ProSeCo: Visual analysis of class separation measures and dataset characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Class separation is an important concept in machine learning and visual analytics. We address the visual analysis of class separation measures for both high-dimensional data and its corresponding projections into 2D through dimensionality reduction (DR) methods. Although a plethora of separation measures have been proposed, it is difficult to compare class separation between multiple datasets with different characteristics, multiple separation measures, and multiple DR methods. We present ProSeCo, an interactive visualization approach to support comparison between up to 20 class separation measures and up to 4 DR methods, with respect to any of 7 dataset characteristics: dataset size, dataset dimensions, class counts, class size variability, class size skewness, outlieriness, and real-world vs. synthetically generated data. ProSeCo supports (1) comparing across measures, (2) comparing high-dimensional to dimensionally-reduced 2D data across measures, (3) comparing between different DR methods across measures, (4) partitioning with respect to a dataset characteristic, (5) comparing partitions for a selected characteristic across measures, and (6) inspecting individual datasets in detail. We demonstrate the utility of ProSeCo in two usage scenarios, using datasets [1] posted at https://osf.io/epcf9/.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".