REFORMS: Consensus-based Recommendations for Machine-learning-based Science.

Machine learning (ML) methods are proliferating in scientific research. However, the adoption of these methods has been accompanied by failures of validity, reproducibility, and generalizability. These failures can hinder scientific progress, lead to false consensus around invalid claims, and undermine the credibility of ML-based science. ML methods are often applied and fail in similar ways across disciplines. Motivated by this observation, our goal is to provide clear recommendations for conducting and reporting ML-based science. Drawing from an extensive review of past literature, we present the REFORMS checklist (recommendations for machine-learning-based science). It consists of 32 questions and a paired set of guidelines. REFORMS was developed on the basis of a consensus of 19 researchers across computer science, data science, mathematics, social sciences, and biomedical sciences. REFORMS can serve as a resource for researchers when designing and implementing a study, for referees when reviewing papers, and for journals when enforcing standards for transparency and reproducibility.

Some problems with zooming out as scientific reform.

Integrative experimentation will improve on the status quo in empirical behavioral science. However, the results integrative experiments produce will remain conditional on the various assumptions used to produce them. Without a theory of interpretability, it remains unclear how viable it is to address the crud factor without sacrificing explainability.

The Rational Agent Benchmark for Data Visualization.

Understanding how helpful a visualization is from experimental results is difficult because the observed performance is confounded with aspects of the study design, such as how useful the information that is visualized is for the task. We develop a rational agent framework for designing and interpreting visualization experiments. Our framework conceives two experiments with the same setup: one with behavioral agents (human subjects), and the other one with a hypothetical rational agent. A visualization is evaluated by comparing the expected performance of behavioral agents to that of a rational agent under different assumptions. Using recent visualization decision studies from the literature, we demonstrate how the framework can be used to pre-experimentally evaluate the experiment design by bounding the expected improvement in performance from having access to visualizations, and post-experimentally to deconfound errors of information extraction from errors of optimization, among other analyses.

Are We Closing the Loop Yet? Gaps in the Generalizability of VIS4ML Research.

Visualization for machine learning (VIS4ML) research aims to help experts apply their prior knowledge to develop, understand, and improve the performance of machine learning models. In conceiving VIS4ML systems, researchers characterize the nature of human knowledge to support human-in-the-loop tasks, design interactive visualizations to make ML components interpretable and elicit knowledge, and evaluate the effectiveness of human-model interchange. We survey recent VIS4ML papers to assess the generalizability of research contributions and claims in enabling human-in-the-loop ML. Our results show potential gaps between the current scope of VIS4ML research and aspirations for its use in practice. We find that while papers motivate that VIS4ML systems are applicable beyond the specific conditions studied, conclusions are often overfitted to non-representative scenarios, are based on interactions with a small set of ML experts and well-understood datasets, fail to acknowledge crucial dependencies, and hinge on decisions that lack justification. We discuss approaches to close the gap between aspirations and research claims and suggest documentation practices to report generality constraints that better acknowledge the exploratory nature of VIS4ML research.

EVM: Incorporating Model Checking into Exploratory Visual Analysis.

Visual analytics (VA) tools support data exploration by helping analysts quickly and iteratively generate views of data which reveal interesting patterns. However, these tools seldom enable explicit checks of the resulting interpretations of data-e.g., whether patterns can be accounted for by a model that implies a particular structure in the relationships between variables. We present EVM, a data exploration tool that enables users to express and check provisional interpretations of data in the form of statistical models. EVM integrates support for visualization-based model checks by rendering distributions of model predictions alongside user-generated views of data. In a user study with data scientists practicing in the private and public sector, we evaluate how model checks influence analysts' thinking during data exploration. Our analysis characterizes how participants use model checks to scrutinize expectations about data generating process and surfaces further opportunities to scaffold model exploration in VA tools.

Dupo: A Mixed-Initiative Authoring Tool for Responsive Visualization.

