Task-Oriented Optimal Sequencing of Visualization Charts

Danqing Shi; Hongjin Wu; Nan Cao; Nan Chen; Siwei Fu; Xinyue Xu; Yang Shi

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Task-Oriented Optimal Sequencing of Visualization Charts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Task-oriented chart sequencing can be learned from expert demonstrations and matches user preferences in three analysis tasks.

desk verdict A genuinely new IRL-based approach to task-conditioned chart sequencing with real user studies, but a load-bearing inconsistency between Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 means the learned reward may not match the policy that was actually evaluated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02502 v1 pith:6DTLIX7Y submitted 2019-08-07 cs.HC cs.LG

Danqing Shi , Yang Shi , Xinyue Xu , Nan Chen , Siwei Fu , Hongjin Wu , Nan Cao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.LG

keywords chartsequencevisualizationrecommendationinversereinforcementlearningMarkovdecisionprocessanalysistaskperceptioncostuserstudy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the best order in which to show charts during exploratory analysis depends on the analysis task, and that this task dependence can be learned from a small number of expert demonstrations rather than hand-coded. The authors build a chart sequencing method on top of a graph-based visualization design space, treat sequencing as a Markov decision process, and use inverse reinforcement learning to learn a reward function for correlation analysis, anomaly detection, and cluster analysis. They report that the resulting rankings of chart sequences and next-chart choices correlate strongly with what 20 participants preferred, and that the task-aware reward outperforms both a perception-only baseline and a task-only baseline in a next-chart choice study. If the claim holds, visualization recommendation and narrative data storytelling could order charts by analytic goal instead of by visual similarity alone.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Markov decision process laid over the GraphScape design-space graph, where each node is a chart specification encoded as a 14-dimensional one-hot state vector and each edge is an edit action represented by the difference of two state vectors. The reward is learned by maximum-entropy inverse reinforcement learning, which linearly combines state and action rewards with the GraphScape perception cost scaled by $\lambda = 0.3$; optimal sequencing then comes from value iteration over this MDP. The mechanism works by letting expert demonstrations fix the task-relevant ordering of operations while the perception cost keeps transitions readable.

What would settle it

Run the learned policy on held-out expert demonstrations for the same three tasks but datasets with different semantic field types, such as time series versus categorical, and compare the model's next-chart ranking to the experts' choices; if the rank correlation drops far below the reported $\tau_b = 0.64$ or loses significance, the claim that the reward captures task-oriented reasoning is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a reward function of the form $R_T(s_{i-1}, a_i, s_i) = (R_T(s_{i-1}) + R_T(a_i)) + \lambda \cdot (-c(a_i))$, with $\lambda = 0.3$, learned by maximum-entropy inverse reinforcement learning from expert demonstrations, is sufficient to rank chart sequences and next-chart actions in a task-oriented way. The paper reports Kendall $\tau_b = 0.64$ and Spearman $\rho = 0.78$ for next-chart recommendations, versus $\tau_b = 0.51$ for the task-only reward and $\tau_b = 0.11$ for a perception-cost-only ranking, and interprets this as evidence that the learned task rewards capture the analytic reasoning users perform.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that analyst preferences about chart order reduce to a linear reward over the 14-dimensional state and action features plus a fixed GraphScape perception cost, so that the policy learned for three chart types and three tasks generalizes to other settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a given analysis task, chart sequences can be ranked automatically, so a system can recommend not just a target chart but an ordered path of edits that leads to it.
Next-chart recommendations that combine task rewards with perception costs align with user preferences more strongly than recommendations based on either factor alone.
The same reward-learning procedure can be retargeted to other analysis tasks by collecting expert demonstrations for those tasks, since no task-specific hand-coded rules are needed.
In reasoning and presentation scenarios, the optimal sequence can be used to narrate how a data pattern such as a cluster, anomaly, or correlation was found.
Task-oriented ranking can serve as a decision aid when multiple chart transitions have equal perception cost.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural next test is whether the learned reward transfers across datasets whose semantic fields differ while chart types stay the same; the paper's limitation L2 suggests the authors suspect it may not.
Because the perception weight $\lambda$ is fixed at 0.3, the framework implies a trade-off curve between analytic fidelity and perceptual continuity; tuning $\lambda$ per scenario could alter the ranking, and this was not explored.
The Markov assumption means the reward ignores the history of previous charts; sequences that tell a coherent story may require non-Markovian or memory-based rewards.
The user studies used only three chart types; the same method on richer design spaces may need many more demonstrations, or the one-hot feature representation may need augmentation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The short version: this paper applies maximum entropy inverse RL to chart sequencing, conditioning the reward on the analysis task, and it backs the method with two real user studies where the model's rankings correlate with user preference. That is a legitimate and fairly novel extension of GraphScape. But the stress-test note checks out: Eq. 5 and Eq. 6 are inconsistent as printed, and that inconsistency sits directly between the learned reward and the policy evaluated in the studies. Until it is fixed or clarified, I would not trust the quantitative claims.

