Cited by 76Data Visualization and AnalyticsBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

A Bayesian Cognition Approach to Improve Data Visualization

Open access
Kim, Yea-Seul, Walls, Logan A., Krafft, Peter, Hullman, Jessica·2019·Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

People naturally bring their prior beliefs to bear on how they interpret the new information, yet few formal models exist for accounting for the influence of users' prior beliefs in interactions with data presentations like visualizations. We demonstrate a Bayesian cognitive model for understanding how people interpret visualizations in light of prior beliefs and show how this model provides a guide for improving visualization evaluation. In a first study, we show how applying a Bayesian cognition model to a simple visualization scenario indicates that people's judgments are consistent with a hypothesis that they are doing approximate Bayesian inference. In a second study, we evaluate how sensitive our observations of Bayesian behavior are to different techniques for eliciting people subjective distributions, and to different datasets. We find that people don't behave consistently with Bayesian predictions for large sample size datasets, and this difference cannot be explained by elicitation technique. In a final study, we show how normative Bayesian inference can be used as an evaluation framework for visualizations, including of uncertainty.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3290605.3300912

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Persuasiveness of visualized data depends on both context and visualization designs.

    “Prior work suggests that persuasiveness of visualized data depends on both context (does the topic align with the viewers' prior beliefs?) and visualization designs (tabular design or bar graphs) [25, 26, 34].”

    From Illusion of Causality in Visualized Data (2020) · cites this paper as [26]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Yea-Seul Kim, Katharina Reinecke, and Jessica Hullman. 2017. Ex- plaining the gap: Visualizing one's predictions improves recall and comprehension of data. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1375-1386.
  2. Joshua B. Tenenbaum Thomas L. Griffiths and Charles Kemp. 2012. Bayesian Inference. In The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning,

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, Y.-S., Walls, L. A., Krafft, P., & Hullman, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2019-05-02
Pages
1-14
OpenAlex
W2908972697
Cited by
76
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5
FWCI
3.83
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1749266)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
data visualization, prior beliefs, approximate Bayesian inference, visualization evaluation, uncertainty visualization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review