pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16355 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-17 · 💻 cs.HC

A Multi-Technique Approach for Improving Summary Polar Diagrams

Aleksandar An\v{z}el , Zewen Yang , Georges Hattab This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 09:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords polar diagramsdata visualizationhybrid techniquesuser studyinteractive filteringsmall multiplesoverview and detailTaylor diagrams
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hybrid approach using overview detail aggregation filtering Cartesian links and small multiples improves summary polar diagrams.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Summary polar diagrams such as Taylor and mutual information diagrams help uncover data relationships and quantify similarity but can suffer from overplotting and reduced intuitiveness. The paper shows that layering overview plus detail aggregation interactive filtering Cartesian linking and small multiples creates clearer more comprehensive versions of these diagrams. Domain experts in climate data science and machine learning reviewed and refined an implementation of the method. A user study then found that participants maintained comparable response times when using the enhanced diagrams compared to basic ones. This combination adds functionality while preserving the speed of interpretation.

Core claim

The central claim is that integrating overview+detail, aggregation, interactive filtering, Cartesian linking, and small multiples produces more effective summary polar diagrams for discovering relationships visualizing similarity and quantifying correspondence. The authors applied the method to climate data novel data science tasks and machine learning and refined it through expert review. A subsequent user study confirmed that response times remained comparable supporting the claim that the enhancements improve clarity comprehensiveness and functionality without added time cost.

What carries the argument

The hybrid approach that layers overview+detail for inspection aggregation to reduce clutter interactive filtering for focus Cartesian linking to connect polar and standard views and small multiples for side by side comparison.

If this is right

  • Experts can apply the enhanced diagrams to climate analysis data science exploration and machine learning model comparison.
  • Users gain better access to overplotted relationships while keeping interpretation times the same.
  • Small multiples and filtering allow direct comparison across multiple datasets or models in one view.
  • Cartesian linking reduces the need to mentally convert between polar and rectangular representations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same layering of standard techniques might reduce overplotting in other non Cartesian chart types such as radial plots or network diagrams.
  • Measuring error rates alongside response times in future studies would give stronger evidence of improved understanding.
  • Deployment in live decision tools such as weather dashboards could test whether the gains appear under time pressure.

Load-bearing premise

That comparable response times and expert feedback demonstrate real gains in comprehension and utility without new cognitive costs or biases in participant selection.

What would settle it

A follow up study in which users of the hybrid diagrams produce more errors or take measurably longer to answer questions about data relationships than users of the original diagrams.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16355 by Aleksandar An\v{z}el, Georges Hattab, Zewen Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Enhanced scaled mutual information diagrams using overview+detail, aggregation, Cartesian linking, and interactive filtering. The diagrams visualize nineteen wine samples compared to the theoretical wine sample containing median property values. The highlighted section in the overview indicates the region of interest, with the selected wine samples identified in the scrollable interactive legend, Cartesian… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Accuracy and response time for experts and non-experts. The y-axis of the right figure is presented on a logarithmic scale to better visualize the wide range of values. The results indicate that the experts achieved perfect accuracy on the train tasks, with all responses classified as correct. However, their performance declined on the test tasks, where they produced a mix of correct and incorrect response… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: System Usability Scale (SUS) scores from user study participants. We can see that the majority of participants evaluated the system as highly usable and well integrated. However, the results also show disagreement among users regarding whether they would learn to use this system quickly, suggesting there are still opportunities to further improve certain aspects of the system’s design and functionality. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stratified System Usability Scale (SUS) scores from user study participants. Results are stratified by user expertise with experts on the left (mean SUS score 76, median 77.5) and non-experts on the right (mean SUS score 67.03, median 70). 1 2 21 5 Cluster size 0 0.5 1 1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 Standard Deviation Correlation Centered Root Mean Squared Error (CRMSE) -1 -0.99 -0.95 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Enhanced Taylor diagrams using small multiple and interactive filtering. The diagrams are utilized to visually compare seven Gaussian Process models with the ground truth. Only two models are highlighted for easier visual comparison. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

