Designing and Evaluating Multimodal Interactions for Facilitating Visual Analysis With Dashboards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploring and analyzing data using visualizations is at the heart of many decision-making tasks. Typically, people perform visual data analysis using mouse and touch interactions. While such interactions are often easy to use, they can be inadequate for users to express complex information and may require many steps to complete a task. Recently natural language interaction has emerged as a promising technique for supporting exploration with visualization, as the user can express a complex analytical question more easily. In this paper, we investigate how to synergistically combine language and mouse-based direct manipulations so that the weakness of one modality can be complemented by the other. To this end, we have developed a novel system, named Multimodal Interactions System for Visual Analysis (MIVA), that allows user to provide input using both natural language (e.g., through speech) and direct manipulation (e.g., through mouse or touch) and presents the answer accordingly. To answer the current question in the context of past interactions, the system incorporates previous utterances and direct manipulations made by the user within a finite-state model. The uniqueness of our approach is that unlike most previous approaches which typically support multimodal interactions with a single visualization,MIVAenables multimodal interactions with multiple coordinated visualizations of a dashboard that visually summarizes a dataset. We tested MIVA’s applicability on several dashboards including a COVID-19 dashboard that visualizes coronavirus cases around the globe. We further empirically evaluated our system through a user study with twenty participants. The results of our study revealed that MIVA system enhances the flow of visual analysis by enabling fluid, iterative exploration and refinement of data in a dashboard with multiple-coordinated views.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".