Interactive Data Analytics for the Humanities

In this vision paper, we argue that current solutions to data analytics are not suitable for complex tasks from the humanities, as they are agnostic of the user and focused on static, predefined tasks with large-scale benchmarks. Instead, we believe that the human must be put into the loop to address small data scenarios that require expert domain knowledge and fluid, incrementally defined tasks, which are common for many humanities use cases. Besides the main challenges, we discuss existing and urgently required solutions to interactive data acquisition, model development, model interpretation, and system support for interactive data analytics. In the envisioned interactive systems, human users not only provide annotations to a machine learner, but train a model by using the system and demonstrating the task. The learning system will actively query the user for feedback, refine its model in real-time, and is able to explain its decisions. Our vision links natural language processing research with recent advances in machine learning, computer vision, and data management systems, as realizing this vision relies on combining expertise from all of these scientific fields. 1 Challenges in Analyzing Humanities Data Automated data analytics, aka. data mining and machine learning, is a key technology for enriching and interpreting data, making informed decisions, and developing new data-driven scientific methods across many disciplines in industry and academia. Although the potential of interactive problem solving was recognized early on [16], this field has not progressed very far beyond the initial work. In particular, interactive machine learning and data analytics have only recently received increased attention [98]. Current data analytics solutions focus predominantly on well-defined tasks that can be solved by processing large, homogeneous datasets available in a structured form. Consider for example recommender systems, which suggest new products based on the product’s properties, the products that the customer has previously bought, and the collective behavior of the customer database [43]. The state-of-the-art relies on huge amounts of data—over one billion pairs of users and news items passively gathered—to train a deep neural network [28]. This may explain, why data analytics is conceived in a rather impersonal way, with algorithms working autonomously on passively collected data, although practice is quite the opposite. Most of the influence practitioners have, comes through interacting with data, including crafting the data and examining results. In the late 1990s, digitized data became widely available in the humanities as well. Since then, there has been a clear demand for data analytics approaches to tap into these textual and visual data, including cultural heritage collections. The research questions and strategies in the humanities are, however, radically different from data analytics tasks in other disciplines. First, despite the large amount of digitized data, there is typically only a tiny fraction that qualifies as training data for machine learning systems, because most of the data lacks cleaning, preprocessing, and gold standard labels. Data preparation tasks are often highly complex in the humanities. For text, they range from transcribing Gothic script or handwriting through the labeling of references to persons and their actions to a manual analysis of the text’s argumentative structure. For images and video, e.g., we need to correct distortions, annotate gestures, or manually describe scenes. Rather than depending on big input data, future data analytics methods for the humanities must therefore be able to cope with small data scenarios, generalize from few input signals, and at the same time avoid overfitting to the idiosyncrasies of the dataset. Second, the analysis of humanities data requires highly specific expert knowledge. This may include historical and legal facts, understanding ancient and special languages, or recognizing gestures or architectural properties in images and video. Relying on expert knowledge further limits our possibilities to manually label data, as common annotation procedures, such as crowdsourcing [54] or gamification , can only be used for certain subproblems or must be customized for laypeople. An even more severe problem is, however, interpreting the output of a data analytics system, which is only possible with expert domain knowledge. So far, training such a system requires vast machine learning expertise, preventing domain experts from directly participating in the development process. Inspecting and refining a model is particularly challenging in neural network architectures, as there is still little insight into the internal operation and behavior of complex models [109]. Future methods need to communicate directly with domain experts and allow them to steer the data analytics process. Third, most research questions in the humanities are not clearly defined in advance, but developed over time as the research hypothesis evolves. We therefore need data analytics methods that allow for fluid problem definitions. This is particularly true for subjective tasks, for which multiple, partially contradicting theories co-exist. Examples are different schools and traditions in philosophy as well as disparate sources and opinions in history or law. Rather than aiming at a single, universal problem definition, we thus need methods that adapt to particular users or theories and recognize shifting goals. Although some of these challenges are relevant for data science tasks in general (e.g., the small data scenario in the biomedical domain [93]), fluid problem definitions are prototypical for the humanities, as researchers have to pursue and develop competing theories and standpoints before judging them according to their merits. The humanities therefore need specific solutions for future data analytics. This requires a close cooperation of natural language processing and computer vision with machine learning and data management systems research. 2 Interactive Data Analytics In this paper, we advocate research on interactive machine learning approaches for data analytics tasks in the humanities. Interactive machine learning is characterized by incremental model updates based on a user’s actions and feedback, yielding a system that is simultaneously developed and used. Rather than teaching a machine learning system with a predefined set of training instances, as is the most common practice today, we envision an intelligent system that a user teaches by using it. This is triggered by the insight that a user will not necessarily start with a pre-defined concept that must be modeled as accurately as possible (as is often assumed in machine learning); the concept sought after is likely to evolve during the discovery process and, hence, during the process of selecting data and training a machine learning system. Indeed, this is akin to active learning—the system may ask the user to label a certain instance while learning—but transgresses it by removing the strong focus on data labeling. Active learning removes the passivity of the learning system which, in the classical setting, only receives data, and allows it to actively pose questions on the data. However, the teacher (i.e., the human expert) is passive in the sense that she has no direct influence on the models that the learner induces from the data. Her only way of influencing the results is via the provided data or labels. For that reason Shivaswamy and Joachims [94] extended this towards coactive learning, where the teacher can also correct the learner during learning if necessary, providing a slightly improved but not necessarily optimal example as feedback. In interactive learning, we envision a process where the teacher and the learner not only interact at the data and example level, but also at the model level itself. The user should be enabled to directly interact with the model, to provide feedback on the model that influences the learner, or to even directly modify parts of the learner. This way, learning becomes a fully co-adaptive process, in which a human is changing computer behavior, but the human also adapts to use machine learning more effectively and adjusts his or her data and goals in response to what is learned. This requires on the one hand ways for communicating information or feedback about the models to the learner, and, on the other hand, relies on innovative methods for communicating learned models to a domain expert who is typically inexperienced in machine learning. Thus, we envision future interactive data analytics to essentially consist of four components: Interactive  The domain expert and the learning system need to interact to acquire the appropriate data as well as for annotating and labeling the data. Interactive Model Development: Besides influencing the learning process by providing suitable training data, the domain expert can interact with the learning algorithm during the model’s construction and use this to continually alter and refine the model. Interactive Model Interpretation: The learned model is not passive and intransparent, but can be actively understood and explored by the domain expert. Interactive System Support: To support the iterative learning process and the effective human–computer interaction under real-time constraints, it is essential to link interactive machine learning with data management systems. All four components have, to some extent, been explored in the literature before, but for interactive data analytics it is essential that all four are realized and tightly integrated so that their synthesis facilitates the interaction between the domain expert and the analytics tool at multiple levels. Figure 1 shows how the four components enrich the traditional data analytics process based on explicit feedback in the form of labeled data.