More Like Vis, Less Like Vis: Comparing Interactions for Integrating User Preferences Into Partial Specification Recommenders
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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