Title: Knowing what to look for: A Fact-Evidence Reasoning Framework for Decoding Communicative Visualization
Despite the widespread use of communicative charts as a medium for scientific communication, we lack a systematic understanding of how well the charts fulfill the goals of effective visual communication. Existing research mostly focuses on the means, i.e. the encoding principles, and not the end, i.e. the key takeaway of a chart.
To address this gap, we start from the first principles and aim to answer the fundamental question: how can we describe the message of a scientific chart? We contribute a fact-evidence reasoning framework (FaEvR) by augmenting the conventional visualization pipeline with the stages of gathering and associating evidence for decoding the facts presented in a chart. We apply the resulting classification scheme of fact and evidence on a collection of 500 charts collected
from publications in multiple science domains. We demonstrate the practical applications of FaEvR in calibrating task complexity and detecting barriers towards chart interpretability. more »« less
Davila, Kenny; Setlur, Srirangaraj; Doermann, David; Bhargava, Urala Kota; Govindaraju, Venu(
, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence)
null
(Ed.)
Charts are useful communication tools for the presentation of data in a visually appealing format that facilitates comprehension. There have been many studies dedicated to chart mining, which refers to the process of automatic detection, extraction and analysis of charts to reproduce the tabular data that was originally used to create them. By allowing access to data which might not be available in other formats, chart mining facilitates the creation of many downstream applications. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of approaches across all components of the automated chart mining pipeline such as (i) automated extraction of charts from documents; (ii) processing of multi-panel charts; (iii) automatic image classifiers to collect chart images at scale; (iv) automated extraction of data from each chart image, for popular chart types as well as selected specialized classes; (v) applications of chart mining; and (vi) datasets for training and evaluation, and the methods that were used to build them. Finally, we summarize the main trends found in the literature and provide pointers to areas for further research in chart mining.
Davila, Kenny; Kota, Bhargava Urala; Setlur, Srirangaraj; Govindaraju, Venu; Tensmeyer, Christopher; Shekhar, Sumit; Chaudhry, Ritwick(
, 2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR))
This work summarizes the results of the first Competition on Harvesting Raw Tables from Infographics (ICDAR 2019 CHART-Infographics). The complex process of automatic chart recognition is divided into multiple tasks for the purpose of this competition, including Chart Image Classification (Task 1), Text Detection and Recognition (Task 2), Text Role Classification (Task 3), Axis Analysis (Task 4), Legend Analysis (Task 5), Plot Element Detection and Classification (Task 6.a), Data Extraction (Task 6.b), and End-to-End Data Extraction (Task 7). We provided a large synthetic training set and evaluated submitted systems using newly proposed metrics on both synthetic charts and manually-annotated real charts taken from scientific literature. A total of 8 groups registered for the competition out of which 5 submitted results for tasks 1-5. The results show that some tasks can be performed highly accurately on synthetic data, but all systems did not perform as well on real world charts. The data, annotation tools, and evaluation scripts have been publicly released for academic use.
Deagen, Michael E.; McCusker, Jamie P.; Fateye, Tolulomo; Stouffer, Samuel; Brinson, L. Cate; McGuinness, Deborah L.; Schadler, Linda S.(
, Scientific Data)
Abstract
Graph databases capture richly linked domain knowledge by integrating heterogeneous data and metadata into a unified representation. Here, we present the use of bespoke, interactive data graphics (bar charts, scatter plots, etc.) for visual exploration of a knowledge graph. By modeling a chart as a set of metadata that describes semantic context (SPARQL query) separately from visual context (Vega-Lite specification), we leverage the high-level, declarative nature of the SPARQL and Vega-Lite grammars to concisely specify web-based, interactive data graphics synchronized to a knowledge graph. Resources with dereferenceable URIs (uniform resource identifiers) can employ the hyperlink encoding channel or image marks in Vega-Lite to amplify the information content of a given data graphic, and published charts populate a browsable gallery of the database. We discuss design considerations that arise in relation to portability, persistence, and performance. Altogether, this pairing of SPARQL and Vega-Lite—demonstrated here in the domain of polymer nanocomposite materials science—offers an extensible approach to FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) scientific data visualization within a knowledge graph framework.
