skip to main content
10.1145/3581641.3584076acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Mixed Multi-Model Semantic Interaction for Graph-based Narrative Visualizations

Published:27 March 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Narrative sensemaking is an essential part of understanding sequential data. Narrative maps are a visual representation model that can assist analysts to understand narratives. In this work, we present a semantic interaction (SI) framework for narrative maps that can support analysts through their sensemaking process. In contrast to traditional SI systems which rely on dimensionality reduction and work on a projection space, our approach has an additional abstraction layer—the structure space—that builds upon the projection space and encodes the narrative in a discrete structure. This extra layer introduces additional challenges that must be addressed when integrating SI with the narrative extraction pipeline. We address these challenges by presenting the general concept of Mixed Multi-Model Semantic Interaction (3MSI)—an SI pipeline, where the highest-level model corresponds to an abstract discrete structure and the lower-level models are continuous. To evaluate the performance of our 3MSI models for narrative maps, we present a quantitative simulation-based evaluation and a qualitative evaluation with case studies and expert feedback. We find that our SI system can model the analysts’ intent and support incremental formalism for narrative maps.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. H Porter Abbott. 2008. The Cambridge introduction to narrative. Cambridge University Press, One Liberty Plaza, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfred V. Aho, Michael R Garey, and Jeffrey D. Ullman. 1972. The transitive reduction of a directed graph. SIAM J. Comput. 1, 2 (1972), 131–137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Mina Akaishi, KATO Yoshikiyo, Ken Satoh, and HORI Koichi. 2007. Narrative based topic visualization for chronological data. In 2007 11th International Conference Information Visualization (IV’07). IEEE, Zurich, Switzerland, 139–144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jeffery Ansah, Lin Liu, Wei Kang, Selasie Kwashie, Jixue Li, and Jiuyong Li. 2019. A Graph is Worth a Thousand Words: Telling Event Stories Using Timeline Summarization Graphs. In The World Wide Web Conference (San Francisco, CA, USA) (WWW ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2565–2571.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ramy Baly, Giovanni Da San Martino, James Glass, and Preslav Nakov. 2020. We Can Detect Your Bias: Predicting the Political Ideology of News Articles. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 4982–4991. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.404Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Yali Bian, Michelle Dowling, and Chris North. 2019. Evaluating semantic interaction on word embeddings via simulation. In EValuation of Interactive VisuAl Machine Learning systems Workshop, VIS 2019. IEEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 5 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Yali Bian and Chris North. 2021. DeepSI: Interactive Deep Learning for Semantic Interaction. In 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (College Station, TX, USA) (IUI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 197–207.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Yali Bian, John Wenskovitch, and Chris North. 2020. DeepVA: Bridging Cognition and Computation through Semantic Interaction and Deep Learning. In Proc. of the IEEE VIS Workshop MLUI. IEEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Nadia Boukhelifa, Anastasia Bezerianos, and Evelyne Lutton. 2018. Evaluation of Interactive Machine Learning Systems. In Human and Machine Learning: Visible, Explainable, Trustworthy and Transparent. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90403-0_17Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Lauren Bradel, Chris North, and Leanna House. 2014. Multi-model semantic interaction for text analytics. In 2014 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST). IEEE, Paris, France, 163–172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Lauren Bradel, Nathan Wycoff, Leanna House, and Chris North. 2015. Big text visual analytics in sensemaking. In 2015 Big Data Visual Analytics (BDVA). IEEE, Hobart, TAS, Australia, 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Yi Cai, Haoran Xie, Raymond YK Lau, Qing Li, Tak-Lam Wong, and Fu Lee Wang. 2019. Temporal event searches based on event maps and relationships. Applied soft computing 85 (2019), 105750.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Roberto Camacho Barranco, Arnold P Boedihardjo, and M Shahriar Hossain. 2019. Analyzing evolving stories in news articles. Intl. Journal of Data Science and Analytics 8, 3 (2019), 241–256.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. In Kwon Choi, Taylor Childers, Nirmal Kumar Raveendranath, Swati Mishra, Kyle Harris, and Khairi Reda. 2019. Concept-Driven Visual Analytics: An Exploratory Study of Model- and Hypothesis-Based Reasoning with Visualizations. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300298Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Kristin A Cook and James J Thomas. 2005. Illuminating the path: The research and development agenda for visual analytics. Technical Report. Pacific Northwest National Lab.(PNNL), Richland, WA (United States).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. David L Donoho and Jared Tanner. 2005. Sparse nonnegative solution of underdetermined linear equations by linear programming. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 102, 27(2005), 9446–9451.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Michelle Dowling, John Wenskovitch, Peter Hauck, Adam Binford, Nicholas Polys, and Chris North. 2018. A bidirectional pipeline for semantic interaction. In Proc. Workshop on Machine Learning from User Interaction for Visualization and Analytics (at IEEE VIS 2018), Vol. 11. IEEE, Berlin, Germany, 74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. John Ellson, Emden R. Gansner, Eleftherios Koutsofios, Stephen C. North, and Gordon Woodhull. 2004. Graphviz and Dynagraph — Static and Dynamic Graph Drawing Tools. In Graph Drawing Software, Michael Jünger and Petra Mutzel (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 127–148.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Alex Endert, Patrick Fiaux, and Chris North. 2012. Semantic interaction for sensemaking: inferring analytical reasoning for model steering. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 12(2012), 2879–2888.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Alex Endert, Patrick Fiaux, and Chris North. 2012. Semantic Interaction for Visual Text Analytics. In Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 473–482. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207741Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Alex Endert, Chao Han, Dipayan Maiti, Leanna House, and Chris North. 2011. Observation-level interaction with statistical models for visual analytics. In 2011 IEEE conference on visual analytics science and technology (VAST). IEEE, Providence, RI, USA, 121–130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Alex Endert, M Shahriar Hossain, Naren Ramakrishnan, Chris North, Patrick Fiaux, and Christopher Andrews. 2014. The human is the loop: new directions for visual analytics. Journal of intelligent information systems 43, 3 (2014), 411–435.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Christos Faloutsos, Kevin S. McCurley, and Andrew Tomkins. 2004. Fast Discovery of Connection Subgraphs. In Proc. of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Seattle, WA, USA) (KDD ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 118–127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mark A Finlayson and Steven R Corman. 2013. The military interest in narrative. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung 37, 1-2 (2013), 173–191.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Emden R Gansner, Eleftherios Koutsofios, Stephen C North, and K-P Vo. 1993. A technique for drawing directed graphs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 19, 3 (1993), 214–230.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Fethallah Hadjila, Amine Belabed, and Mohammed Merzoug. 2019. Flexible service discovery based on multiple matching algorithms. Int. Journal of Web Engineering and Technology 14, 4(2019), 315–340.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Jeffry Halverson, Steven Corman, and H Lloyd Goodall. 2011. Master narratives of Islamist extremism. Springer, 175 5th Ave., New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Nathan Oken Hodas and Alex Endert. 2016. Adding semantic information into data models by learning domain expertise from user interaction.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Leanna House, Scotland Leman, and Chao Han. 2015. Bayesian visual analytics: Bava. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining: The ASA Data Science Journal 8, 1(2015), 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Xinran Hu, Lauren Bradel, Dipayan Maiti, Leanna House, and Chris North. 2013. Semantics of directly manipulating spatializations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 19, 12(2013), 2052–2059.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Jessica Hullman, Steven Drucker, Nathalie Henry Riche, Bongshin Lee, Danyel Fisher, and Eytan Adar. 2013. A deeper understanding of sequence in narrative visualization. IEEE Transactions on visualization and computer graphics 19, 12(2013), 2406–2415.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jessica Hullman, Robert Kosara, and Heidi Lam. 2017. Finding a Clear Path: Structuring Strategies for Visualization Sequences. Computer Graphics Forum 36, 3 (2017), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13194 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cgf.13194Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Y. Kang, C. Gorg, and J. Stasko. 2009. Evaluating visual analytics systems for investigative analysis: Deriving design principles from a case study. In 2009 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology. IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1109/VAST.2009.5333878Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Dmytro Karamshuk, Tetyana Lokot, Oleksandr Pryymak, and Nishanth Sastry. 2016. Identifying partisan slant in news articles and twitter during political crises. In 8th International Conference on Social Informatics, SocInfo 2016. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 257–272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Brian Keith Norambuena, Michael Horning, and Tanushree Mitra. 