More Like Vis, Less Like Vis: Comparing Interactions for Integrating User Preferences Into Partial Specification Recommenders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visualization recommendation systems make data exploration less tedious by automating the process of visualization generation. They are particularly helpful for non-expert users who may not be familiar with a data set or the process of visualization specification. These systems allow users to input their preferences in the form of partial specifications to steer the recommendations made. However, the interaction approaches for partial specification input and their trade-offs have not been explored in prior work. In this article, we compare three different combinations of interaction approaches and granularities for users to indicate a preferred partial specification: 1) manual input, 2) inferring preferred partial specifications from binary like/dislike ratings for a visualization as a whole, or 3) inferring preferred partial specifications from binary like/dislike ratings for granular components of a visualization specification. In a between-subjects study, participants were assigned to one of three conditions and asked to complete a data exploration task. Our results indicate that manual input led to a greater coverage of data dimensions, while like/dislike ratings led to a greater diversity of marks and channels used. Qualitative participant feedback also reveals differences in user strategy and visualization comprehension across the three interaction conditions. Finally, we conclude with a discussion on implications for multiplicity and visualization comprehension during visual data exploration.
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 | 0.006 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".