While the polar system may lack the universal familiarity of its Cartesian counterpart, it remains indispensable for certain tasks. Summary polar diagrams, such as Taylor and mutual information diagrams, address tasks like discovering relationships, visualizing data similarity, and quantifying correspondence. Although these diagrams are invaluable tools for uncovering data relationships, their polar nature can hinder intuitiveness and lead to issues like overplotting. We present a hybrid approach that combines overview+detail, aggregation, interactive filtering, Cartesian linking, and small multiples to enhance the clarity, comprehensiveness, and functionality of summary polar diagrams. We performed a user study to assess this approach's effectiveness, noting comparable response times among participants. Additionally, three domain experts with varying visualization experience reviewed an implemented solution applying summary polar diagrams to climate, data science (novel), and machine learning, refining the approach prior to the user study. The findings underscore the versatility of our approach in enhancing comprehension, accessibility, and utility.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid multi-technique approach (overview+detail, aggregation, interactive filtering, Cartesian linking, and small multiples) to address intuitiveness and overplotting issues in summary polar diagrams such as Taylor and mutual information diagrams. It applies the approach to climate, data science, and machine learning examples, refines it via iterative review by three domain experts, and evaluates it in a user study that reports comparable response times among participants. The central claim is that the approach enhances clarity, comprehensiveness, and functionality.

Significance. If the hybrid techniques can be shown to improve comprehension and utility without introducing new cognitive costs, the work would offer practical design guidance for polar visualizations in scientific domains. The multi-domain application and combination of established techniques are positive elements, but the current evidence base limits the demonstrated significance.

major comments (3)
  1. [User Study] User Study section: the reported evidence consists only of comparable response times with no accompanying accuracy rates, comprehension scores, error bars, sample size, or statistical tests. This is insufficient to support the claim of enhanced clarity and functionality, as equivalence in time is consistent with no net benefit or hidden costs.
  2. [Expert Review] Expert Review description: the three experts performed iterative refinement prior to the user study rather than a blinded or independent evaluation. This design reduces the ability of the review to provide generalizable support for the hybrid approach's effectiveness.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusions] Abstract and Conclusions: the statements that the findings 'underscore the versatility... enhancing comprehension, accessibility, and utility' are not directly warranted by the described results (comparable times plus pre-study qualitative feedback). A more precise alignment between claims and evidence is needed.
minor comments (2)
  1. Provide explicit details on the user-study tasks, participant demographics, and exact response-time data (means, variances) to improve replicability and allow readers to assess the strength of the 'comparable' finding.
  2. Clarify whether the expert review was structured with specific evaluation criteria or remained open-ended, as this affects how much weight it can carry.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on the evaluation and claim alignment. We address each major comment below, with plans to revise the manuscript for greater precision and transparency.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [User Study] User Study section: the reported evidence consists only of comparable response times with no accompanying accuracy rates, comprehension scores, error bars, sample size, or statistical tests. This is insufficient to support the claim of enhanced clarity and functionality, as equivalence in time is consistent with no net benefit or hidden costs.

    Authors: We agree the user study evidence is limited to comparable response times, which primarily shows the hybrid approach does not introduce measurable time penalties but does not quantify accuracy or comprehension gains. The study focused on efficiency for the selected tasks; accuracy metrics were not collected. We will revise the section to report sample size and any available details, explicitly note these limitations, and adjust claims to emphasize maintained performance rather than proven enhancements in clarity. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Expert Review] Expert Review description: the three experts performed iterative refinement prior to the user study rather than a blinded or independent evaluation. This design reduces the ability of the review to provide generalizable support for the hybrid approach's effectiveness.

    Authors: The expert review was intentionally iterative to refine the design and implementation using domain knowledge from climate, data science, and machine learning before the user study. It was not designed as a blinded evaluation. We will revise the description to clarify its role in design iteration and distinguish it from formal effectiveness assessment, while retaining the qualitative insights it provided. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Abstract and Conclusions] Abstract and Conclusions: the statements that the findings 'underscore the versatility... enhancing comprehension, accessibility, and utility' are not directly warranted by the described results (comparable times plus pre-study qualitative feedback). A more precise alignment between claims and evidence is needed.

    Authors: We acknowledge the current phrasing overreaches given the evidence of comparable times and expert feedback. We will revise the abstract and conclusions to align claims precisely, stating that the approach provides a versatile framework that maintains response times and benefits from expert-informed refinements, thereby supporting potential improvements in clarity and utility without added time costs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical evaluation paper with no derivations or self-referential quantities

full rationale

The paper introduces a hybrid visualization technique for summary polar diagrams and evaluates it via expert review plus a user study reporting comparable response times. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or derivations appear in the provided text. The central claim rests on independent empirical feedback rather than reducing to any self-definition, fitted input renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain. This matches the default expectation of a non-circular applied paper whose evidence is external to its own construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the work relies on standard HCI evaluation practices and existing visualization primitives.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5461 in / 1008 out tokens · 26591 ms · 2026-05-15T09:42:26.906461+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Interactive polar diagrams for model comparison

    Aleksandar Anžel, Dominik Heider, and Georges Hattab. “Interactive polar diagrams for model comparison”. In:Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine242 (2023), p. 107843.ISSN: 0169-2607.DOI: https: / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / j . cmpb . 2023 . 107843.URL: https : / / www . sciencedirect . com / science / article/pii/S0169260723005096

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Animation, Small Multiples, and the Effect of Mental Map Preservation in Dynamic Graphs

    Daniel Archambault, Helen Purchase, and Bruno Pinaud. “Animation, Small Multiples, and the Effect of Mental Map Preservation in Dynamic Graphs”. In:IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics17.4 (Apr. 2011), pp. 539–552.ISSN: 1941-0506.DOI:10.1109/TVCG.2010.78

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2010.78 2011

  3. [3]

    Fishnet, a fisheye web browser with search term popouts: a comparative evaluation with overview and linear view

    Patrick Baudisch, Bongshin Lee, and Libby Hanna. “Fishnet, a fisheye web browser with search term popouts: a comparative evaluation with overview and linear view”. In:Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. A VI ’04. Gallipoli, Italy: Association for Computing Machinery, 2004, pp. 133–140.ISBN: 1581138679.DOI:10.1145/989863.98...

    work page doi:10.1145/989863.989883.url:https://doi.org/10.1145/989863.989883 2004

  4. [4]

    Quality Metrics for 2D Scatterplot Graphics: Automatically Reducing Visual Clutter

    Enrico Bertini and Giuseppe Santucci. “Quality Metrics for 2D Scatterplot Graphics: Automatically Reducing Visual Clutter”. In:Smart Graphics. Ed. by Andreas Butz, Antonio Krüger, and Patrick Olivier. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, pp. 77–89.ISBN: 978-3-540-24678-7.DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-24678- 7_8

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24678- 2004

  5. [5]

    2018.URL: https://bokeh

    Bokeh Development Team.Bokeh: Python library for interactive visualization. 2018.URL: https://bokeh. pydata.org/en/latest/

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Vo, Zoya Bylinskii, Phillip Isola, Shashank Sunkavalli, Aude Oliva, and Hanspeter Pfister

    Michelle A. Borkinet al.“What Makes a Visualization Memorable?” In:IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics19.12 (Dec. 2013), pp. 2306–2315.ISSN: 1941-0506.DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2013.234

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.234 2013

  7. [7]

    A Comparative Evaluation of Animation and Small Multiples for Trend Visualization on Mobile Phones

    Matthew Brehmeret al.“A Comparative Evaluation of Animation and Small Multiples for Trend Visualization on Mobile Phones”. In:IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics26.1 (Jan. 2020), pp. 364–374. ISSN: 1941-0506.DOI:10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934397. 15 Enhanced Summary Polar DiagramsA PREPRINT

