Visual Perception and Mixed-Initiative Interaction for Assisted Visualization Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the integration of perceptual guidelines from human vision with an AI-based mixed-initiative search strategy. The result is a visualization assistant called ViA, a system that collaborates with its users to identify perceptually salient visualizations for large, multidimensional datasets. ViA applies knowledge of low-level human vision to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of a particular visualization for a given dataset and analysis tasks; and (2) rapidly direct its search towards new visualizations that are most likely to offer improvements over those seen to date. Context, domain expertise, and a high-level understanding of a dataset are critical to identifying effective visualizations. We apply a mixed-initiative strategy that allows ViA and its users to share their different strengths and continually improve ViA's understanding of a user's preferences. We visualize historical weather conditions to compare ViA's search strategy to exhaustive analysis, simulated annealing, and reactive tabu search, and to measure the improvement provided by mixed-initiative interaction. We also visualize intelligent agents competing in a simulated online auction to evaluate ViA's perceptual guidelines. Results from each study are positive, suggesting that ViA can construct high-quality visualizations for a range of real-world datasets.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".