Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington
description
Transcript of Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington
![Page 1: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Real-time Human Interaction with Supervised Learning Algorithms for Music Composition and PerformanceRebecca FiebrinkPrinceton University / University of Washington
![Page 2: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
![Page 3: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
![Page 4: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
![Page 5: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
function [x flag hist dt] = pagerank(A,optionsu)[m n] = size(A);if (m ~= n) error('pagerank:invalidParameter', 'the matrix A must be square');end; options = struct('tol', 1e-7, 'maxiter', 500, 'v', ones(n,1)./n, … 'c', 0.85, 'verbose', 0, 'alg', 'arnoldi', … 'linsys_solver', @(f,v,tol,its) bicgstab(f,v,tol,its), … 'arnoldi_k', 8, 'approx_bp', 1e-3, 'approx_boundary', inf,… 'approx_subiter', 5);if (nargin > 1) options = merge_structs(optionsu, options);end;if (size(options.v) ~= size(A,1)) error('pagerank:invalidParameter', … 'the vector v must have the same size as A');end;if (~issparse(A)) A = sparse(A);end;% normalize the matrixP = normout(A);switch (options.alg) case 'dense’ [x flag hist dt] = pagerank_dense(P, options); case 'linsys’ [x flag hist dt] = pagerank_linsys(P, options) case 'gs’ [x flag hist dt] = pagerank_gs(P, options); case 'power’ [x flag hist dt] = pagerank_power(P, options); case 'arnoldi’ [x flag hist dt] = pagerank_arnoldi(P, options); case 'approx’ [x flag hist dt] = pagerank_approx(P, options); case 'eval’ [x flag hist dt] = pagerank_eval(P, options); otherwise
error('pagerank:invalidParameter', ...
'invalid computation mode specified.');
end;
function [x flag hist dt] = pagerank(A,optionsu)
![Page 6: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
![Page 7: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
![Page 8: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
useful algorithms
usable interfaces and appropriate interactions
![Page 9: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Machine learning
algorithms?
![Page 10: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Outline
• Overviews of interactive computer music and machine learning
• The Wekinator software• Live demo• User studies• Findings and Discussion• Conclusions
![Page 11: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
interactive computer music
![Page 12: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Interactive computer music
sensed action
interpretation
response (music, visuals, etc.)
computer
human with microphone, sensors, control interface, etc.
audio synthesis or processing,
visuals, etc.
![Page 13: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Example 1: Gesture recognition
sensed action
identification
response
computer
Bass drum:
“Gesture 1”
![Page 14: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Example 1: Gesture recognition
sensed action
response
computer
Bass drum:
Hi-hat“Gesture 2”
identification
![Page 15: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Model of sensed action to meaning
sensed action
response
computer
model
meaning
![Page 16: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16 computer
Example 2: Continuous gesture-to-sound mappings
![Page 17: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
sensed action
interpretation
sound generation
computer
mapping
human + control interface
Example 2: Continuous gesture-to-sound mappings
![Page 18: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
A composed system
sensed action
mapping/model/
interpretation
response
mapping/model/
interpretation
![Page 19: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
supervised learning
![Page 20: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
algorithm
trainingdata
Training
Supervised learning
model
inputs
outputs
![Page 21: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
algorithm
trainingdata
Training
Supervised learning
model
inputs
outputsRunning
“Gesture 1” “Gesture 2” “Gesture 3”
“Gesture 1”
![Page 22: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Supervised learning is useful
• Models capture complex relationships from the data. (feasible)
• Models can generalize to new inputs. (accurate)• Supervised learning circumvents the need to
explicitly define mapping functions or models. (efficient)
Has been demonstrated to be useful in musical applications, but no usable, general-purpose tools exist for composers to apply algorithms in their work.
![Page 23: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Weka: A model tool
• General-purpose
• GUI-based• Cited 11,705
times!