2020. Evaluating the Inverted Pyramid Structure through Automatic 5W1H Extraction and Summarization. In Proc. of the 2020 Computation + Journalism Symposium. Computation + Journalism 2020, Boston, MA, USA, 1–7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Brian Keith Norambuena and Tanushree Mitra. 2020. Narrative Maps: An Algorithmic Approach to Represent and Extract Information Narratives. In Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 4. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 33 pages. Issue CSCW3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Brian Felipe Keith Norambuena, Tanushree Mitra, and Chris North. 2021. Narrative Sensemaking: Strategies for Narrative Maps Construction. In 2021 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS). IEEE, New Orleans, LA, USA, 181–185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Brian Felipe Keith Norambuena, Tanushree Mitra, and Chris North. 2022. Design guidelines for narrative maps in sensemaking tasks. Information Visualization 21, 3 (2022), 220–245.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Arpit Khurdiya, Lipika Dey, Nidhi Raj, and Sk Mirajul Haque. 2011. Multi-perspective linking of news articles within a repository. In Twenty-Second Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI, Barcelona, Spain, 2281–2286.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Dongwoo Kim and Alice Oh. 2011. Topic Chains for Understanding a News Corpus. In Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, Alexander Gelbukh (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 163–176.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Scotland C Leman, Leanna House, Dipayan Maiti, Alex Endert, and Chris North. 2013. Visual to parametric interaction (v2pi). PloS one 8, 3 (2013), e50474.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Bang Liu, Fred X Han, Di Niu, Linglong Kong, Kunfeng Lai, and Yu Xu. 2020. Story forest: Extracting events and telling stories from breaking news. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 14, 3(2020), 1–28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Bang Liu, Di Niu, Kunfeng Lai, Linglong Kong, and Yu Xu. 2017. Growing Story Forest Online from Massive Breaking News. In Proc. of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (Singapore, Singapore) (CIKM ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 777–785.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Leland McInnes, John Healy, and Steve Astels. 2017. hdbscan: Hierarchical density based clustering. Journal of Open Source Software 2, 11 (2017), 205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Leland McInnes, John Healy, and James Melville. 2018. Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.03426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. T. Mens. 2012. On the Complexity of Software Systems. Computer 45, 08 (aug 2012), 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2012.273Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Ramesh Nallapati, Ao Feng, Fuchun Peng, and James Allan. 2004. Event Threading within News Topics. In Proc. of the Thirteenth ACM Int. Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management (Washington, D.C., USA) (CIKM ’04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 446–453.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. 2005. The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In Proc. of Intl. Conf. on intelligence analysis, Vol. 5. Intl. Conf. on Intelligence Analysis, McLean, VA, USA, 2–4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Kent Puckett. 2016. Narrative theory. Cambridge University Press, One Liberty Plaza, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Seattle, Washington, USA, 11 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Nathalie Henry Riche, Christophe Hurter, Nicholas Diakopoulos, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2018. Data-driven storytelling. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Frances Robles. 2021. Cubans Denounce ‘Misery’ in Biggest Protests in Decades. https://web.archive.org/web/20210711212619/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/11/world/americas/cuba-crisis-protests.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Dominik Sacha, Andreas Stoffel, Florian Stoffel, Bum Chul Kwon, Geoffrey Ellis, and Daniel A. Keim. 2014. Knowledge Generation Model for Visual Analytics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12(2014), 1604–1613. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346481Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Edward Segel and Jeffrey Heer. 2010. Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 16, 6(2010), 1139–1148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Jessica Zeitz Self, Michelle Dowling, John Wenskovitch, Ian Crandell, Ming Wang, Leanna House, Scotland Leman, and Chris North. 2018. Observation-level and parametric interaction for high-dimensional data analysis. ACM Trans. on Interactive Intelligent Systems 8, 2 (2018), 1–36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Dafna Shahaf and Carlos Guestrin. 2010. Connecting the Dots between News Articles. In Proc. of the 16th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Washington, DC, USA) (KDD ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 623–632.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Dafna Shahaf and Carlos Guestrin. 