File size: 8,784 Bytes
44e4f59
 
f71a2f6
 
363a986
f71a2f6
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
44e4f59
f71a2f6
 
44e4f59
f71a2f6
44e4f59
f71a2f6
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
730ab8c
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
f71a2f6
730ab8c
 
 
 
 
f71a2f6
 
730ab8c
 
 
 
 
 
f71a2f6
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
730ab8c
 
 
f71a2f6
 
 
 
730ab8c
 
 
 
 
 
 
44e4f59
 
f71a2f6
 
730ab8c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
import gradio as gr
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import io
from PIL import Image

# --- Data (hardcoded as requested) ---
data = pd.DataFrame({
    "scenario": ["0", "A", "B"],
    "consistency_score": [0.954451, 0.979592, 1.0],
    "overall_representativity_score": [0.79486, 0.79486, 0.75695],
    "integrity_score": [0.983921, 0.983921, 0.983921],
    "data_quality_score": [0.911077, 0.919457, 0.913624]
})

scenario_map = {"0": "No cleansing", "A": "Urgent cleansing", "B": "Urgent+Low urgency cleansing"}

QUALITY_TEXT = """
### Overall Data Quality Analysis

After analyzing the data quality score breakdown for the scenario where only urgent cleansing has been applied, the following observations are made:

- **Consistency Score**              : 0.980
- **Overall Representativity Score** : 0.795
- **Integrity Score**                : 0.984
- **Overall Data Quality Score**     : 0.919

#### Summary
The overall data quality score is satisfactory, but the following dimensions require further investigation: Overall Representativity. Please refer to the suggestions below for detailed actions.

---

### Consistency Action Suggestions

*Our analysis identified several questions where consistency issues need to be addressed, as detailed below. The following questions require attention:*

The following dimensions are evaluated for consistency:
- Completeness check: An answer was expected but not provided.
- Dist outlier check: A value outside the range of reasonable values.
- Free-text check (more than 3 characters but less than two words): Ensures minimal content for free-text responses.
- Model-based outlier: An inconsistent or extreme value compared to typical responses.

Question: 'enumerator_name' has 98 issues.
  - The dimension with the most issues: free-text check (more than 3 characters but less than two words) with 98 issues.

Question: 'household_average_income_female_members' has 81 issues.
  - The dimension(s) with the most issues: model based outlier with 41 issues.
  - The second dimension with issues: completeness check with 40 issues.

Question: 'household_average_income' has 72 issues.
  - The dimension(s) with the most issues: model based outlier with 39 issues.
  - The second dimension with issues: completeness check with 33 issues.

Question: 'household_average_income_male_members' has 39 issues.
  - The dimension with the most issues: completeness check with 39 issues.

Question: 'household_average_expenses_education' has 29 issues.
  - The dimension(s) with the most issues: model based outlier with 23 issues.
  - The second dimension with issues: completeness check with 6 issues.

Question: 'impact_contributions_other_factors' has 23 issues.
  - The dimension with the most issues: completeness check with 23 issues.

Question: 'monthly_spend_on_healthcare' has 21 issues.
  - The dimension with the most issues: completeness check with 21 issues.

For a detailed view of each question's consistency issues, please refer to the 'Data Consistency Issues Deep Dive' tab.

---

### Integrity Action Suggestions
The following respondents exhibit low integrity scores, and we recommend taking a closer look at them.

**Respondent with _index: 1**

 The following checks scored below the maximum value:
Payment For Survey (score: 0/1)
Respondent Influenced (score: 0/1)
Response Time Integrity (score: 0.0/1)
Questions Which Were Difficult (score: 0.0/2)
Respondent Suspicious (score: 0/2)
Phone Number Check (score: 0.0/1)
Name Check (score: 0.0/1)
Location Check (score: 0/1)

 The following checks are evaluated for integrity:
- **Payment for Survey:** Less integrity if the respondent was paid to do it.
- **Respondent Influenced:** Less integrity score if the respondent seemed influenced.
- **Response Time Integrity:** Less integrity if the respondent took too long or too short to respond.
- **Audio Verification:** More integrity if audio verification is in place.
- **Questions Were Difficult:** Less integrity if more questions were hard to respond to.
- **Respondent Suspicious:** Less integrity the more suspicious the respondent is.
- **Phone Number Check:** More integrity if a realistic phone number is provided.
- **Response Uniqueness:** More integrity if the response is truly unique.
- **Name Check:** More integrity if the name is realistic.
- **Impact Feedback Integrity:** More integrity if relevant and well-articulated feedback is provided.
- **Enumerator Bias:** Less integrity if enumerator responses are biased.
- **Location Check:** Less integrity if responses' locations are too close to each other in certain contexts.