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2934397 2020

  8. [8]

    SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale

    John Brooke. “SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale”. In:Usability Evaluation in Industry. Ed. by Patrick W. Jordanet al.London: Taylor & Francis, 1996, pp. 189–194.ISBN: 978-0748404605

    work page 1996

  9. [9]

    In: Proc

    Michael Burchet al.“Cartesian vs. Radial – A Comparative Evaluation of Two Visualization Tools”. In:Advances in Visual Computing. Ed. by George Bebiset al.Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 151– 160.ISBN: 978-3-540-89639-5.URL: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978- 3- 540- 89639-5_15

    work page doi:10.1007/978- 2008

  10. [10]

    On the effectiveness of Overview+Detail visualization on mobile devices

    Stefano Burigat and Luca Chittaro. “On the effectiveness of Overview+Detail visualization on mobile devices”. In: Personal and Ubiquitous Computing17.2 (Feb. 2013), pp. 371–385.ISSN: 1617-4917.DOI: 10.1007/s00779- 011-0500-3.URL:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0500-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00779- 2013

  11. [11]

    Sampling in design research: Eight key considerations

    Philip Cashet al.“Sampling in design research: Eight key considerations”. In:Design Studies78 (2022), p. 101077.ISSN: 0142-694X.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101077 .URL: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X21000880

    work page doi:10.1016/j.destud.2021.101077 2022

  12. [12]

    A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces

    Andy Cockburn, Amy Karlson, and Benjamin B. Bederson. “A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces”. In:ACM Comput. Surv.41.1 (Jan. 2009).ISSN: 0360-0300.DOI: 10.1145/1456650. 1456652.URL:https://doi.org/10.1145/1456650.1456652

    work page doi:10.1145/1456650 2009

  13. [13]

    The Mutual Information Diagram for Uncertainty Visualization

    Carlos Correa and Peter Lindstrom. “The Mutual Information Diagram for Uncertainty Visualization”. In: International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification3 (Jan. 2013), pp. 187–201.DOI: 10 . 1615 / Int . J . UncertaintyQuantification.2012003959

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    Modeling wine preferences by data mining from physicochemical properties

    Paulo Cortezet al.“Modeling wine preferences by data mining from physicochemical properties”. In:Decision Support Systems47.4 (2009). Smart Business Networks: Concepts and Empirical Evidence, pp. 547–553.ISSN: 0167-9236.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.05.016.URL: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0167923609001377

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dss.2009.05.016.url: 2009

  15. [15]

    Uncovering Strengths and Weaknesses of Radial Visualizations—an Empirical Approach

    Stephan Diehl, Fabian Beck, and Michael Burch. “Uncovering Strengths and Weaknesses of Radial Visualizations—an Empirical Approach”. In:IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16.6 (Nov. 2010), pp. 935–942.ISSN: 1941-0506.DOI:10.1109/TVCG.2010.209

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2010.209 2010

  16. [16]

    A Taxonomy of Clutter Reduction for Information Visualisation

    Geoffrey Ellis and Alan Dix. “A Taxonomy of Clutter Reduction for Information Visualisation”. In:IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics13.6 (Nov. 2007), pp. 1216–1223.ISSN: 1941-0506.DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2007.70535

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2007.70535 2007

  17. [17]

    Small Multiples, Large Singles: A New Approach for Visual Data Exploration

    Stef van den Elzen and Jarke J. van Wijk. “Small Multiples, Large Singles: A New Approach for Visual Data Exploration”. In:Computer Graphics Forum32.3pt2 (2013), pp. 191–200.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ cgf.12106.URL:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cgf.12106

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.12106 2013

  18. [18]

    A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise

    Martin Esteret al.“A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise”. In:Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. KDD’96. Portland, Oregon: AAAI Press, 1996, pp. 226–231.URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3001460. 3001507

    work page doi:10.5555/3001460 1996

  19. [19]

