Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
110 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

An Empirical Study of Counterfactual Visualization to Support Visual Causal Inference (2401.08822v1)

Published 16 Jan 2024 in cs.HC

Abstract: Counterfactuals -- expressing what might have been true under different circumstances -- have been widely applied in statistics and machine learning to help understand causal relationships. More recently, counterfactuals have begun to emerge as a technique being applied within visualization research. However, it remains unclear to what extent counterfactuals can aid with visual data communication. In this paper, we primarily focus on assessing the quality of users' understanding of data when provided with counterfactual visualizations. We propose a preliminary model of causality comprehension by connecting theories from causal inference and visual data communication. Leveraging this model, we conducted an empirical study to explore how counterfactuals can improve users' understanding of data in static visualizations. Our results indicate that visualizing counterfactuals had a positive impact on participants' interpretations of causal relations within datasets. These results motivate a discussion of how to more effectively incorporate counterfactuals into data visualizations.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (94)
  1. Visualization of omics data for systems biology. Nature Methods 2010; 7(Suppl 3): S56–S68.
  2. Kong HK, Liu Z and Karahalios K. Frames and slants in titles of visualizations on controversial topics. In ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–12.
  3. Data changes everything: Challenges and opportunities in data visualization design handoff. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2019; 26(1): 12–22.
  4. The visual causality analyst: An interactive interface for causal reasoning. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2015; 22(1): 230–239.
  5. Visual causality analysis made practical. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST). IEEE, pp. 151–161.
  6. Pearl J. Causal inference in statistics: An overview. Statistics Surveys 2009; 3(none): 96 – 146.
  7. Pearl J. Causality. Cambridge university press, 2009.
  8. Cheng F, Ming Y and Qu H. Dece: Decision explorer with counterfactual explanations for machine learning models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2020; 27(2): 1438–1447.
  9. Vice: Visual counterfactual explanations for machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. pp. 531–535.
  10. Improving visualization interpretation using counterfactuals. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2021; 28(1): 998–1008.
  11. Illusion of causality in visualized data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2019; 26(1): 853–862.
  12. Kale A, Wu Y and Hullman J. Causal support: modeling causal inferences with visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2021; 28(1): 1150–1160.
  13. Communicative visualizations as a learning problem. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2020; 27(2): 946–956.
  14. Declutter and focus: Empirically evaluating design guidelines for effective data communication. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2021; 28(10): 3351–3364.
  15. Affective learning objectives for communicative visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2022; 29(1): 1–11.
  16. Why scatter plots suggest causality, and what we can do about it. arXiv preprint arXiv:180909328 2018; .
  17. Shneiderman B. The eyes have it: A task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages. IEEE, pp. 336–343.
  18. Tukey JW. The future of data analysis. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1962; 33(1): 1–67.
  19. Tukey JW et al. Exploratory data analysis, volume 2. Reading, MA, 1977.
  20. Van Wijk JJ. The value of visualization. In IEEE Visualization. pp. 79–86.
  21. Munzner T. Visualization analysis and design. CRC press, 2014.
  22. Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1984; 79(387): 531–554.
  23. Graphical histories for visualization: Supporting analysis, communication, and evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2008; 14(6): 1189–1196.
  24. Szafir DA. Modeling color difference for visualization design. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2018; 24(1): 392–401. 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2744359.
  25. Measuring categorical perception in color-coded scatterplots. In proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–14.
  26. Sedlmair M, Meyer M and Munzner T. Design study methodology: Reflections from the trenches and the stacks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2012; 18(12): 2431–2440.
  27. Data-driven evaluation of visual quality measures. Computer Graphics Forum 2015; 34. 10.1111/cgf.12632.
  28. Wilkinson L, Anand A and Grossman R. Graph-theoretic scagnostics. In IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis). IEEE, pp. 157–164. 10.1109/INFVIS.2005.1532142.
  29. Improving the robustness of scagnostics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2019; 26(1): 759–769.
  30. Cultivating visualization literacy for children through curiosity and play. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2022; 29(1): 257–267.
  31. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Book 1, Cognitive domain. longman, 2020.
  32. Polyjuice: Generating counterfactuals for explaining, evaluating, and improving models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 6707–6723.
  33. Counterfactual story reasoning and generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. pp. 5043–5053.
  34. Borland D, Wang AZ and Gotz D. Using Counterfactuals to Improve Causal Inferences from Visualizations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 2024; 44(1). 10.1109/MCG.2023.3338788.
  35. The what-if tool: Interactive probing of machine learning models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2019; 26(1): 56–65.
  36. Interact: A visual what-if analysis tool for virtual product design. Information Visualization 2023. 10.1177/14738716231216030.
  37. Oghbaie M, Pennock MJ and Rouse WB. Understanding the efficacy of interactive visualization for decision making for complex systems. In 2016 Annual IEEE Systems Conference (SysCon). IEEE, pp. 1–6.
  38. Structure and strength in causal induction. Cognitive Psychology 2005; 51(4): 334–384.
  39. Compass: Towards better causal analysis of urban time series. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2021; 28(1): 1051–1061.
  40. Xie X, Du F and Wu Y. A visual analytics approach for exploratory causal analysis: Exploration, validation, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2020; 27(2): 1448–1458.
  41. Causalvis: Visualizations for causal inference. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–20.
  42. Learning Bayesian belief networks: An approach based on the MDL principle. Computational Intelligence 1994; 10(3): 269–293.
  43. Plaisant C. The challenge of information visualization evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2004 working conference on Advanced visual interfaces. pp. 109–116.
  44. Empirical studies in information visualization: Seven scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2011; 18(9): 1520–1536.