![Page 24: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Criteria for a supervised learning tool for composers
1. General-purpose2. GUI-based3. Runs in real time4. Supports appropriate end-user
interactions with the supervised learning process
![Page 25: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Appropriate interactions
algorithm
trainingdata
Training
model
inputs
outputsRunning
“Gesture 1” “Gesture 2” “Gesture 3”
“Gesture 1”
![Page 26: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Appropriate interactions
algorithm
trainingdata
Training
model
inputs
outputsRunning “Gesture 1”
“Gesture 1” “Gesture 2”
creating training data
![Page 27: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Appropriate interactions
algorithm
trainingdata
Training
inputs
outputsRunning
“Gesture 1” “Gesture 2”
model
“Gesture 1”
creating training data…evaluating the trained model
![Page 28: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Appropriate interactions
algorithm
trainingdata
Training
model
inputs
outputsRunning “Gesture 1”
“Gesture 1” “Gesture 2” “Gesture 3”
creating training dataevaluating the trained model…
modifying training data (and repeating)
![Page 29: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Interactive machine learning (IML)
• Training set editing for computer vision systems: Fails and Olsen 2003
• Application to other domains e.g. Shilman et al. 2006; Fogarty et al. 2008; Amershi et al. 2009; Baker et al. 2009
• Other types of interactionse.g., Talbot et al. 2009; Kapoor et al. 2010
![Page 30: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Research questions for end-user IML
•Which interactions are possible and useful?•What are the practical benefits and challenges of incorporating end-user interaction in applied machine learning?
•How can IML be useful in real-time and creative contexts?
![Page 31: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Outline
• Overviews of interactive computer music and machine learning
• The Wekinator software• Live demo• User studies• Findings and Discussion• Conclusions
![Page 32: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
The Wekinator
• Built on Weka API• Downloadable: http://code.google.com/p/wekinator/
1. General-purpose2. GUI-based3. Runs in real time4. Supports appropriate end-user interactions
with the supervised learning process
![Page 33: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Running models in real-time
model(s)
.01, .59, .03, ....01, .59, .03, ....01, .59, .03, ....01, .59, .03, ...
5, .01, 22.7, …5, .01, 22.7, …5, .01, 22.7, …5, .01, 22.7, …
time
time
Feature extractor(s)
Parameterizable process
![Page 34: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Interactive data creation and model evaluation
“Gesture 1”
“Gesture 2”
“Gesture 3”
model
“Gesture 1”
trainingdata
![Page 35: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Real-time, iterative design
![Page 36: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
3.3098 Class24
Under the hood
Model1 Model2 ModelM
Feature1 Feature2 Feature3 FeatureN…
Parameter1 Parameter2 ParameterM
…
…
joystick_x joystick_y
pitchvolume
webcam_1
![Page 37: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
3.3098 Class24
Under the hood
Model1 Model2 ModelM
Feature1 Feature2 Feature3 FeatureN…
Parameter1 Parameter2 ParameterM
…
…
Learning algorithms:Classification:
AdaBoost.M1J48 Decision TreeSupport vector machineK-nearest neighbor
Regression:MultilayerPerceptron
![Page 38: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Tailored but not limited to music
The Wekinator• Built-in feature extractors for music & gesture• ChucK API for feature extractors and synthesis
classes
Other modules for sound synthesis,
animation, …?
Other feature extraction modules
Open Sound Control (UDP)
![Page 39: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Outline
• Overviews of interactive computer music and machine learning
• The Wekinator software• Live demo• User studies• Findings and Discussion• Conclusions
![Page 40: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Outline
• Overviews of interactive computer music and machine learning
• The Wekinator software• Live demo• User studies• Findings and Discussion• Conclusions
![Page 41: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Study 1: Participatory design process with composers
• Process:– 7 composers– 10 weeks, 3 hours / week– Discussion and brainstorming at
each meeting– Final questionnaire
• Outcomes:– Focus on instrument-building– 2 publicly-performed compositions– Much-improved software and lots of feedback
![Page 42: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
Study 2: Teaching interactive systems building in an undergraduate course
• Princeton Laptop Orchestra (PLOrk)• Midterm assignment– Students built 1 continuous
+ 1 discrete system– Logging + short answer questions
• Outcomes:– Successful project completion– Used in midterm and final performances– Logs from 21 students
![Page 43: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
Study 3: Bow gesture recognition
• Case study with a composer/cellist• Task: Classify 8 types of standard bow gestures
e.g., up/down bow (2 classes), articulation (7 classes)
43
![Page 44: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
Study 3: Bow gesture recognition
• Case study with a composer/cellist• Task: Classify 8 types of standard bow gestures
e.g., up/down bow (2 classes), articulation (7 classes)• Method:
– Tasks defined and directed by cellist– Logging, observations, final questionnaire– Cellist assigned each iteration’s classifier a quality rating
(1 to 10)
• Successful classifiers created for all 8 tasks (rated “9” or “10”)
44
![Page 45: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
Study 4: Composer case studies
• Clapping Music Machine Variations (CMMV) by Dan Trueman, faculty
![Page 46: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
Study 4: Composer case studies
• CMMV by Dan Trueman, faculty• The Gentle Senses / MARtLET by Michelle Nagai, graduate student
![Page 47: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
Study 4: Composer case studies
• CMMV by Dan Trueman, faculty• The Gentle Senses / MARtLET by Michelle Nagai, graduate student• G by Raymond Weitekamp, undergraduate
![Page 48: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
48
Outline
• Overviews of interactive computer music and machine learning
• The Wekinator software• Live demo• User studies• Findings and Discussion• Conclusions
![Page 49: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Discussion of Findings
1. Users took advantage of interaction in their work with the Wekinator.
2. Users employed a variety of model evaluation criteria, and subjective evaluation did not always correlate with cross-validation accuracy.
3. Feedback from the Wekinator influenced users’ actions and goals.
4. The Wekinator was a useful and usable tool.5. Interactive supervised learning can be a tool for
supporting creativity and embodiment.
![Page 50: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
50
An iterative approach to model-building
![Page 51: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
51
An iterative approach to model-building
(mean per student for each task)
(mean per classification task)
PLOrk con-tinuous
PLOrk discrete
KBow 1st session
KBow 2nd session
0
2
4
6
Mean # Trainings
![Page 52: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
52
Frequent modifications to training data in-between re-trainings
Add Data Edit Data Delete Data Clear All Data
Change Learner
Change Learn
Params
Change Features
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
KB
owpe
r-ta
sk a
vera
ge
Add Data
Edit Data
Delete
Data
Clear A
ll Data
Chang
e Learn
er
Chang
e Learn
er P
arams
Change
Fea
tures
0
2
4
6
Cont.Disc.P
LOrk
per-
stud
ent a
vera
ge
![Page 53: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
53
Interaction and the training dataset
• Training data is an interface for key tasks:– defining the learning problem– clarifying the learning problem to fix errors– communicating changes in problem over time– providing a “sketch” that the computer fills in
![Page 54: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
54
Interaction and the training dataset
• Training data is the most appropriate interface for:– defining the learning problem– clarifying the learning problem by fixing errors– communicating changes in problem over time– providing a “sketch” that the computer fills in
![Page 55: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
55
Playalong data recording
• Allowed training data to represent more fine-grained information
• Enabled composers to engage their musical and physical expertise– Allowed practice and attention to “feel”
![Page 56: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
56
“Conventional” model evaluation
model
Available data
Training set
Evaluation set
Train
Evaluate
Cross-validation: repeat with different data partitions.
![Page 57: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
57
“Direct” evaluation in Wekinator
model
Training set Train
Evaluate
![Page 58: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
58
Direct evaluation used most frequently
• Composers in participatory design and case studies: only direct evaluation
• KBow and PLOrk:
Cross-val. Acc.
Train. Acc. Direct Eval.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
PLOrk cont.PLOrk disc.KBow 1KBow 2
Mea
n #
times
act
ion
take
n
![Page 59: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
59
Roles of cross-validation and training accuracy
• K-bow: Cross-validation used to quickly and objectively compare different feature selections and learning algorithms
• PLOrk:– Treated as reliable evidence a model was performing
well– Used to validate the user’s own ability
![Page 60: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
60
Roles of direct evaluation
• Used to assess behavior of the model against subjective criteria
• Used to obtain feedback that shapes the users’ future interactions with the system
![Page 61: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Discussion of Findings
1. Users took advantage of interaction in their work with the Wekinator.
2. Users employed a variety of model evaluation criteria, and subjective evaluation did not always correlate with cross-validation accuracy.
3. Feedback from the Wekinator influenced users’ actions and goals.
4. The Wekinator was a useful and usable tool.5. Interactive supervised learning can be a tool for
supporting creativity and embodiment.
![Page 62: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
62
Subjective assessment of accuracy
• Important for gesture classifiers– Accuracy = model outputs are correct according to
learning concept definition
• Still important for open-ended instrument-building (continuous) tasks– Accuracy = matching a user’s expectations, especially on
inputs like the training examples
![Page 63: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
63
Other evaluation criteria
•Discrete classifiers:– Cost: consequences and locations of model errors– Decision boundary smoothness
![Page 64: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
64
Other evaluation criteria
•Discrete classifiers:– Cost: consequences and locations of model errors– Decision boundary smoothness
•Continous mappings:– Complexity, difficulty these are good!– Unexpectedness and surprise– “Feel”
![Page 65: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
65
Subjective evaluation criteria & CV
![Page 66: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
66
Subjective evaluation criteria & CV
• K-bow:– Cross-validation sometimes correlates with subjective
quality, but sometimes it doesn’t!
Task: Horizontal Position
Vertical Position
Bow Direction
On/Off String
Speed Articulation
R: -0.59 -0.44 -0.74 -0.50 0.65 0.93
Pearson’s correlation for tasks with > 3 iterations:
![Page 67: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
67
Subjective evaluation criteria & CV
• K-bow:– Cross-validation sometimes correlates with subjective
quality, but sometimes it doesn’t!
Task: Horizontal Position
Vertical Position
Bow Direction
On/Off String
Speed Articulation
R: -0.59 -0.44 -0.74 -0.50 0.65 0.93
Pearson’s correlation for tasks with > 3 iterations:
![Page 68: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
68
Subjective evaluation criteria & CV
• K-bow:– Cross-validation sometimes correlates with subjective
quality, but sometimes it doesn’t!
Task: Horizontal Position
Vertical Position
Bow Direction
On/Off String
Speed Articulation
R: -0.59 -0.44 -0.74 -0.50 0.65 0.93
Pearson’s correlation for tasks with > 3 iterations:
![Page 69: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
69
Thoughts: Is generalization accuracy important?
• Yes!– Human and environmental variations are inevitable
• …BUT it may not be the only or most important factor• Generalization estimated from the training set (e.g.,
using cross-validation) is not always informative• Implies that models designed for human use should
be evaluated by human use.
![Page 70: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
70
What should be the goal of the learning algorithm?• Most algorithms’ training process aims for a model with
good generalization (sometimes appropriate)• BUT the user is also employing the training data as an
interface (not representative of future inputs)• Better algorithms might– Optimize other criteria important to the user– Privilege training accuracy (e.g., k-nearest neighbor)– Provide parameters for interactive improvement against other
subjective criteria (e.g., using regularization parameter for boundary smoothness)
![Page 71: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
Discussion of Findings
1. Users took advantage of interaction in their work with the Wekinator.
2. Users employed a variety of model evaluation criteria, and subjective evaluation did not always correlate with cross-validation accuracy.
3. Feedback from the Wekinator influenced users’ actions and goals.
4. The Wekinator was a useful and usable tool.5. Interactive supervised learning can be a tool for
supporting creativity and embodiment.
![Page 72: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
72
Interaction involves control and feedback
control
feedbackRunning the modelsCross-validation and training accuracy
Machine learning
algorithms
![Page 73: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
73
Running models informs future actions
• For example:– locate errors add correctly-labeled examples
– detect total failure delete all the data
model
WRONG LABEL!
“CORRECT LABEL”
new training example
![Page 74: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
74
Running models trains users to be more effective supervised learning practitioners
•Users especially learned to create better training datasets– Minimize noise– Balance the number of examples in each class– Vary examples along all the dimensions that might vary
in performance
• Important for novice users
![Page 75: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
75
Running models informs users’ goals for machine learning• Users liked being inspired by surprising behaviors of
neural networks• Users learned what was most easily accomplished
… and exploited flexibilities in the learning concept definition to create a model that most easily met their most important goals
• IML allows users to discover how goals might change– and to communicate changes via the training set
![Page 76: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
76
Running models teaches users about themselves and their work
K-Bow cellist:Model’s confusion of spiccato and riccocet
realization that her spiccato was too much like riccocet
improved technique
improved classifiers
![Page 77: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
Discussion of Findings
1. Users took advantage of interaction in their work with the Wekinator.
2. Users employed a variety of model evaluation criteria, and subjective evaluation did not always correlate with cross-validation accuracy.
3. Feedback from the Wekinator influenced users’ actions and goals.
4. The Wekinator was a useful and usable tool.5. Interactive supervised learning can be a tool for
supporting creativity and embodiment.
![Page 78: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
78
Barriers to usability
• Long training time• Algorithms’ inability to model the desired concept
[easily]• Difficulty in debugging – No guidance on choosing a better algorithm or
algorithm parameters– Especially difficult for ML novices
![Page 79: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
79
Usability and usefulness: Study 1 composers
Statement 5-point Likert mean (std. dev.)
“The Wekinator allows me to create more expressive mappings than other techniques.”
4.5 (.8)
“The Wekinator allows me to create mappings more easily than other techniques.”
4.7 (.5)
![Page 80: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
80
Usability and usefulness: PLOrk students
Statement 5-point Likert mean (std. dev.)
“I can reliably predict what sound my model will make for a given inputgesture.”
4.5 (.7)
“Wekinator eventually learned what I wanted it to.”
4.3 (.9)
“My model provides reliable gesture classifications” (discrete task)
4.9 (.2)
“My model is musically expressive” (continuous task)
4.1 (.7)
![Page 81: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
81
Usability and usefulness: PLOrk students
• Building working interactive systems was fast– 27.1 minutes for continuous mapping– 16.1 minutes for discrete classifier
• Students enjoyed the Wekinator– “Learning by experimentation was
a lot of fun!”– “It’s so cool, the Wekinator rocks.”
![Page 82: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
82
Usability and usefulness: K-Bow
Task Rating (1 to 10) CV Accuracy (%)Direction 10 87.3On/Off String 10 83.5Grip 10 100.0Roll 10 98.2Horizontal Position 10 89.3Vertical Position 10 90.0Speed 9 87.5Articulation 9 98.8
• Models successfully created for all 8 tasks:
![Page 83: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
83
Usability and usefulness: K-Bow
Statement 5-point Likert response
“The Wekinator was able to create accurate bow stroke classiers in our work so far”
4
“The Wekinator was able tocreate bow stroke classiers more easily than other approaches”
“10 (so 5)"
![Page 84: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
84
Usability and usefulness: Case studies
create mappings more easily
Series1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Trueman Nagai Weitekamp
Agreement (1-5)
create mappings that were more expressive
create a kind of music thatisn't possible or that is hard to
create using other techniques
approach the process of composition in a new way
The Wekinator allowed me to:
![Page 85: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
Discussion of Findings
1. Users took advantage of interaction in their work with the Wekinator.
2. Users employed a variety of model evaluation criteria, and subjective evaluation did not always correlate with cross-validation accuracy.
3. Feedback from the Wekinator influenced users’ actions and goals.
4. The Wekinator was a useful and usable tool.5. Interactive supervised learning can be a tool for
supporting creativity and embodiment.
![Page 86: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
86
“There is simply no way I would be able to manually create the mappings that the Wekinator comes up with; being able to playfully explore a space that I've roughly mapped out, but that the Wekinator has provided the detail for, is inspiring.”
![Page 87: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
87
“The ability to map sound and gesture, in a very immediate and intuitive (yet unpredictable) way is really the most inspiring and useful aspect of the wekinator for me right now. I can see the possibility of building interfaces or instruments as needed, flexibly, on the fly, for different kinds of projects, and being able to quickly map them out to existing sound sets with only minor programming changes.”
![Page 88: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
88
Supporting qualities important to composers• Speed and ease of creating and exploring mappings
(especially complex mappings)– Demonstration can be faster and more efficient than
coding.• Access to surprise and discovery– Neural networks fill in the details of the training data
sketch.• Balancing surprise and complexity with predictability and
control– Users can reliably steer model behavior using the
training data.
![Page 89: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
89
Creativity support in HCI
• “Creativity support tool” guidelines proposed by Shneiderman (2000, 2007) and Resnick et al. (2005):– Support exploration, discovery, and sketching– Support diverse users (e.g., novices and experts) and applications– Operate seamlessly with other [composition] tools
• IML is integral to Wekinator’s realization of these guidelines
![Page 90: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
90
Embodiment is important
“I have never before been able to work with a musical interface … that allowed me to really ‘feel’ the music as I was playing it and developing it. The Wekinator allowed me to approach composing with electronics and the computer more in the way I might if I was writing a piece for cello, where I would actually sit down with a cello and try things out.”
![Page 91: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
91
Embodiment is important
• The Wekinator engaged users’ physical expertise as musicians– And allowed them to create instruments that “felt
right”– Users were physically engaged in the creation of the
data and the evaluation of the models – Playalong interface further supported embodied design
![Page 92: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
92
Outline
• Overviews of interactive computer music and machine learning
• The Wekinator software• Live demo• User studies• Findings and Discussion• Conclusions
![Page 93: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
93
IML is feasible and useful in music composition and performance.
“Well, I had basically lost interest in the whole process of digital controller-based instrument building, so the Wekinator's very existence has enabled and inspired me to get back into the game... The Wekinator enables you to focus on what your primary sonic and physical concerns are, and takes away the need to address so many details, and it does so in such a way that even if you DID spend all the time on building the mappings manually, you would *never* come up with what the Wekinator comes up with. So, the process becomes more focused, more musical, more creative, more playful. I actually *want* to do it.”
![Page 94: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
94
End-user IML poses distinct requirements and challenges
Supporting machine learning novices
Enabling fast training
Supporting debugging
Exposing meaningful parameters to users
Matching algorithms to users’ goals
![Page 95: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
95
Interaction can play many important roles
Interaction with the training data:Engages physical/embodied expertise
Allows changes to the learning problemFixes errors
Allows sketching
Interaction with the trained models:Informs edits to the algorithm & data
Teaches users what an algorithm can learnTeaches how to be a better data providerTeaches users about their own technique
![Page 96: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
96
IML can support creativity and embodiment
Supporting exploration, sketching, rapid prototyping
Providing access to surprise and discovery
Supporting diverse users
Supporting many applications
Engaging a high-level approach to design
![Page 97: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
97
Final Conclusions
• IML has the potential to significantly improve the usability and usefulness of conventional learning algorithms, and to enable application to new problems by new users.
• Applied machine learning is an HCI problem.
![Page 98: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
98
Thanks!• Perry Cook• Dan Trueman• Dan Morris• Ken Steiglitz• Adam Finkelstein• Szymon Rusinkiewicz• Michelle Nagai• Cameron Britt• Konrad Kaczmarek• Michael Early• MR Daniel• Anne Hege• Raymond Weitekamp• All the PLOrk students
• Meg Schedel• Andrew McPherson• Barry Threw• Keith McMillen Instruments• Ge Wang• Jeff Snyder• Xiaojuan Ma• Sonya Nikolova• Matt Hoffmann• Merrie Morris• Sumit Basu• Ichiro Fujinaga
• National Science Foundation GRFP
• Francis Lathrop Upton Fellowship
• National Science Foundation grants 0101247 and 0509447
• The Kimberly and Frank H. Moss '71 Research Innovation Fund
• The David A. Gardner '69 Magic Project
• The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
• Everyone else I’m forgetting
![Page 99: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
99
Related publications• Fiebrink, R. 2006. An exploration of feature selection as an optimization tool for musical genre
classification. Master’s thesis, McGill University. • Fiebrink, R., P. R. Cook, and D. Trueman. 2009. “Play-along mapping of musical controllers.” Proc.
International Computer Music Conference.• Fiebrink, R., M. Schedel, and B. Threw. 2010. “Constructing a personalizable gesture-recognizer
infrastructure for the K-Bow.” International Conference on Music and Gesture (MG3).• Fiebrink, R., D. Trueman, C. Britt, M. Nagai, K. Kaczmarek, M. Early, M.R. Daniel, A. Hege, and P. R.
Cook. 2010. “Toward understanding human-computer interactions in composing the instrument.” Proc. International Computer Music Conference.
• Fiebrink, R., D. Trueman, and P. R. Cook. 2009. “A meta-instrument for interactive, on-the-fly learning.” Proc. New Interfaces for Musical Expression.
• Fiebrink, R., G. Wang, and P. R. Cook. 2007. “Don't forget the laptop: Using native input capabilities for expressive musical control.” Proc. International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression.
• Fiebrink, R., G. Wang, and P. R. Cook. 2008. “Support for MIR prototyping and real-time applications in the ChucK programming language.” Proc. International Conference on Music Information Retrieval.
• Wang, G., R. Fiebrink, and P. R. Cook. 2007. “Combining analysis and synthesis in the ChucK programming language.” Proc. International Computer Music Conference.
![Page 100: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
100
References
• Amershi, S., Fogarty, J., Kapoor, A., and Tan, D. 2010. “Examining Multiple Potential Models in End-User Interactive Concept Learning.” Proc CHI 2010.
• Baker, K., A. Bhandari, and R. Thotakura. 2009. “Designing an Interactive Automatic Document Classification System.” Proc. HCIR 2009, pp. 30–33.
• Fails, Jerry, and Dan Olsen. 2003. “Interactive machine learning.” Proc. IUI, pp. 39–45.• Fels, S. S. and G. E. Hinton. 1993. “Glove-Talk: A neural network interface between a data-glove and a
speech synthesizer.” IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks, vol. 4.• M. Lee, A. Freed, and D. Wessel. 1992. “Neural networks for simultaneous classification and parameter
estimation in musical instrument control.” Adaptive and Learning Systems, vol. 1706, pp. 244-55.• Raphael, Chris. 2001. “A probabilistic expert system for automatic musical accompaniment.” Journal of
Computational and Graphical Statistics, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 487-512.• Shneiderman, B. 2000. “Creating Creativity: User interfaces for supporting innovation.” ACM Trans. CHI, vol.
7, no. 1, pp. 114–138.• Shneiderman, B. 2007. “Creativity support tools: Accelerating discovery and innovation.” Comm. ACM vol.
50, no. 12, Dec. 2007, pp. 20–32.• Witten, I., and E. Frank. 2005. Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, 2nd ed. San
Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
![Page 101: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
101
Training set size – why so small?
• Learning concepts were “easier” ? (i.e., lower sample complexity)
• Users learned to provide the most useful training examples for representing the problem?– like active learning, but the user is in charge
• Users defined the learning concept definition in order to negotiate the tradeoffs between what they wanted and what was possible in a given amount of time to create training data and train the algorithms?
![Page 102: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
102
Running models enables users to practice employing them more effectively
• Through practice, they learn to use models more effectively• Users accepted or expected the need to adapt their behaviors
![Page 103: Rebecca Fiebrink Princeton University / University of Washington](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022033102/5681664d550346895dd9cae6/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
103
An HCI view on algorithms
• Algorithms afford certain possible interactions, control, and feedback – i.e., they have an innate potential to be useful
• User interfaces can hide or expose these affordances– And can expose them in more or less usable ways
• The Wekinator exploits the fact that supervised learning models can be manipulated through the training dataset
• Algorithms can be made more useful and usable– through more appropriate interfaces– through affording more appropriate interactions, control, and
feedback