    Measuring Graph Literacy without a Test: A Brief Subjective Assessment

    Rocio Garcia-Retameroet al.“Measuring Graph Literacy without a Test: A Brief Subjective Assessment”. In: Medical Decision Making36.7 (2016). PMID: 27353824, pp. 854–867.DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16655334. URL:https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16655334

    work page doi:10.1177/0272989x16655334 2016

  20. [20]

    Hierarchical Edge Bundles: Visualization of Adjacency Relations in Hierarchical Data

    Danny Holten. “Hierarchical Edge Bundles: Visualization of Adjacency Relations in Hierarchical Data”. In: IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics12.5 (Sept. 2006), pp. 741–748.ISSN: 1941-0506. DOI:10.1109/TVCG.2006.147

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2006.147 2006

  21. [21]

    Navigation patterns and usability of zoomable user interfaces with and without an overview

    Kasper Hornbæk, Benjamin B. Bederson, and Catherine Plaisant. “Navigation patterns and usability of zoomable user interfaces with and without an overview”. In:ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.9.4 (Dec. 2002), pp. 362– 389.ISSN: 1073-0516.DOI: 10.1145/586081.586086.URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/586081.586086

    work page doi:10.1145/586081.586086.url: 2002

  22. [22]

    Reading of electronic documents: the usability of linear, fisheye, and overview+detail interfaces

    Kasper Hornbæk and Erik Frøkjær. “Reading of electronic documents: the usability of linear, fisheye, and overview+detail interfaces”. In:Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’01. Seattle, Washington, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2001, pp. 293–300.ISBN: 1581133278.DOI:10.1145/365024.365118.URL:https:/...

    work page doi:10.1145/365024.365118.url:https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365118 2001

  23. [23]

    Examining Limits of Small Multiples: Frame Quantity Impacts Judgments With Line Graphs

    Helia Hosseinpouret al.“Examining Limits of Small Multiples: Frame Quantity Impacts Judgments With Line Graphs”. In:IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics31.3 (Mar. 2025), pp. 1875–1887. ISSN: 1941-0506.DOI:10.1109/TVCG.2024.3372620

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3372620 2025

  24. [24]

    D., 2007, @doi [Computing in Science and Engineering] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , 9, 90

    J. D. Hunter. “Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment”. In:Computing in Science & Engineering9.3 (2007), pp. 90–95.DOI:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  25. [25]

    Montreal, QC, 2015.URL:https://plot.ly

    Plotly Technologies Inc.Collaborative data science. Montreal, QC, 2015.URL:https://plot.ly. 16 Enhanced Summary Polar DiagramsA PREPRINT

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    Summary diagrams for coupled hydrodynamic-ecosystem model skill assessment

    Jason K. Jolliffet al.“Summary diagrams for coupled hydrodynamic-ecosystem model skill assessment”. In: Journal of Marine Systems76.1 (2009). Skill assessment for coupled biological/physical models of marine systems, pp. 64–82.ISSN: 0924-7963.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.05.014 .URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092479...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.05.014 2009

  27. [27]

    Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2011.ISBN: 978-3-031-01470-3.DOI: 10.1007/ 978-3-031-02598-3.URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02598-3

    Heidi Lam and Tamara Munzner.A Guide to Visual Multi-Level Interface Design From Synthesis of Empirical Study Evidence. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2011.ISBN: 978-3-031-01470-3.DOI: 10.1007/ 978-3-031-02598-3.URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02598-3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02598-3 2011

  28. [28]

    Leiner.SoSci Survey

    Dominik J. Leiner.SoSci Survey. Version 3.5.01. Computer software. 2024.URL: https://www.soscisurvey. de

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Cartesian coordinates scaffold stable spatial perception over time