  45. Beyond memorability: Visualization recognition and recall. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2015; 22(1): 519–528.
  46. Kong HK, Liu Z and Karahalios K. Trust and recall of information across varying degrees of title-visualization misalignment. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–13.
  47. G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 2007; 39(2): 175–191.
  48. Amar R, Eagan J and Stasko J. Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization. In IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis). pp. 111–117. 10.1109/INFVIS.2005.1532136.
  49. Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2009; 13(10): 439–446.
  50. A survey of perception-based visualization studies by task. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2021; .
  51. Visual comparison for information visualization. Information Visualization 2011; 10(4): 289–309.
  52. Glyph-based comparative visualization for diffusion tensor fields. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2015; 22(1): 797–806.
  53. Gleicher M. Considerations for visualizing comparison. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2017; 24(1): 413–423.
  54. Extracting top-k insights from multi-dimensional data. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data. pp. 1509–1524.
  55. Quickinsights: Quick and automatic discovery of insights from multi-dimensional data. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data. pp. 317–332.
  56. Metainsight: Automatic discovery of structured knowledge for exploratory data analysis. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Management of Data. pp. 1262–1274.
  57. The comparisons of data mining techniques for the predictive accuracy of probability of default of credit card clients. Expert Systems with Applications 2009; 36(2): 2473–2480.
  58. Kohavi R et al. Scaling up the accuracy of naive-bayes classifiers: A decision-tree hybrid. In Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. pp. 202–207.
  59. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part V 13. Springer, pp. 740–755.
  60. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage, 2006.
  61. Dragicevic P. Fair statistical communication in hci. Modern Statistical Methods for HCI 2016; : 291–330.
  62. Ritchie H, Roser M and Rosado P. Co2 and greenhouse gas emissions. Our World in Data 2020.
  63. Organization WH et al. Ghe: Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. The Global Health Observatory 2021.
  64. Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision-making analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1997; 69(2): 149–163.
  65. Manski CF. The lure of incredible certitude. Economics & Philosophy 2020; 36(2): 216–245.
  66. Kale A, Kay M and Hullman J. Decision-making under uncertainty in research synthesis: Designing for the garden of forking paths. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 1–14.
  67. Wang AZ, Borland D and Gotz D. Countering simpson’s paradox with counterfactuals. In Poster Proceedings of IEEE VIS. pp. 1–2.
  68. Crowdsourcing graphical perception: using mechanical turk to assess visualization design. In Proceedings of the 2010 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 203–212.
  69. Hullman J, Adar E and Shah P. Benefitting infovis with visual difficulties. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2011; 17(12): 2213–2222.
  70. Beyond weber’s law: A second look at ranking visualizations of correlation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2015; 22(1): 469–478.
  71. Chan YH, Correa CD and Ma KL. The generalized sensitivity scatterplot. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2013; 19(10): 1768–1781.
  72. Evaluating the use of uncertainty visualisations for imputations of data missing at random in scatterplots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2022; 29(1): 602–612.
  73. Hullman J. Why authors don’t visualize uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2019; 26(1): 130–139.
  74. Causal inference in natural language processing: Estimation, prediction, interpretation and beyond. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2022; 10: 1138–1158.
  75. In pursuit of error: A survey of uncertainty visualization evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2018; 25(1): 903–913.
  76. Uncertain about uncertainty: How qualitative expressions of forecaster confidence impact decision-making with uncertainty visualizations. Frontiers in Psychology 2021; 11: 579267.
  77. Zhang Z, Gotz D and Perer A. Iterative cohort analysis and exploration. Information Visualization 2015; 14(4): 289–307.
  78. Visual analysis of high-dimensional event sequence data via dynamic hierarchical aggregation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2019; 26(1): 440–450.
  79. Selection-bias-corrected visualization via dynamic reweighting. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2020; 27(2): 1481–1491.
  80. Selection bias tracking and detailed subset comparison for high-dimensional data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2019; 26(1): 429–439.
  81. Gotz D, Sun S and Cao N. Adaptive contextualization: Combating bias during high-dimensional visualization and data selection. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. pp. 85–95.
  82. Borland D, Wang W and Gotz D. Contextual visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 2018; 38(6): 17–23.
  83. What do we talk about when we talk about dashboards? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2018; 25(1): 682–692.
  84. Visualization model validation via inline replication. Information Visualization 2019; 18(4): 405–425.
  85. Quispel A, Maes A and Schilperoord J. Aesthetics and clarity in information visualization: The designer’s perspective. In Arts, volume 7. MDPI, p. 72.
  86. Understanding visualization by understanding individual users. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 2012; 32(6): 88–94.
  87. Visual scalability. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 2002; 11(1): 22–43.
  88. Scatterplots: Tasks, data, and designs. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2017; 24(1): 402–412.
  89. Ballantyne AG, Wibeck V and Neset TS. Images of climate change–a pilot study of young people’s perceptions of ict-based climate visualization. Climatic change 2016; 134: 73–85.
  90. Behavior-driven visualization recommendation. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. pp. 315–324.
  91. Characterizing users’ visual analytic activity for insight provenance. In 2008 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology. IEEE, pp. 123–130.
  92. Formalizing visualization design knowledge as constraints: Actionable and extensible models in draco. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2018; 25(1): 438–448.
  93. A review on visualization recommendation strategies. In International Conference on Information Visualization Theory and Applications, volume 4. SCITEPRESS, pp. 266–273.
  94. An evaluation-focused framework for visualization recommendation algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 2021; 28(1): 346–356.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (3)
  1. Arran Zeyu Wang (10 papers)
  2. David Borland (9 papers)
  3. David Gotz (21 papers)
Citations (8)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets