MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117574341 · doi:10.1109/vis60296.2025.00049

ViStruct: Simulating Expert-Like Reasoning Through Task Decomposition and Visual Attention

2025· article· W7117574341 on OpenAlexaff
Oliver Huang, Carolina Nobre

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisualizationChartVisual reasoningTask (project management)Pipeline (software)Key (lock)Data visualizationDecomposition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data visualization tasks often require multi-step reasoning, and the interpretive strategies experts use-such as decomposing complex goals into smaller subtasks and selectively attending to key chart regions-are rarely made explicit. We developed ViStruct as an automated pipeline that simulates these expert behaviours by breaking high-level visual questions into structured analytic steps and high-lighting semantically relevant chart areas. Leveraging large language and vision-language models, we evaluate the system on 45 tasks across 12 chart types and validate its outputs with trained visualization users, confirming its ability to produce interpretable and expert-aligned reasoning sequences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207