Saliency Deficit and Motion Outlier Detection in Animated Scatterplots
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the results of a crowdsourced experiment that measured the accuracy of motion outlier detection in multivariate, animated scatterplots. The targets were outliers either in speed or direction of motion, and were presented with varying levels of saliency in dimensions that are irrelevant to the task of motion outlier detection (e.g., color, size, position). We found that participants had trouble finding the outlier when it lacked irrelevant salient features and that visual channels contribute unevenly to the odds of an outlier being correctly detected. Direction of motion contributes the most to accurate detection of speed outliers, and position contributes the most to accurate detection of direction outliers. We introduce the concept of saliency deficit in which item importance in the data space is not reflected in the visualization due to a lack of saliency. We conclude that motion outlier detection is not well supported in multivariate animated scatterplots.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it