    Minghao Luo, Huihui Zhang, and Huan Luo. “Cartesian coordinates scaffold stable spatial perception over time”. In:Journal of Vision22.8 (July 2022), pp. 13–13.ISSN: 1534-7362.DOI: 10.1167/jov.22.8.13.URL: https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.8.13

    work page doi:10.1167/jov.22.8.13.url: 2022

  30. [30]

    Evaluation of information visualization techniques: analysing user experience with reaction cards

    Tanja Merˇcun. “Evaluation of information visualization techniques: analysing user experience with reaction cards”. In:Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Beyond Time and Errors: Novel Evaluation Methods for Visualization. BELIV ’14. Paris, France: Association for Computing Machinery, 2014, pp. 103–109.ISBN: 9781450332095.DOI: 10.1145/2669557.2669565.URL...

    work page doi:10.1145/2669557.2669565.url: 2014

  31. [31]

    London: A K Peters/CRC Press, Dec

    Tamara Munzner.Visualization Analysis and Design. London: A K Peters/CRC Press, Dec. 2014.DOI: 10. 1201/b17511.URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b17511

    work page doi:10.1201/b17511 2014

  32. [32]

    An evaluation of pan & zoom and rubber sheet navigation with and without an overview

    Dmitry Nekrasovskiet al.“An evaluation of pan & zoom and rubber sheet navigation with and without an overview”. In:Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’06. Montréal, Québec, Canada: Association for Computing Machinery, 2006, pp. 11–20.ISBN: 1595933727.DOI: 10.1145/1124772.1124775.URL:https://doi.org/10.1145/1124...

    work page doi:10.1145/1124772.1124775.url:https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124775 2006

  33. [33]

    Does design matter when visualizing Big Data? An empirical study to investigate the effect of visualization type and interaction use

    Lisa Perkhofer, Conny Walchshofer, and Peter Hofer. “Does design matter when visualizing Big Data? An empirical study to investigate the effect of visualization type and interaction use”. In:Journal of Management Control31.1 (Apr. 2020), pp. 55–95.ISSN: 2191-477X.DOI: 10 . 1007 / s00187 - 020 - 00294 - 0.URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-020-00294-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00187-020-00294-0 2020

  34. [34]

    The challenge of information visualization evaluation

    Catherine Plaisant. “The challenge of information visualization evaluation”. In:Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. A VI ’04. Gallipoli, Italy: Association for Computing Machinery, 2004, pp. 109–116.ISBN: 1581138679.DOI: 10.1145/989863.989880.URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/ 989863.989880

    work page doi:10.1145/989863.989880.url: 2004

  35. [35]

    Relaxing Dense Scatter Plots with Pixel-Based Mappings

    Renata G. Raidou, M. Eduard Gröller, and Martin Eisemann. “Relaxing Dense Scatter Plots with Pixel-Based Mappings”. In:IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics25.6 (June 2019), pp. 2205–2216. ISSN: 1941-0506.DOI:10.1109/TVCG.2019.2903956

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2903956 2019

  36. [36]

    As-Rigid-As- Possible Deformation of Gaussian Radiance Fields ,

    George Robertsonet al.“Effectiveness of Animation in Trend Visualization”. In:IEEE Transactions on Visu- alization and Computer Graphics14.6 (Nov. 2008), pp. 1325–1332.ISSN: 1941-0506.DOI: 10.1109/TVCG. 2008.125

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg 2008

  37. [37]

    Measuring visual clutter

    Ruth Rosenholtz, Yuanzhen Li, and Lisa Nakano. “Measuring visual clutter”. In:Journal of Vision7.2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 17–17.ISSN: 1534-7362.DOI:10.1167/7.2.17.URL:https://doi.org/10.1167/7.2.17

    work page doi:10.1167/7.2.17.url:https://doi.org/10.1167/7.2.17 2007

  38. [38]

    Interactively testing remote servers using the Python programming language

    Guido van Rossum and Jelke de Boer. “Interactively testing remote servers using the Python programming language”. In:CWI Quarterly4.4 (Dec. 1991), pp. 283–304.URL:https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/18204

    work page 1991

  39. [39]

