust Automated Machine Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28, C. Cortes, N.D. Lawrence, D. D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 2962--2970.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kārlis Freivalds. 2001. Curved edge routing. In International Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory. Springer, 126--137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in Psychology. Vol. 52. Elsevier, 139--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 770--778.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Julian Heinrich and Daniel Weiskopf. 2013. State of the Art of Parallel Coordinates.. In Eurographics (STARs). 95--116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Fred Matthew Hohman, Minsuk Kahng, Robert Pienta, and Duen Horng Chau. 2018. Visual analytics in deep learning: An interrogative survey for the next frontiers. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Max Jaderberg, Wojciech M Czarnecki, Iain Dunning, Luke Marris, Guy Lever, Antonio Garcia Castaneda, Charles Beattie, Neil C Rabinowitz, Ari S Morcos, Avraham Ruderman, et al. 2018. Human-level performance in first-person multi-player games with population-based deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.01281 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jimmy Johansson, Patric Ljung, Mikael Jern, and Matthew Cooper. 2005. Revealing structure within clustered parallel coordinates displays. In IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005. IEEE, 125--132.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Minsuk Kahng, Pierre Y Andrews, Aditya Kalro, and Duen Horng Polo Chau. 2017. ActiVis: Visual exploration of industry-scale deep neural network models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 1 (2017), 88--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Minsuk Kahng, Dezhi Fang, and Duen Horng Polo Chau. 2016. Visual exploration of machine learning results using data cube analysis. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Human-In-the-Loop Data Analytics. ACM, 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Wiebke Köpp and Tino Weinkauf. 2018. Temporal treemaps: Static visualization of evolving trees. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 25, 1 (2018), 534--543.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Antoine Lhuillier, Christophe Hurter, and Alexandru Telea. 2017. State of the art in edge and trail bundling techniques. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 36. Wiley Online Library, 619--645.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Rensis Likert. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology (1932).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Dongyu Liu, Weiwei Cui, Kai Jin, Yuxiao Guo, and Huamin Qu. 2018. Deep-tracker: Visualizing the training process of convolutional neural networks. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 10, 1 (2018), 6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Mengchen Liu, Jiaxin Shi, Zhen Li, Chongxuan Li, Jun Zhu, and Shixia Liu. 2016. Towards better analysis of deep convolutional neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (2016), 91--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Jonas Lukasczyk, Gunther Weber, Ross Maciejewski, Christoph Garth, and Heike Leitte. 2017. Nested tracking graphs. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 36. Wiley Online Library, 12--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Kevin T McDonnell and Klaus Mueller. 2008. Illustrative parallel coordinates. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 27. Wiley Online Library, 1031--1038.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Leland McInnes, John Healy, and James Melville. 2018. UMAP: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. H Brendan McMahan, Gary Holt, David Sculley, Michael Young, Dietmar Ebner, Julian Grady, Lan Nie, Todd Phillips, Eugene Davydov, Daniel Golovin, et al. 2013. Ad click prediction: a view from the trenches. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data mining. ACM, 1222--1230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Paul Mihas. 2019. Qualitative data analysis. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Paulo E Rauber, Samuel G Fadel, Alexandre X Falcao, and Alexandru C Telea. 2016. Visualizing the hidden activity of artificial neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (2016), 101--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Khairi Reda, Chayant Tantipathananandh, Andrew Johnson, Jason Leigh, and Tanya Berger-Wolf. 2011. Visualizing the evolution of community structures in dynamic social networks. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 30. Wiley Online Library, 1061--1070.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Hans Rosling and Zhongxing Zhang. 2011. Health advocacy with Gapminder animated statistics. Journal of epidemiology and global health 1, 1 (2011), 11--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Martin Rosvall and Carl T Bergstrom. 2010. Mapping change in large networks. PloS one 5, 1 (2010), e8694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Emily Saldanha, Brenda Praggastis, Todd Billow, and Dustin L. Arendt. 2019. ReLVis: Visual Analytics for Situational Awareness During Reinforcement Learning Experimentation. In EuroVis 2019 - Short Papers, Jimmy Johansson, Filip Sadlo, and G. Elisabeta Marai (Eds.). The Eurographics Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. 2014. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Daniel Smilkov, Nikhil Thorat, Charles Nicholson, Emily Reif, Fernanda B Viégas, and Martin Wattenberg. 2016. Embedding projector: Interactive visualization and interpretation of embeddings. In Proc. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. Workshop Interpretable ML Complex Syst.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Hendrik Strobelt, Sebastian Gehrmann, Michael Behrisch, Adam Perer, Hanspeter Pfister, and Alexander M Rush. 2018. Seq-2-seq-vis: A visual debugging tool for sequence-to-sequence models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1 (2018), 353--363.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. C. J. Van Rijsbergen. 1979. Information Retrieval (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Corinna Vehlow, Fabian Beck, and Daniel Weiskopf. 2017. Visualizing group structures in graphs: A survey. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 36. Wiley Online Library, 201--225.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Junpeng Wang, Liang Gou, Han-Wei Shen, and Hao Yang. 2018. Dqnviz: A visual analytics approach to understand deep q-networks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1 (2018), 288--298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. John Wenskovitch, Ian Crandell, Naren Ramakrishnan, Leanna House, and Chris North. 2017. Towards a systematic combination of dimension reduction and clustering in visual analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 1 (2017), 131--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Wathsala Widanagamaachchi, Cameron Christensen, Valerio Pascucci, and Peer-Timo Bremer. 2012. Interactive exploration of large-scale time-varying data using dynamic tracking graphs. In IEEE Symposium on Large Data Analysis and Visualization (LDAV). IEEE, 9--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Moritz Wittenhagen, Christian Cherek, and Jan Borchers. 2016. Chronicler: Interactive exploration of source code history. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3522--3532.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Wei Yu, Kuiyuan Yang, Yalong Bai, Hongxun Yao, and Yong Rui. 2014. Visualizing and comparing convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6631 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Tom Zahavy, Nir Ben-Zrihem, and Shie Mannor. 2016. Graying the black box: Understanding DQNs. (2016), 1899--1908.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Haipeng Zeng, Hammad Haleem, Xavier Plantaz, Nan Cao, and Huamin Qu. 2017. CNNComparator: Comparative analytics of convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.05285 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Jiawei Zhang, Yang Wang, Piero Molino, Lezhi Li, and David S Ebert. 2018. Manifold: A model-agnostic framework for interpretation and diagnosis of machine learning models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1 (2018), 364--373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Parallel embeddings: a visualization technique for contrasting learned representations

        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
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          IUI '20: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
          March 2020
          607 pages
          ISBN:9781450371186
          DOI:10.1145/3377325

          Copyright © 2020 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 ACM 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: 17 March 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader