VibE: A Visual Analytics Workflow for Semantic Error Analysis of CVML Models at Subgroup Level
Authors
Effective error analysis is critical for the successful development and deployment of CVML models. One approach to understanding model errors is to summarize the common characteristics of error samples. This can be particularly challenging in tasks that utilize unstructured, complex data such as images, where patterns are not always obvious. Another method is to analyze error distributions across pre-defined categories, which requires analysts to hypothesize about potential error causes in advance. Forming such hypotheses without access to explicit labels or annotations makes it difficult to isolate meaningful subgroups or patterns, however, as analysts must rely on manual inspection, prior expertise, or intuition. This lack of structured guidance can hinder a comprehensive understanding of where models fail. To address these challenges, we introduce VibE, a semantic error analysis workflow designed to identify where and why computer vision and machine learning (CVML) models fail at the subgroup level, even when labels or annotations are unavailable. VibE incorporates several core features to enhance error analysis: semantic subgroup generation, semantic summarization, candidate issue proposals, semantic concept search, and interactive subgroup analysis. By leveraging large foundation models (such as CLIP and GPT-4) alongside visual analytics, VibE enables developers to semantically interpret and analyze CVML model errors. This interactive workflow helps identify errors through subgroup discovery, supports hypothesis generation with auto-generated subgroup summaries and suggested issues, and allows hypothesis validation through semantic concept search and comparative analysis. Through three diverse CVML tasks and in-depth expert interviews, we demonstrate how VibE can assist error understanding and analysis.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
Research Questions
3- How can semantic errors in complex computer vision and machine learning models be systematically analyzed?Category: Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models and GenAISimilar questionsarrow_forward
- How can multimodal foundation models (e.g., CLIP and GPT-4) effectively generate and summarize semantic subgroups?Category: Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models and GenAISimilar questionsarrow_forward
- How can semantic analysis help improve fairness in model training and efficiency of error validation?Category: Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models and GenAISimilar questionsarrow_forward
Practical Problems
1- Users struggle to efficiently discover and validate semantic errors in AI models.Category: Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models and GenAISimilar questionsarrow_forward
- 80%
Graphologue: Exploring Large Language Model Responses with Interactive Diagrams
UIST '23· Human-LLM Collaboration +1
- 67%
Crystalline: Lowering the Cost for Developers to Collect and Organize Information for Decision Making
CHI '22· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 67%
Supporting Sensemaking of Large Language Model Outputs at Scale
CHI '24· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 67%
Debugging Defective Visualizations: Empirical Insights Informing a Human-AI Co‑Debugging System
CHI '26· Interactive Data Visualization +2
- 67%
OntoScope: Using a Divergent-Convergent Interaction Framework to Support LLM-based Ontology Scoping
IUI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 60%
Mapping Machine Learning Advances from HCI Research to Reveal Starting Places for Design Innovation
CHI '18· Human-LLM Collaboration
- 60%
Effects of Communication Directionality and AI Agent Differences in Human-AI Interaction
CHI '21· Human-LLM Collaboration +1
- 60%
Visualizing Examples of Deep Neural Networks at Scale
CHI '21· Human-LLM Collaboration +1
- 60%
Tracing and Visualizing Human-ML/AI Collaborative Processes through Artifacts of Data Work
CHI '23· Human-LLM Collaboration +1
- 60%
AI Knowledge: Improving AI Delegation through Human Enablement
CHI '23· Human-LLM Collaboration +1
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)