    Evaluation in visualization: some issues and best practices

    Beatriz Sousa Santos and Paulo Dias. “Evaluation in visualization: some issues and best practices”. In:Visualiza- tion and Data Analysis 2014. Ed. by Pak Chung Wonget al.V ol. 9017. International Society for Optics and Pho- tonics. SPIE, 2014, 90170O.DOI:10.1117/12.2038259.URL:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2038259

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2038259.url:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2038259 2014

  40. [40]

    The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations

    B. Shneiderman. “The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations”. In:Proceedings 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages. Boulder, CO, USA: IEEE, Sept. 1996, pp. 336–343.DOI: 10. 1109/VL.1996.545307

    work page arXiv 1996

  41. [41]

    No Humble Pie: The Origins and Usage of a Statistical Chart

    Ian Spence. “No Humble Pie: The Origins and Usage of a Statistical Chart”. In:Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics30.4 (2005), pp. 353–368.ISSN: 10769986, 19351054.URL: http://www.jstor.org/ stable/3701294(visited on 03/04/2024)

    work page arXiv 2005

  42. [42]

    A theoretical basis for bioindication in complex ecosystems

    Theodor Sperlea, Dominik Heider, and Georges Hattab. “A theoretical basis for bioindication in complex ecosystems”. In:Ecological Indicators140 (2022), p. 109050.ISSN: 1470-160X.DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109050.URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S1470160X22005210

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109050.url: 2022

  43. [43]

    Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram

    Karl E. Taylor. “Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single diagram”. In:Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres106.D7 (2001), pp. 7183–7192.DOI: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1029 / 2000JD900719.URL: https : / / agupubs . onlinelibrary . wiley . com / doi / abs / 10 . 1029 / 2000JD900719. 17 Enhanced Summary Polar DiagramsA PREPRINT

    work page 2001

  44. [44]

    An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design

    Karl E. Taylor, Ronald J. Stouffer, and Gerald A. Meehl. “An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design”. In:Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society93.4 (2012), pp. 485–498.DOI: 10 . 1175 / BAMS - D - 11 - 00094 . 1.URL: https : / / journals . ametsoc . org / view / journals / bams / 93 / 4 / bams - d - 11 - 00094.1.xml

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    5281/zenodo.1325308.URL:https://github.com/has2k1/plotnine

    The plotnine development team.plotnine: A grammar of graphics for Python.DOI: https://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.1325308.URL:https://github.com/has2k1/plotnine

    work page

  46. [46]

    User Studies in Visualization: A Reflection on Methods

    Melanie Tory. “User Studies in Visualization: A Reflection on Methods”. In:Handbook of Human Centric Visualization. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2014, pp. 411–426.ISBN: 978-1-4614-7485-2.DOI: 10. 1007/978-1-4614-7485-2_16.URL:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7485-2_16

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7485-2_16 2014

  47. [47]

    Sunspot Plots: Model-based Structure Enhancement for Dense Scatter Plots

    T. Trautneret al.“Sunspot Plots: Model-based Structure Enhancement for Dense Scatter Plots”. In:Computer Graphics Forum39.3 (2020), pp. 551–563.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14001 .URL: https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cgf.14001

    work page doi:10.1111/cgf.14001 2020

  48. [48]

    Tufte.Envisioning Information

    E.R. Tufte.Envisioning Information. Envisioning Information v. 914. California: Graphics Press, 1990.ISBN: 9780961392109.URL:https://books.google.de/books?id=BHazAAAAIAAJ

    work page 1990

  49. [49]

    Altair: Interactive Statistical Visualizations for Python

    Jacob VanderPlaset al.“Altair: Interactive Statistical Visualizations for Python”. In:Journal of Open Source Software3.32 (2018), p. 1057.DOI: 10.21105/joss.01057 .URL: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss. 01057

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01057 2018

  50. [50]

    A CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THEORY- BUILDING RESEARCH: GUIDELINES FOR SCIENTIFIC THEORY BUILDING

