Chart What I Say: Exploring Cross-Modality Prompt Alignment in AI-Assisted Chart Authoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent chart-authoring systems, such as Amazon Q in QuickSight and Copilot for Power BI, demonstrate an emergent focus on supporting natural language input to share meaningful insights from data through chart creation. Currently, chart-authoring systems tend to integrate voice input capabilities by relying on speech-to-text transcription, processing spoken and typed input similarly. However, cross-modality input comparisons in other interaction domains suggest that the structure of spoken and typed-in interactions could notably differ, reflecting variations in user expectations based on interface affordances. Thus, in this work, we compare spoken and typed instructions for chart creation. Findings suggest that while both text and voice instructions cover chart elements and element organization, voice descriptions have a variety of command formats, element characteristics, and complex linguistic features. Based on these findings, we developed guidelines for designing voice-based authoring-oriented systems and additional features that can be incorporated into existing text-based systems to support speech modality.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".