Cluster-Based Random Forest Visualization and Interpretation

Random forests are a machine learning method used to automatically classify datasets and consist of a multitude of decision trees. While these random forests often have higher performance and generalize better than a single decision tree, they are also harder to interpret. This paper presents a visualization method and system to increase interpretability of random forests. We cluster similar trees which enables users to interpret how the model performs in general without needing to analyze each individual decision tree in detail, or interpret an oversimplified summary of the full forest. To meaningfully cluster the decision trees, we introduce a new distance metric that takes into account both the decision rules as well as the predictions of a pair of decision trees. We also propose two new visualization methods that visualize both clustered and individual decision trees: (1) The Feature Plot, which visualizes the topological position of features in the decision trees, and (2) the Rule Plot, which visualizes the decision rules of the decision trees. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach through a case study on the "Glass" dataset, which is a relatively complex standard machine learning dataset, as well as a small user study.

Beware of Validation by Eye: Visual Validation of Linear Trends in Scatterplots

Visual validation of regression models in scatterplots is a common practice for assessing model quality, yet its efficacy remains unquantified. We conducted two empirical experiments to investigate individuals' ability to visually validate linear regression models (linear trends) and to examine the impact of common visualization designs on validation quality. The first experiment showed that the level of accuracy for visual estimation of slope (i.e., fitting a line to data) is higher than for visual validation of slope (i.e., accepting a shown line). Notably, we found bias toward slopes that are "too steep" in both cases. This lead to novel insights that participants naturally assessed regression with orthogonal distances between the points and the line (i.e., ODR regression) rather than the common vertical distances (OLS regression). In the second experiment, we investigated whether incorporating common designs for regression visualization (error lines, bounding boxes, and confidence intervals) would improve visual validation. Even though error lines reduced validation bias, results failed to show the desired improvements in accuracy for any design. Overall, our findings suggest caution in using visual model validation for linear trends in scatterplots.

Reclaiming the Horizon: Novel Visualization Designs for Time-Series Data with Large Value Ranges

We introduce two novel visualization designs to support practitioners in performing identification and discrimination tasks on large value ranges (i.e., several orders of magnitude) in time-series data: (1) The order of magnitude horizon graph, which extends the classic horizon graph; and (2) the order of magnitude line chart, which adapts the log-line chart. These new visualization designs visualize large value ranges by explicitly splitting the mantissa m and exponent e of a value v = m * 10e . We evaluate our novel designs against the most relevant state-of-the-art visualizations in an empirical user study. It focuses on four main tasks commonly employed in the analysis of time-series and large value ranges visualization: identification, discrimination, estimation, and trend detection. For each task we analyse error, confidence, and response time. The new order of magnitude horizon graph performs better or equal to all other designs in identification, discrimination, and estimation tasks. Only for trend detection tasks, the more traditional horizon graphs reported better performance. Our results are domain-independent, only requiring time-series data with large value ranges.

Visual Validation versus Visual Estimation: A Study on the Average Value in Scatterplots

We investigate the ability of individuals to visually validate statistical models in terms of their fit to the data. While visual model estimation has been studied extensively, visual model validation remains under-investigated. It is unknown how well people are able to visually validate models, and how their performance compares to visual and computational estimation. As a starting point, we conducted a study across two populations (crowdsourced and volunteers). Participants had to both visually estimate (i.e, draw) and visually validate (i.e., accept or reject) the frequently studied model of averages. Across both populations, the level of accuracy of the models that were considered valid was lower than the accuracy of the estimated models. We find that participants' validation and estimation were unbiased. Moreover, their natural critical point between accepting and rejecting a given mean value is close to the boundary of its 95% confidence interval, indicating that the visually perceived confidence interval corresponds to a common statistical standard. Our work contributes to the understanding of visual model validation and opens new research opportunities.