    JOHN G. WACKER. “A CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THEORY- BUILDING RESEARCH: GUIDELINES FOR SCIENTIFIC THEORY BUILDING”. In:Journal of Supply Chain Management44.3 (2008), pp. 5–15.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2008.00062.x. URL:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2008.00062.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-493x.2008.00062.x 2008

  51. [51]

    An integrated approach for the evaluation of quantitative soil maps through Taylor and solar diagrams

    Alexandre M.J-C. Wadoux, Dennis J.J. Walvoort, and Dick J. Brus. “An integrated approach for the evaluation of quantitative soil maps through Taylor and solar diagrams”. In:Geoderma405 (2022), p. 115332.ISSN: 0016-7061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115332 .URL: https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0016706121004122

    work page doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115332 2022

  52. [52]

    A Comparison of Radial and Linear Charts for Visualizing Daily Patterns

    Manuela Waldneret al.“A Comparison of Radial and Linear Charts for Visualizing Daily Patterns”. In:IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics26.1 (Jan. 2020), pp. 1033–1042.ISSN: 1941-0506.DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934784

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2934784 2020

  53. [53]

    Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs): status for CMIP6

    D. Waliseret al.“Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs): status for CMIP6”. In:Geo- scientific Model Development13.7 (2020), pp. 2945–2958.DOI: 10 . 5194 / gmd - 13 - 2945 - 2020.URL: https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/13/2945/2020/

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    seaborn: statistical data visualization

    Michael L. Waskom. “seaborn: statistical data visualization”. In:Journal of Open Source Software6.60 (2021), p. 3021.DOI:10.21105/joss.03021.URL:https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03021

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03021.url:https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03021 2021

  55. [55]

    PhotoScope: visualizing spatiotemporal coverage of photos for construction management

    Fuqu Wu and Melanie Tory. “PhotoScope: visualizing spatiotemporal coverage of photos for construction management”. In:Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI ’09. Boston, MA, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2009, pp. 1103–1112.ISBN: 9781605582467.DOI: 10.1145/1518701.1518869.URL:https://doi.org/10.1145/151...

    work page doi:10.1145/1518701.1518869.url:https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518869 2009

  56. [56]

    Whom to Trust? Elective Learning for Distributed Gaussian Process Regression

    Zewen Yanget al.“Whom to Trust? Elective Learning for Distributed Gaussian Process Regression”. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. AAMAS ’24. Auckland, New Zealand: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2024, pp. 2020–2028.ISBN: 9798400704864. 18 Enhanced Summa...

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Observation Cluster 1

    work page

  58. [58]

    MRI-CGCM3 Correlation Standard Deviation Figure 5:Enhanced Taylor diagrams using overview+detail, aggregation, Cartesian linking, and interactive filtering. The initial view of the enhanced diagrams visualizes the air temperature predictions of seven climate models compared to the observed values before any interactive actions are taken. These example dia...

    work page

  59. [59]

    GPoE Correlation Standard Deviation Version 0 (σ_F: 0.2, σ_L: 0.5) Version 1 (σ_F: 0.2, σ_L: 1.0) 0 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.99 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Correlation Standard Deviation Version 0 (σ_F: 0.2, σ_L: 1.0) Version 1 (σ_F: 0.5, σ_L: 0.1) 0 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.99 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Correlation Standard Deviation Version 0 (σ_F: 0.5, σ_L: 0.1) Version 1 (σ_F: 1.0, σ_L: ...

    work page

  60. [60]

    Only two models are highlighted for easier visual comparison

    GPoE Correlation Standard Deviation Version 0 (σ_F: 0.2, σ_L: 0.5) Version 1 (σ_F: 0.2, σ_L: 1.0) Figure 6:Enhanced Taylor diagrams using small multiple and interactive filtering.The diagrams are utilized to visually compare seven Gaussian Process models with the ground truth. Only two models are highlighted for easier visual comparison. 21

    work page