A Multimedia Interface For Facilitating Comparisons Of Opinions (Thesis Presentation)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

A Multimedia Interface For Facilitating Comparisons Of Opinions (Thesis Presentation)

on

  • 924 views

Slide deck used to present and defend my master's thesis project. The project is detailed in a paper published in the Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces ...

Slide deck used to present and defend my master's thesis project. The project is detailed in a paper published in the Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1502650.1502696).

Statistics

Views

Total Views
924
Views on SlideShare
921
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

1 Embed 3

http://www.slideshare.net 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

A Multimedia Interface For Facilitating Comparisons Of Opinions (Thesis Presentation) Presentation Transcript

  • 1. A Multimedia Interface for Facilitating Comparisons of Opinions Lucas Rizoli Supervisor Giuseppe Carenini University of British Columbia February 11, 2009
  • 2. Opinion data is abundant and useful, but analysis is expensive and difficult 2
  • 3. Our interface supports analysis of opinion data, particularly comparison across entities 3
  • 4. It supports analysis by visualizing the data and summarizing notable comparisons 4
  • 5. Our user study shows the visualization is usable, the summarizer’s choices are human-like 5
  • 6. 6
  • 7. Text mining (Carenini, Ng, & E. Zwart, 2006) 7
  • 8. 8
  • 9. 9
  • 10. 10
  • 11. 11
  • 12. 12
  • 13. +2 +1 +2 –3 13
  • 14. Spore Gameplay Technology DRM Creature creation Graphics Cell phase Sound Civilization phase System requirements 14
  • 15. vs. 15
  • 16. 16
  • 17. Applications ● Consumers ● Intelligence – Competitive analysis – Forecasts ● Research – Survey, questionnaire 17
  • 18. 18
  • 19. 19
  • 20. Controversiality (Carenini & Cheung, 2008) 20
  • 21. 21
  • 22. 22
  • 23. 23
  • 24. (Dis)similarity of comparisons ● Adapt stats to pairs of distributions ● Aspects of a comparison – counts – means – contros – dists 24
  • 25. 25
  • 26. 26
  • 27. 27
  • 28. 28
  • 29. 29
  • 30. 30
  • 31. 31
  • 32. 32
  • 33. 33
  • 34. 34
  • 35. Interpreting aspects ● Aspects in range 0–1 ● Interpretation – means 0.6 != contros 0.6 != dists 0.6 35
  • 36. 36
  • 37. 37
  • 38. Selecting comparisons 1. Filter out low-count comparisons 2. Rank by # of extreme aspects (VD, VS) 3. Realize top comparisons • Sentence templates 38
  • 39. 39
  • 40. Study goals ● Evaluate content selection strategy – Matches human selections? ● Better than baseline? – Humans like selections? ● Usability of visualization 40
  • 41. 41
  • 42. 42
  • 43. Baseline selection strategies ● Naïve – Randomly select which and how many ● Semi-informed – Likely select same how many as subjects – Randomly select which 43
  • 44. Matches human selections? 44
  • 45. Humans like selections? 0.500 0.449 0.454 45
  • 46. Humans like selections? 0.500 0.449 0.454 ● Roughly 20% difference ● 60% of system selections marked as “good” 46
  • 47. Usability 47
  • 48. Opinion data is abundant and useful, but analysis is expensive and difficult Our interface supports analysis of opinion data, particularly comparison across entities, by visualizing the data and summarizing notable comparisons Our user study shows the visualization is usable, the summarizer’s choices are human-like 48
  • 49. Thank you 49
  • 50. Future work ● Tune thresholds and aspects ● Analysis of human reasoning ● Machine learning for selection 50
  • 51. Future work ● More evaluation of visualization – Interaction – Deeper heirarchies – Different data – Insight ● Multiple entities ● Improved summarization – Visual cues 51
  • 52. Future work ● Machine learning–based selection – Trained on study data – Which ● Regression on comparison selection scores – How many ● Max # of comparisons (2) 52
  • 53. Sentence construction ● Always main claim: counts ● All other aspects relate to counts – Support: same (dis)similarity as counts – Contrast: different ● Always mention means ● Mention contros, dists when they are extreme 53
  • 54. counts rt co o pp nt u ra s st means contros dists 54
  • 55. counts rt co o pp nt u ra s st means contros dists 55
  • 56. counts rt co o pp nt u ra s st contros means 56
  • 57. Study ● 36 subjects – 24 female – 19–43 years old ● 22 different pairs of entities – Subjects saw ~4 each 57
  • 58. Data generation ● No existing dataset ● Generated similar to existing datasets – Distribution, modality ● Explore space of possible data – Too large – Representative of larger space 58
  • 59. Generated data ● Generic camera features – Consistent with scenario ● Simple heirarchy – Reduce visual and task complication 59
  • 60. Generated data ● 9 comparison types – Constraints on aspects – Range of support/contrast ● 22 summary cases – Summaries by type – Range of ● overall, ● how many, ● which, ● others. 60
  • 61. 61
  • 62. 62
  • 63. 63
  • 64. 64
  • 65. 65
  • 66. 66
  • 67. 67
  • 68. 68
  • 69. 69
  • 70. 70
  • 71. 71
  • 72. 72
  • 73. 73
  • 74. 74