Lecture 13
1 / 33

Lecture 13 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Lecture 13. Housekeeping Term Projects Evaluations

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Lecture 13' - addo

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Lecture 13
Lecture 13

  • Housekeeping

    • Term Projects

  • Evaluations

    • Morse, E., Lewis, M., and Olsen, K. (2002) Testing Visual Information Retrieval Methodologies Case Study: Comparative Analysis of Textual, Icon Graphical and 'Spring' DisplaysJournal of the American Society for Information Scienceand Technology (JASIST) PDF

    • Reiterer H., Mußler G., Mann T.: Visual Information Retrieval for the WWW, in: Smith M.J. et al. (eds.), Usability Evaluation and Interface Design, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001 PDF

    • searchCrystal Studies

Prototype project
Prototype Project

  • Motivate domain choice.

  • Perform task and need analysis.

  • Describe design approach and information visualization principles used.

  • Develop prototype.

  • Have an "domain expert" use the prototype and provide feedback.

  • Class PresentationYou have 15 min. to describe task analysis and your design approach.Demonstrate your prototype.Report on the "domain expert" feedback.

  • Create Report20 to 25 pages, written as a standard paper  10pt, double-spacedProvide screenshots of prototype and explain design approach.Include URL of prototype.

  • Hand-inHardcopy of report.Post report online and send instructor an email with the URL.

  • Text retrieval visualizations evaluations morse et al
    Text Retrieval Visualizations – Evaluations : Morse et al.

    • Many Tools Proposed

    • Few Tested and Often Inconclusive / Fare Poorly

    • Simplify Evaluation

       Focus on Method (instead of implementation)

       Only Static Aspects

    • POI = Point of Interest Visualizations

      • Position Coding

    • Glyph = Graphical Entity

      • Conveys data values via attributes such as shape, size, color

    Searchcrystal studies
    searchCrystal – Studies

    • Validate Design Approach

    • How does Overlap between Results Actually Correlate with Relevance?

    • User Study

    Overlap between search results correlated with relevance
    Overlap between Search Results Correlated with Relevance?

    • Method

      • Use Ad-hoc track data for TREC 3, 6, 7, 8

      • Systems search the SAME Database

      • Automatic Short Runs

      • 50 Topics and 1,000 Documents per topic 50,000 documents

      • Retrieval systems can submit multiple runs

         Select Best Run based Mean Average Precision

        TREC 319systems928,709documents found

        TREC 624systems1,192,557documents found

        TREC 728systems1,327,166documents found

        TREC 835systems1,723,929documents found

      • Compute Average by summing over all 50 topics and divide by 50

    How does overlap correlate with relevance
    How does Overlap Correlate with Relevance?

    Percentage of Documents that are Relevant


     Authority Effect

    Trec 8 impact of average rank position
    TREC 8 – Impact of Average Rank Position?

    • Compute overlap structure between top 50 search results of 35 random groupings of 5 retrieval systems for 50 topics.

    Percentage of Documents that are Relevant


     Ranking Effect

    Searchcrystal studies1
    searchCrystal – Studies

    • How does Overlap between Search Results Correlate with Relevance?

    • Authority Effect– the more systems that find a document, the greater the probability that it is relevant

    • Ranking Effect– the higher up a document in a ranked list and the more systems that find it, the greater the probability of its relevance

    • Validates searchCrystal’s Design Approach

    • searchCrystal Visualizes Authority & Ranking Effects

    • searchCrystal can Guide User’s Exploration Toward Relevant Documents

    Searchcrystal studies2
    searchCrystal – Studies

    • Validate Design Approach

    • How does Overlap between Results Actually Correlate with Relevance?

    • User Study

    • http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~aspoerri/study/UserStudy.swf

    User study compare cluster bull s eye and rankspiral
    User Study – Compare Cluster Bull’s Eye and RankSpiral

    • Nine undergraduates.

    • Short Introduction and No Training.

    • Randomized presentation order of data sets and display type.

    • Subject selects ten document;

    • Visual feedback about correct top 10

    • http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~aspoerri/study/UserStudy.swf

    • Test for Cluster Bull’s Eye and RankSpiral displays:

    • 1) How well can novices use visual cues to find the documents that are most likely to be relevant?

    • 2) Performance difference in terms of effectiveness and/or efficiency?

    • 3) How much document’s distance from the display center will interfere with the size coding used to encode its probability of being relevant

    User study results
    User Study – Results

    • Hypothesis 1: “Novices can perform the task.”

    • Error is minimal for the top 7 documents and increases rapidly after the top 7 documents for both displays.

    • Novice users can use the Cluster Bulls-Eye and RankSpiral displays to select highly relevant documents, especially the top 7 documents.

    • Hypothesis 2: “RankSpiral outperforms Cluster Bulls-Eye.”

    • 8 of the 9 subjects performed the task faster using the RankSpiral.

    • Average time difference was 7.89 seconds.

    • The one-sided T-test value is 0.033, which is significant at the 0.05 level.

    • 7 out of 9 subjects performed the task more effectively using the RankSpiral.

    • Average “relevance score” difference is 0.034.

    • The one-sided T-test value is 0.037, which is significant at the 0.05 level.

    • Hypothesis 3: “Distance from center dominant cue.”


    • Relax searchCrystal’s design principles?

      • Mapping documents found by the same number of engines into the same concentric ring.

    • Option: Distance and Size encode likelihood that a document is relevant.

    • Internet search results:

      • Concentric rings are of value, because it is much harder to estimate a document’s probability of being relevant.

    Cluster bulls eye size distance from center
    Cluster Bulls-Eye Size = Distance from Center

    Cluster bulls eye size distance from center1
    Cluster Bulls-Eye Size = Distance from Center

    Searchcrystal studies3
    searchCrystal - Studies

    • Authority & Ranking Effects

      Comparing Results of All Retrieval Systems at once

      Comparing Results of Random Subsets of Five Systems

       Validating searchCrystal’s Design Principles

    • User Study

      Identify Top 10 Docs in Cluster Bull’s Eye and RankSpiral

      • Novice Users can use the two searchCrystal displays

      • Statistical Difference between two displays

      • Distance from center is dominant visual feature

    What is popular on wikipedia why
    What is Popular on Wikipedia?Why?

    • Please read the two papers published by me in First Monday:http://www.firstmonday.org/ISSUES/issue12_4/

    • Approach

    • 1 Visualize Popular Wikipedia Pages

      • Overlap between 100 Most Visited Pages on Wikipedia for September 2006 to January 2007

      • Information Visualization helps to gain quick insights

    • 2 Categorize Popular Wikipedia Pages

    • 3 Examine Popular Search Queries

    • 4 Determine Search Result Position of Popular Wikipedia pages

    • 5 Implications