Designing responsive visualizations for various screen types can be tedious as authors must manage multiple chart versions across design iterations. Automated approaches for responsive visualization must take into account the user's need for agency in exploring possible design ideas and applying customizations based on their own goals. We design and implement Dupo, a mixedinitiative approach to creating responsive visualizations that combines the agency afforded by a manual interface with automation provided by a recommender system. Given an initial design, users can browse automated design suggestions for a different screen type and make edits to a chosen design, thereby supporting quick prototyping and customizability. Dupo employs a two-step recommender pipeline that first suggests significant design changes (Exploration) followed by more subtle changes (Alteration). We evaluated Dupo with six expert responsive visualization authors. While creating responsive versions of a source design in Dupo, participants could reason about different design suggestions without having to manually prototype them, and thus avoid prematurely fixating on a particular design. This process led participants to create designs that they were satisfied with but which they had previously overlooked.

Swaying the Public? Impacts of Election Forecast Visualizations on Emotion, Trust, and Intention in the 2022 U.S. Midterms.

We conducted a longitudinal study during the 2022 U.S. midterm elections, investigating the real-world impacts of uncertainty visualizations. Using our forecast model of the governor elections in 33 states, we created a website and deployed four uncertainty visualizations for the election forecasts: single quantile dotplot (1-Dotplot), dual quantile dotplots (2-Dotplot), dual histogram intervals (2-Interval), and Plinko quantile dotplot (Plinko), an animated design with a physical and probabilistic analogy. Our online experiment ran from Oct. 18, 2022, to Nov. 23, 2022, involving 1,327 participants from 15 states. We use Bayesian multilevel modeling and post-stratification to produce demographically-representative estimates of people's emotions, trust in forecasts, and political participation intention. We find that election forecast visualizations can heighten emotions, increase trust, and slightly affect people's intentions to participate in elections. 2-Interval shows the strongest effects across all measures; 1-Dotplot increases trust the most after elections. Both visualizations create emotional and trust gaps between different partisan identities, especially when a Republican candidate is predicted to win. Our qualitative analysis uncovers the complex political and social contexts of election forecast visualizations, showcasing that visualizations may provoke polarization. This intriguing interplay between visualization types, partisanship, and trust exemplifies the fundamental challenge of disentangling visualization from its context, underscoring a need for deeper investigation into the real-world impacts of visualizations. Our preprint and supplements are available at https://doi.org/osf.io/ajq8f.

Visualizing Uncertainty in Probabilistic Graphs with Network Hypothetical Outcome Plots (NetHOPs).

Probabilistic graphs are challenging to visualize using the traditional node-link diagram. Encoding edge probability using visual variables like width or fuzziness makes it difficult for users of static network visualizations to estimate network statistics like densities, isolates, path lengths, or clustering under uncertainty. We introduce Network Hypothetical Outcome Plots (NetHOPs), a visualization technique that animates a sequence of network realizations sampled from a network distribution defined by probabilistic edges. NetHOPs employ an aggregation and anchoring algorithm used in dynamic and longitudinal graph drawing to parameterize layout stability for uncertainty estimation. We present a community matching algorithm to enable visualizing the uncertainty of cluster membership and community occurrence. We describe the results of a study in which 51 network experts used NetHOPs to complete a set of common visual analysis tasks and reported how they perceived network structures and properties subject to uncertainty. Participants' estimates fell, on average, within 11% of the ground truth statistics, suggesting NetHOPs can be a reasonable approach for enabling network analysts to reason about multiple properties under uncertainty. Participants appeared to articulate the distribution of network statistics slightly more accurately when they could manipulate the layout anchoring and the animation speed. Based on these findings, we synthesize design recommendations for developing and using animated visualizations for probabilistic networks.

An Automated Approach to Reasoning About Task-Oriented Insights in Responsive Visualization.

Authors often transform a large screen visualization for smaller displays through rescaling, aggregation and other techniques when creating visualizations for both desktop and mobile devices (i.e., responsive visualization). However, transformations can alter relationships or patterns implied by the large screen view, requiring authors to reason carefully about what information to preserve while adjusting their design for the smaller display. We propose an automated approach to approximating the loss of support for task-oriented visualization insights (identification, comparison, and trend) in responsive transformation of a source visualization. We operationalize identification, comparison, and trend loss as objective functions calculated by comparing properties of the rendered source visualization to each realized target (small screen) visualization. To evaluate the utility of our approach, we train machine learning models on human ranked small screen alternative visualizations across a set of source visualizations. We find that our approach achieves an accuracy of 84% (random forest model) in ranking visualizations. We demonstrate this approach in a prototype responsive visualization recommender that enumerates responsive transformations using Answer Set Programming and evaluates the preservation of task-oriented insights using our loss measures. We discuss implications of our approach for the development of automated and semi-automated responsive visualization recommendation.

Causal Support: Modeling Causal Inferences with Visualizations.

Analysts often make visual causal inferences about possible data-generating models. However, visual analytics (VA) software tends to leave these models implicit in the mind of the analyst, which casts doubt on the statistical validity of informal visual "insights". We formally evaluate the quality of causal inferences from visualizations by adopting causal support-a Bayesian cognition model that learns the probability of alternative causal explanations given some data-as a normative benchmark for causal inferences. We contribute two experiments assessing how well crowdworkers can detect (1) a treatment effect and (2) a confounding relationship. We find that chart users' causal inferences tend to be insensitive to sample size such that they deviate from our normative benchmark. While interactively cross-filtering data in visualizations can improve sensitivity, on average users do not perform reliably better with common visualizations than they do with textual contingency tables. These experiments demonstrate the utility of causal support as an evaluation framework for inferences in VA and point to opportunities to make analysts' mental models more explicit in VA software.

Visualization Equilibrium.

In many real-world strategic settings, people use information displays to make decisions. In these settings, an information provider chooses which information to provide to strategic agents and how to present it, and agents formulate a best response based on the information and their anticipation of how others will behave. We contribute the results of a controlled online experiment to examine how the provision and presentation of information impacts people's decisions in a congestion game. Our experiment compares how different visualization approaches for displaying this information, including bar charts and hypothetical outcome plots, and different information conditions, including where the visualized information is private versus public (i.e., available to all agents), affect decision making and welfare. We characterize the effects of visualization anticipation, referring to changes to behavior when an agent goes from alone having access to a visualization to knowing that others also have access to the visualization to guide their decisions. We also empirically identify the visualization equilibrium, i.e., the visualization for which the visualized outcome of agents' decisions matches the realized decisions of the agents who view it. We reflect on the implications of visualization equilibria and visualization anticipation for designing information displays for real-world strategic settings.

The Science of Visual Data Communication: What Works.

Effectively designed data visualizations allow viewers to use their powerful visual systems to understand patterns in data across science, education, health, and public policy. But ineffectively designed visualizations can cause confusion, misunderstanding, or even distrust-especially among viewers with low graphical literacy. We review research-backed guidelines for creating effective and intuitive visualizations oriented toward communicating data to students, coworkers, and the general public. We describe how the visual system can quickly extract broad statistics from a display, whereas poorly designed displays can lead to misperceptions and illusions. Extracting global statistics is fast, but comparing between subsets of values is slow. Effective graphics avoid taxing working memory, guide attention, and respect familiar conventions. Data visualizations can play a critical role in teaching and communication, provided that designers tailor those visualizations to their audience.

Visual Reasoning Strategies for Effect Size Judgments and Decisions.

Uncertainty visualizations often emphasize point estimates to support magnitude estimates or decisions through visual comparison. However, when design choices emphasize means, users may overlook uncertainty information and misinterpret visual distance as a proxy for effect size. We present findings from a mixed design experiment on Mechanical Turk which tests eight uncertainty visualization designs: 95% containment intervals, hypothetical outcome plots, densities, and quantile dotplots, each with and without means added. We find that adding means to uncertainty visualizations has small biasing effects on both magnitude estimation and decision-making, consistent with discounting uncertainty. We also see that visualization designs that support the least biased effect size estimation do not support the best decision-making, suggesting that a chart user's sense of effect size may not necessarily be identical when they use the same information for different tasks. In a qualitative analysis of users' strategy descriptions, we find that many users switch strategies and do not employ an optimal strategy when one exists. Uncertainty visualizations which are optimally designed in theory may not be the most effective in practice because of the ways that users satisfice with heuristics, suggesting opportunities to better understand visualization effectiveness by modeling sets of potential strategies.

Bayesian-Assisted Inference from Visualized Data.

A Bayesian view of data interpretation suggests that a visualization user should update their existing beliefs about a parameter's value in accordance with the amount of information about the parameter value captured by the new observations. Extending recent work applying Bayesian models to understand and evaluate belief updating from visualizations, we show how the predictions of Bayesian inference can be used to guide more rational belief updating. We design a Bayesian inference-assisted uncertainty analogy that numerically relates uncertainty in observed data to the user's subjective uncertainty, and a posterior visualization that prescribes how a user should update their beliefs given their prior beliefs and the observed data. In a pre-registered experiment on 4,800 people, we find that when a newly observed data sample is relatively small (N=158), both techniques reliably improve people's Bayesian updating on average compared to the current best practice of visualizing uncertainty in the observed data. For large data samples (N=5208), where people's updated beliefs tend to deviate more strongly from the prescriptions of a Bayesian model, we find evidence that the effectiveness of the two forms of Bayesian assistance may depend on people's proclivity toward trusting the source of the data. We discuss how our results provide insight into individual processes of belief updating and subjective uncertainty, and how understanding these aspects of interpretation paves the way for more sophisticated interactive visualizations for analysis and communication.

Uncertain About Uncertainty: How Qualitative Expressions of Forecaster Confidence Impact Decision-Making With Uncertainty Visualizations.

When forecasting events, multiple types of uncertainty are often inherently present in the modeling process. Various uncertainty typologies exist, and each type of uncertainty has different implications a scientist might want to convey. In this work, we focus on one type of distinction between direct quantitative uncertainty and indirect qualitative uncertainty. Direct quantitative uncertainty describes uncertainty about facts, numbers, and hypotheses that can be communicated in absolute quantitative forms such as probability distributions or confidence intervals. Indirect qualitative uncertainty describes the quality of knowledge concerning how effectively facts, numbers, or hypotheses represent reality, such as evidence confidence scales proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A large body of research demonstrates that both experts and novices have difficulty reasoning with quantitative uncertainty, and visualizations of uncertainty can help with such traditionally challenging concepts. However, the question of if, and how, people may reason with multiple types of uncertainty associated with a forecast remains largely unexplored. In this series of studies, we seek to understand if individuals can integrate indirect uncertainty about how "good" a model is (operationalized as a qualitative expression of forecaster confidence) with quantified uncertainty in a prediction (operationalized as a quantile dotplot visualization of a predicted distribution). Our first study results suggest that participants utilize both direct quantitative uncertainty and indirect qualitative uncertainty when conveyed as quantile dotplots and forecaster confidence. In manipulations where forecasters were less sure about their prediction, participants made more conservative judgments. In our second study, we varied the amount of quantified uncertainty (in the form of the SD of the visualized distributions) to examine how participants' decisions changed under different combinations of quantified uncertainty (variance) and qualitative uncertainty (low, medium, and high forecaster confidence). The second study results suggest that participants updated their judgments in the direction predicted by both qualitative confidence information (e.g., becoming more conservative when the forecaster confidence is low) and quantitative uncertainty (e.g., becoming more conservative when the variance is increased). Based on the findings from both experiments, we recommend that forecasters present qualitative expressions of model confidence whenever possible alongside quantified uncertainty.

Why Authors Don't Visualize Uncertainty.

Clear presentation of uncertainty is an exception rather than rule in media articles, data-driven reports, and consumer applications, despite proposed techniques for communicating sources of uncertainty in data. This work considers, Why do so many visualization authors choose not to visualize uncertainty? I contribute a detailed characterization of practices, associations, and attitudes related to uncertainty communication among visualization authors, derived from the results of surveying 90 authors who regularly create visualizations for others as part of their work, and interviewing thirteen influential visualization designers. My results highlight challenges that authors face and expose assumptions and inconsistencies in beliefs about the role of uncertainty in visualization. In particular, a clear contradiction arises between authors' acknowledgment of the value of depicting uncertainty and the norm of omitting direct depiction of uncertainty. To help explain this contradiction, I present a rhetorical model of uncertainty omission in visualization-based communication. I also adapt a formal statistical model of how viewers judge the strength of a signal in a visualization to visualization-based communication, to argue that uncertainty communication necessarily reduces degrees of freedom in viewers' statistical inferences. I conclude with recommendations for how visualization research on uncertainty communication could better serve practitioners' current needs and values while deepening understanding of assumptions that reinforce uncertainty omission.