For a detailed view of each respondent's integrity issues, please refer to the 'Integrity Issues Deep Dive' tab.

---

### Representativity Action Suggestions

Baseline (no cleansing) overall representativity score: 0.795  
After high urgency cleansing (Scenario A), the score is 0.795 (remained the same, Δ = 0.000).  
After low urgency cleansing (Scenario B), the score is 0.757 (declined, Δ = -0.038).

---

### Enumerator Action Suggestions
No enumerator bias has been found.
"""

def plot_dimension(dim_col, scenario):
    value = data.set_index("scenario").loc[scenario, dim_col]
    fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(4, 7))
    ax.axhspan(0, 0.6, color="#FF4D4F", alpha=0.30)
    ax.axhspan(0.6, 0.8, color="#FFE58F", alpha=0.30)
    ax.axhspan(0.8, 0.95, color="#52C41A", alpha=0.30)
    ax.axhline(value, color='black', lw=2, xmin=0.35, xmax=0.65)
    ax.annotate(
        f"{value:.3f}",
        xy=(0.5, value),
        xycoords=('axes fraction', 'data'),
        ha='center', va='bottom',
        fontsize=22, weight='bold',
        color='black',
        bbox=dict(facecolor='white', edgecolor='none', alpha=0.8, boxstyle='round,pad=0.2')
    )
    ax.set_xlim(0, 1)
    ax.set_ylim(0, 0.95)
    ax.set_xticks([])
    ax.set_yticks([0, 0.6, 0.8, 0.95])
    ax.set_yticklabels(["0.0", "0.6", "0.8", "1.0"], fontsize=15)
    for spine in ax.spines.values():
        spine.set_visible(False)
    ax.spines['left'].set_visible(True)
    ax.spines['left'].set_linewidth(2)
    plt.subplots_adjust(top=0.88)
    ax.set_title(
        f"{dim_col.replace('_', ' ').title()}\n({scenario_map[scenario]})",
        fontsize=15, weight='bold', pad=10
    )
    plt.tight_layout()
    return fig

def show_plots(scenario):
    fig1 = plot_dimension("consistency_score", scenario)
    fig2 = plot_dimension("overall_representativity_score", scenario)
    fig3 = plot_dimension("integrity_score", scenario)
    img_list = []
    for fig in [fig1, fig2, fig3]:
        buf = io.BytesIO()
        fig.savefig(buf, format='png', bbox_inches='tight')
        buf.seek(0)
        img = Image.open(buf)
        img_list.append(img)
        plt.close(fig)
    return img_list

# --- Simple table filter function ---
def filter_table(col, val):
    df = pd.read_csv("issues_log.csv")
    if col and val:
        if col in df.columns:
            mask = df[col].astype(str).str.contains(str(val), case=False, na=False)
            return df[mask]
        else:
            return pd.DataFrame({"error": [f"Column '{col}' not in table."]})
    return df

def get_quality_text(selected_scenario):
    if selected_scenario == "A":
        return QUALITY_TEXT
    else:
        return f"Select scenario 'Urgent cleansing' to see the detailed data quality analysis."

# --- Gradio UI ---
with gr.Blocks() as demo:
    gr.Markdown("## Data Quality Scenario Explorer")

    with gr.Row():
        scenario = gr.Dropdown(
            choices=[("No cleansing", "0"), ("Urgent cleansing", "A"), ("Urgent+Low urgency cleansing", "B")],
            value="0",
            label="Select Scenario"
        )

    with gr.Row():
        out1 = gr.Image(label="Consistency Score Traffic Light")
        out2 = gr.Image(label="Overall Representativity Score Traffic Light")
        out3 = gr.Image(label="Integrity Score Traffic Light")
    scenario.change(show_plots, scenario, [out1, out2, out3])

    with gr.Row():
        gr.Markdown("### Overall Data Quality Analysis")
        analysis_text = gr.Markdown(value=get_quality_text("0"), visible=True)
    scenario.change(get_quality_text, scenario, analysis_text)

    with gr.Row():
        gr.Markdown("### Data Consistency Issues Deep Dive (Table 1.2)")
    with gr.Row():
        filter_col = gr.Textbox(label="Column (optional)")
        filter_val = gr.Textbox(label="Value (optional)")
        table_out = gr.Dataframe(label="Filtered Table 1.2 (issues_log.csv)")

    filter_col.change(filter_table, [filter_col, filter_val], table_out)
    filter_val.change(filter_table, [filter_col, filter_val], table_out)
    demo.load(lambda: filter_table("", ""), outputs=table_out)

if __name__ == "__main__":
    demo.launch()