Skip to main content
Log in

Interactive visual labelling versus active learning: an experimental comparison

  • Published:
Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Mohammad CHEGINI implemented the mVis system and code necessary for the conduction of the study. Mohammad CHEGINI and Jürgen BERNARD designed the study. Mohammad CHEGINI and Fatemeh CHEGINI drafted the manuscript. Jian CUI helped conduct the experiment and data processing. Alexei SOURIN, Keith ANDREWS, and Tobias SCHRECK contributed to the definition of the underlying research questions, and they revised and finalized the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Chegini.

Additional information

Compliance with ethics guidelines

Mohammad CHEGINI, Jürgen BERNARD, Jian CUI, Fatemeh CHEGINI, Alexei SOURIN, Keith ANDREWS, and Tobias SCHRECK declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chegini, M., Bernard, J., Cui, J. et al. Interactive visual labelling versus active learning: an experimental comparison. Front Inform Technol Electron Eng 21, 524–535 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1631/FITEE.1900549

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/FITEE.1900549

Keywords

CLC number

Navigation