Illusion of Causality in Visualized Data.

Students who eat breakfast more frequently tend to have a higher grade point average. From this data, many people might confidently state that a before-school breakfast program would lead to higher grades. This is a reasoning error, because correlation does not necessarily indicate causation - X and Y can be correlated without one directly causing the other. While this error is pervasive, its prevalence might be amplified or mitigated by the way that the data is presented to a viewer. Across three crowdsourced experiments, we examined whether how simple data relations are presented would mitigate this reasoning error. The first experiment tested examples similar to the breakfast-GPA relation, varying in the plausibility of the causal link. We asked participants to rate their level of agreement that the relation was correlated, which they rated appropriately as high. However, participants also expressed high agreement with a causal interpretation of the data. Levels of support for the causal interpretation were not equally strong across visualization types: causality ratings were highest for text descriptions and bar graphs, but weaker for scatter plots. But is this effect driven by bar graphs aggregating data into two groups or by the visual encoding type? We isolated data aggregation versus visual encoding type and examined their individual effect on perceived causality. Overall, different visualization designs afford different cognitive reasoning affordances across the same data. High levels of data aggregation by graphs tend to be associated with higher perceived causality in data. Participants perceived line and dot visual encodings as more causal than bar encodings. Our results demonstrate how some visualization designs trigger stronger causal links while choosing others can help mitigate unwarranted perceptions of causality.

In Pursuit of Error: A Survey of Uncertainty Visualization Evaluation.

Understanding and accounting for uncertainty is critical to effectively reasoning about visualized data. However, evaluating the impact of an uncertainty visualization is complex due to the difficulties that people have interpreting uncertainty and the challenge of defining correct behavior with uncertainty information. Currently, evaluators of uncertainty visualization must rely on general purpose visualization evaluation frameworks which can be ill-equipped to provide guidance with the unique difficulties of assessing judgments under uncertainty. To help evaluators navigate these complexities, we present a taxonomy for characterizing decisions made in designing an evaluation of an uncertainty visualization. Our taxonomy differentiates six levels of decisions that comprise an uncertainty visualization evaluation: the behavioral targets of the study, expected effects from an uncertainty visualization, evaluation goals, measures, elicitation techniques, and analysis approaches. Applying our taxonomy to 86 user studies of uncertainty visualizations, we find that existing evaluation practice, particularly in visualization research, focuses on Performance and Satisfaction-based measures that assume more predictable and statistically-driven judgment behavior than is suggested by research on human judgment and decision making. We reflect on common themes in evaluation practice concerning the interpretation and semantics of uncertainty, the use of confidence reporting, and a bias toward evaluating performance as accuracy rather than decision quality. We conclude with a concrete set of recommendations for evaluators designed to reduce the mismatch between the conceptualization of uncertainty in visualization versus other fields.

Hypothetical Outcome Plots Help Untrained Observers Judge Trends in Ambiguous Data.

Animated representations of outcomes drawn from distributions (hypothetical outcome plots, or HOPs) are used in the media and other public venues to communicate uncertainty. HOPs greatly improve multivariate probability estimation over conventional static uncertainty visualizations and leverage the ability of the visual system to quickly, accurately, and automatically process the summary statistical properties of ensembles. However, it is unclear how well HOPs support applied tasks resembling real world judgments posed in uncertainty communication. We identify and motivate an appropriate task to investigate realistic judgments of uncertainty in the public domain through a qualitative analysis of uncertainty visualizations in the news. We contribute two crowdsourced experiments comparing the effectiveness of HOPs, error bars, and line ensembles for supporting perceptual decision-making from visualized uncertainty. Participants infer which of two possible underlying trends is more likely to have produced a sample of time series data by referencing uncertainty visualizations which depict the two trends with variability due to sampling error. By modeling each participant's accuracy as a function of the level of evidence presented over many repeated judgments, we find that observers are able to correctly infer the underlying trend in samples conveying a lower level of evidence when using HOPs rather than static aggregate uncertainty visualizations as a decision aid. Modeling approaches like ours contribute theoretically grounded and richly descriptive accounts of user perceptions to visualization evaluation.