2012. Connecting two (or less) dots: Discovering structure in news articles. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data (TKDD) 5, 4(2012), 1–31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Dafna Shahaf, Carlos Guestrin, and Eric Horvitz. 2012. Trains of Thought: Generating Information Maps. In Proc. of the 21st Int. Conf. on World Wide Web(Lyon, France) (WWW ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 899–908.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Dafna Shahaf, Jaewon Yang, Caroline Suen, Jeff Jacobs, Heidi Wang, and Jure Leskovec. 2013. Information Cartography: Creating Zoomable, Large-Scale Maps of Information. In Proc. of the 19th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Chicago, Illinois, USA) (KDD ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1097–1105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Frank M. Shipman and Catherine C. Marshall. 1999. Formality Considered Harmful: Experiences, Emerging Themes, and Directions on the Use of Formal Representations in Interactive Systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 8, 4 (01 Dec 1999), 333–352.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Sandeep Soni, Tanushree Mitra, Eric Gilbert, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2014. Modeling Factuality Judgments in Social Media Text. In Proc. of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the ACL (Volume 2: Short Papers). ACL, Baltimore, Maryland, 415–420.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  62. Xavier Tannier and Véronique Moriceau. 2013. Building Event Threads out of Multiple News Articles. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Seattle, Washington, USA, 958–967.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Chao Tong, Richard Roberts, Rita Borgo, Sean Walton, Robert S Laramee, Kodzo Wegba, Aidong Lu, Yun Wang, Huamin Qu, Qiong Luo, 2018. Storytelling and visualization: An extended survey. Information 9, 3 (2018), 65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Lu Wang, Claire Cardie, and Galen Marchetti. 2015. Socially-Informed Timeline Generation for Complex Events. In Proc. of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the ACL: Human Language Technologies. ACL, Denver, Colorado, 1055–1065.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Yaqing Wang, Quanming Yao, James T. Kwok, and Lionel M. Ni. 2020. Generalizing from a Few Examples: A Survey on Few-Shot Learning. ACM Comput. Surv. 53, 3, Article 63 (jun 2020), 34 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386252Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. John Wenskovitch, Michelle Dowling, and Chris North. 2020. With Respect to What? Simultaneous Interaction with Dimension Reduction and Clustering Projections. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Cagliari, Italy) (IUI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377325.3377516Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. John Wenskovitch and Chris North. 2020. Interactive Artificial Intelligence: Designing for the "Two Black Boxes" Problem. Computer 53, 8 (2020), 29–39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. William Wright, David Schroh, Pascale Proulx, Alex Skaburskis, and Brian Cort. 2006. The Sandbox for Analysis: Concepts and Methods. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montréal, Québec, Canada) (CHI ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 801–810. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124890Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Yi Yu, Adam Jatowt, Antoine Doucet, Kazunari Sugiyama, and Masatoshi Yoshikawa. 2021. Multi-timeline summarization (mtls): Improving timeline summarization by generating multiple summaries. In Proc. of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th Intl. Joint Conf. on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). ACL, Online, 377–387.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Houkui Zhou, Huimin Yu, Roland Hu, and Junguo Hu. 2017. A survey on trends of cross-media topic evolution map. Knowledge-Based Systems 124 (2017), 164–175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. P. Zhou, B. Wu, and Z. Cao. 2017. EMMBTT: A Novel Event Evolution Model Based on TFxIEF and TDC in Tracking News Streams. In 2017 IEEE Second Int. Conf. on Data Science in Cyberspace (DSC). IEEE, Shenzhen, China, 102–107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Xianshu Zhu and Tim Oates. 2012. Finding story chains in newswire articles. In 2012 IEEE 13th Intl. Conf. on Information Reuse & Integration (IRI). IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 93–100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. Constantin Zopounidis and Michael Doumpos. 2002. Multi-group discrimination using multi-criteria analysis: Illustrations from the field of finance. European Journal of Operational Research 139, 2 (2002), 371–389.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Mixed Multi-Model Semantic Interaction for Graph-based Narrative Visualizations

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        IUI '23: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
        March 2023
        972 pages
        ISBN:9798400701061
        DOI:10.1145/3581641

        Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author

        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 27 March 2023

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format