
doi: 10.1111/cgf.14329
AbstractVisual analytics systems integrate interactive visualizations and machine learning to enable expert users to solve complex analysis tasks. Applications combine techniques from various fields of research and are consequently not trivial to evaluate. The result is a lack of structure and comparability between evaluations. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive overview of evaluations in the field of human‐centered machine learning. We particularly focus on human‐related factors that influence trust, interpretability, and explainability. We analyze the evaluations presented in papers from top conferences and journals in information visualization and human‐computer interaction to provide a systematic review of their setup and findings. From this survey, we distill design dimensions for structured evaluations, identify evaluation gaps, and derive future research opportunities.
info:eu-repo/classification/ddc/004, 004
info:eu-repo/classification/ddc/004, 004
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 62 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