McCowan, K.(
, Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)
Abstract
Expert testimony varies in scientific quality and jurors have a difficult time evaluating evidence quality (McAuliff et al., 2009). In the current study, we apply Fuzzy Trace Theory principles, examining whether visual and gist aids help jurors calibrate to the strength of scientific evidence. Additionally we were interested in the role of jurors’ individual differences in scientific reasoning skills in their understanding of case evidence. Contrary to our preregistered hypotheses, there was no effect of evidence condition or gist aid on evidence understanding. However, individual differences between jurors’ numeracy skills predicted evidence understanding.
Summary
Poor-quality expert evidence is sometimes admitted into court (Smithburn, 2004). Jurors’ calibration to evidence strength varies widely and is not robustly understood. For instance, previous research has established jurors lack understanding of the role of control groups, confounds, and sample sizes in scientific research (McAuliff, Kovera, & Nunez, 2009; Mill, Gray, & Mandel, 1994). Still others have found that jurors can distinguish weak from strong evidence when the evidence is presented alone, yet not when simultaneously presented with case details (Smith, Bull, & Holliday, 2011). This research highlights the need to present evidence to jurors in a way they can understand. Fuzzy Trace Theory purports that people encode information in exact, verbatim representations and through “gist” representations, which represent summary of meaning (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995). It is possible that the presenting complex scientific evidence to people with verbatim content or appealing to the gist, or bottom-line meaning of the information may influence juror understanding of that evidence. Application of Fuzzy Trace Theory in the medical field has shown that gist representations are beneficial for helping laypeople better understand risk and benefits of medical treatment (Brust-Renck, Reyna, Wilhelms, & Lazar, 2016). Yet, little research has applied Fuzzy Trace Theory to information comprehension and application within the context of a jury (c.f. Reyna et. al., 2015). Additionally, it is likely that jurors’ individual characteristics, such as scientific reasoning abilities and cognitive tendencies, influence their ability to understand and apply complex scientific information (Coutinho, 2006).
Methods
The purpose of this study was to examine how jurors calibrate to the strength of scientific information, and whether individual difference variables and gist aids inspired by Fuzzy Trace Theory help jurors better understand complicated science of differing quality. We used a 2 (quality of scientific evidence: high vs. low) x 2 (decision aid to improve calibration - gist information vs. no gist information), between-subjects design. All hypotheses were preregistered on the Open Science Framework.
Jury-eligible community participants (430 jurors across 90 juries; Mage = 37.58, SD = 16.17, 58% female, 56.93% White). Each jury was randomly assigned to one of the four possible conditions. Participants were asked to individually fill out measures related to their scientific reasoning skills prior to watching a mock jury trial. The trial was about an armed bank robbery and consisted of various pieces of testimony and evidence (e.g. an eyewitness testimony, police lineup identification, and a sweatshirt found with the stolen bank money). The key piece of evidence was mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence collected from hair on a sweatshirt (materials from Hans et al., 2011). Two experts presented opposing opinions about the scientific evidence related to the mtDNA match estimate for the defendant’s identification. The quality and content of this mtDNA evidence differed based on the two conditions. The high quality evidence condition used a larger database than the low quality evidence to compare to the mtDNA sample and could exclude a larger percentage of people. In the decision aid condition, experts in the gist information group presented gist aid inspired visuals and examples to help explain the proportion of people that could not be excluded as a match. Those in the no gist information group were not given any aid to help them understand the mtDNA evidence presented. After viewing the trial, participants filled out a questionnaire on how well they understood the mtDNA evidence and their overall judgments of the case (e.g. verdict, witness credibility, scientific evidence strength). They filled this questionnaire out again after a 45-minute deliberation.
Measures
We measured Attitudes Toward Science (ATS) with indices of scientific promise and scientific reservations (Hans et al., 2011; originally developed by National Science Board, 2004; 2006). We used Drummond and Fischhoff’s (2015) Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS) to measure scientific reasoning skills. Weller et al.’s (2012) Numeracy Scale (WNS) measured proficiency in reasoning with quantitative information. The NFC-Short Form (Cacioppo et al., 1984) measured need for cognition. We developed a 20-item multiple-choice comprehension test for the mtDNA scientific information in the cases (modeled on Hans et al., 2011, and McAuliff et al., 2009). Participants were shown 20 statements related to DNA evidence and asked whether these statements were True or False. The test was then scored out of 20 points.
