Towards Evaluating Exploratory Model Building Process with AutoML Systems
September 01, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Sungsoo Ray Hong, Sonia Castelo, Vito D'Orazio, Christopher Benthune, Aecio Santos, Scott Langevin, David Jonker, Enrico Bertini, Juliana Freire
arXiv ID
2009.00449
Category
cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction
Citations
4
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
The use of Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) systems are highly open-ended and exploratory. While rigorously evaluating how end-users interact with AutoML is crucial, establishing a robust evaluation methodology for such exploratory systems is challenging. First, AutoML is complex, including multiple sub-components that support a variety of sub-tasks for synthesizing ML pipelines, such as data preparation, problem specification, and model generation, making it difficult to yield insights that tell us which components were successful or not. Second, because the usage pattern of AutoML is highly exploratory, it is not possible to rely solely on widely used task efficiency and effectiveness metrics as success metrics. To tackle the challenges in evaluation, we propose an evaluation methodology that (1) guides AutoML builders to divide their AutoML system into multiple sub-system components, and (2) helps them reason about each component through visualization of end-users' behavioral patterns and attitudinal data. We conducted a study to understand when, how, why, and applying our methodology can help builders to better understand their systems and end-users. We recruited 3 teams of professional AutoML builders. The teams prepared their own systems and let 41 end-users use the systems. Using our methodology, we visualized end-users' behavioral and attitudinal data and distributed the results to the teams. We analyzed the results in two directions: what types of novel insights the AutoML builders learned from end-users, and (2) how the evaluation methodology helped the builders to understand workflows and the effectiveness of their systems. Our findings suggest new insights explaining future design opportunities in the AutoML domain as well as how using our methodology helped the builders to determine insights and let them draw concrete directions for improving their systems.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Human-Computer Interaction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Identifying Stable Patterns over Time for Emotion Recognition from EEG
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning for Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted