EDAssistant: Supporting Exploratory Data Analysis in Computational Notebooks with In Situ Code Search and Recommendation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using computational notebooks (e.g., Jupyter Notebook), data scientists rationalize their exploratory data analysis (EDA) based on their prior experience and external knowledge, such as online examples. For novices or data scientists who lack specific knowledge about the dataset or problem to investigate, effectively obtaining and understanding the external information is critical to carrying out EDA. This article presents EDAssistant, a JupyterLab extension that supports EDA with in situ search of example notebooks and recommendation of useful APIs, powered by novel interactive visualization of search results. The code search and recommendation are enabled by advanced machine learning models, trained on a large corpus of EDA notebooks collected online. A user study is conducted to investigate both EDAssistant and data scientists’ current practice (i.e., using external search engines). The results demonstrate the effectiveness and usefulness of EDAssistant, and participants appreciated its smooth and in-context support of EDA. We also report several design implications regarding code recommendation tools.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it