Results
For this project, we measured calibration to the scientific evidence in a few different ways. We are building a full model with these various operationalizations to be presented at APLS, but focus only on one of the calibration DVs (i.e., objective understanding of the mtDNA evidence) in the current proposal. We conducted a general linear model with total score on the mtDNA understanding measure as the DV and quality of scientific evidence condition, decision aid condition, and the four individual difference measures (i.e., NFC, ATS, WNS, and SRS) as predictors. Contrary to our main hypotheses, neither evidence quality nor decision aid condition affected juror understanding. However, the individual difference variables did: we found significant main effects for Scientific Reasoning Skills, F(1, 427) = 16.03, p <.001, np2 = .04, Weller Numeracy Scale, F(1, 427) = 15.19, p <.001, np2 = .03, and Need for Cognition, F(1, 427) = 16.80, p <.001, np2 = .04, such that those who scored higher on these measures displayed better understanding of the scientific evidence. In addition there was a significant interaction of evidence quality condition and scores on the Weller’s Numeracy Scale, F(1, 427) = 4.10, p = .04, np2 = .01. Further results will be discussed.
Discussion
These data suggest jurors are not sensitive to differences in the quality of scientific mtDNA evidence, and also that our attempt at helping sensitize them with Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired aids did not improve calibration. Individual scientific reasoning abilities and general cognition styles were better predictors of understanding this scientific information. These results suggest a need for further exploration of approaches to help jurors differentiate between high and low quality evidence.
Note: The 3rd author was supported by an AP-LS AP Award for her role in this research.
Learning Objective:
Participants will be able to describe how individual differences in scientific reasoning skills help jurors understand complex scientific evidence.
Kim, Dae Hyun; Setlur, Vidya; Agrawala, Maneesh(
, Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems)
null
(Ed.)
Charts often contain visually prominent features that draw attention to aspects of the data and include text captions that emphasize aspects of the data. Through a crowdsourced study, we explore how readers gather takeaways when considering charts and captions together. We first ask participants to mark visually prominent regions in a set of line charts. We then generate text captions based on the prominent features and ask participants to report their takeaways after observing chart-caption pairs. We find that when both the chart and caption describe a high-prominence feature, readers treat the doubly emphasized high-prominence feature as the takeaway; when the caption describes a low-prominence chart feature, readers rely on the chart and report a higher-prominence feature as the takeaway. We also find that external information that provides context, helps further convey the caption’s message to the reader. We use these findings to provide guidelines for authoring effective chart-caption pairs.
Vaidya, Sahaj, and Dasgupta, Aritra. Knowing what to look for: A Fact-Evidence Reasoning Framework for Decoding Communicative Visualization. Retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10297542. 2020 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS) . Web. doi:10.1109/VIS47514.2020.00053.
@article{osti_10297542,
place = {Country unknown/Code not available},
title = {Knowing what to look for: A Fact-Evidence Reasoning Framework for Decoding Communicative Visualization},
url = {https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10297542},
DOI = {10.1109/VIS47514.2020.00053},
abstractNote = {Despite the widespread use of communicative charts as a medium for scientific communication, we lack a systematic understanding of how well the charts fulfill the goals of effective visual communication. Existing research mostly focuses on the means, i.e. the encoding principles, and not the end, i.e. the key takeaway of a chart. To address this gap, we start from the first principles and aim to answer the fundamental question: how can we describe the message of a scientific chart? We contribute a fact-evidence reasoning framework (FaEvR) by augmenting the conventional visualization pipeline with the stages of gathering and associating evidence for decoding the facts presented in a chart. We apply the resulting classification scheme of fact and evidence on a collection of 500 charts collected from publications in multiple science domains. We demonstrate the practical applications of FaEvR in calibrating task complexity and detecting barriers towards chart interpretability.},
journal = {2020 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS)},
author = {Vaidya, Sahaj and Dasgupta, Aritra},
editor = {null}
}
Warning: Leaving National Science Foundation Website
You are now leaving the National Science Foundation website to go to a non-government website.
Website:
NSF takes no responsibility for and exercises no control over the views expressed or the accuracy of
the information contained on this site. Also be aware that NSF's privacy policy does not apply to this site.