What is genuinely new: prior sequencing work like GraphScape uses perception costs only; this paper conditions rewards on correlation, anomaly, and cluster tasks. Modeling chart sequences as an MDP and learning task rewards from expert demonstrations via max-entropy IRL is a sensible new application. The two user studies use real participants, and the correlations (tau_b = 0.59 and 0.64) are respectable. The case study is anecdotal but fine.

Soft spots, in order of seriousness:

1. The equation inconsistency. With the natural reading of Eq. 5, the feature expectation used for IRL sums over states and actions separately, and because fa_i = fs_i - fs_{i-1}, the objective telescopes to something different from the reward in Eq. 6 that value iteration optimizes. The paper releases no code or data, so a referee cannot resolve the ambiguity. This is a load-bearing correctness issue, not a nitpick.

2. The claimed superiority over baselines in Study II is not tested statistically. They report tau_b values but no test of the difference. That is a standard omission in visualization papers, but it undermines H2.2.

3. The reward is trained on 60 expert traces with no held-out validation. The feature representation is a simple 14-d one-hot, lambda is hand-set to 0.3, and all of those choices could hide overfitting.

4. The design space is tiny: three chart types, 1152 states. The paper acknowledges this in L2.

None of this kills the idea. The central concept is coherent and the studies are the right kind of evidence. But the math needs a clear fix, and the authors should release code and data to settle the ambiguity.

Who gets value: anyone working on visualization recommendation, narrative visualization, or applying IRL to interaction design. It deserves a serious referee—send it out, but flag the equation inconsistency and request code/data before acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a task-oriented chart sequencing method. The chart design space (bar, line, and scatter charts) is modeled as a Markov decision process; a reward function is learned via maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning from a small set of expert demonstrations (60 sequences, 20 each for correlation analysis, anomaly detection, and cluster analysis), augmented with the GraphScape perception cost; an optimal policy is found with value iteration. The method is evaluated by one case study and two user studies with 20 participants. User Study I reports that the method's ranking of chart sequences correlates with averaged user preference (Kendall tau_b = 0.59, Spearman rho = 0.77). User Study II reports that the method's next-chart recommendation correlates with user preference (tau_b = 0.64, rho = 0.78) and, based on point estimates, outperforms Task-Only (tau_b = 0.51) and GraphScape (tau_b = 0.11). The authors conclude that hypotheses H1, H2.1, and H2.2 are accepted.

Significance. The work addresses a real gap: most prior chart-sequencing work considers perception or low-level edit costs, whereas this paper explicitly targets analysis tasks. The authors deserve credit for running controlled user studies with real participants, for evaluating against external user preference rather than only training likelihood, and for candidly acknowledging limitations L1 and L2, especially that the design space is decoupled from the underlying data. If the reward-learning chain is sound, the approach is a useful step toward task-aware visualization recommendation. However, two load-bearing issues currently prevent the paper from supporting its strongest claims: the printed IRL objective and reward function are algebraically inconsistent, and the claimed superiority over baselines is not supported by any statistical test of the difference between correlation coefficients.

major comments (3)

[§3.3.1, Eq. (5); §3.3.2, Eq. (6)] The IRL objective in Eq. (5) and the reward optimized in Eq. (6) are inconsistent as printed. Eq. (3) defines fa = fs_{t} - fs_{t-1}. Substituting this into Eq. (6), the transition reward telescopes to theta^T fs_i - lambda c(a_i), so the cumulative task reward of a trajectory is effectively a function of the states, with the action feature cancelling. Eq. (5), by contrast, models sequence probability with an exponent that sums theta^T(fs_j + fa_j), which introduces a boundary term theta^T(fs_n - fs_0) and double-counts the final (and, depending on the summation convention, intermediate) states. The maximum-entropy IRL procedure therefore fits theta to a different feature expectation from the one the value-iteration policy optimizes in Eq. (6). Unless Eq. (5) is a typographical error and the implementation used a corrected feature map, the learned theta need not define the policy evaluated in Section 4, and the reported user-study correlations cannot be attributed to the model described in Section 3.3. The paper provides no code or released demonstrations that would allow a reader to resolve this ambiguity.
[§4.2.2, Table 1 and Results] The claim that "our approach outperforms the two baselines (H2.2 accepted)" is based solely on comparing point estimates of rank-correlation coefficients (0.64 vs. 0.51 vs. 0.11). No test for the difference between correlated correlation coefficients (e.g., Steiger's test), no bootstrap confidence intervals, and no multiple-comparison adjustment are reported. Given that Task-Only achieves tau_b = 0.51 with p = 0.039, the gap between 0.64 and 0.51 may be within sampling variability. The authors should supply a formal significance test of the difference or weaken the superiority claim to a descriptive observation.
[§4.2.1, Results] The rank correlations are computed against an averaged user ranking, but no inter-rater reliability measure (e.g., Krippendorff's alpha or average pairwise agreement) is reported. Without knowing how much the 20 participants agreed, the strength of the reported correlation with the averaged ranking is difficult to interpret. I would request an inter-rater reliability statistic or a per-participant analysis as supporting evidence.

minor comments (5)

[§3.3.1, Eq. (4)] The text says "logP(ζi|θ) indicates the entropy of the distribution captured by P(·)"; Eq. (4) is actually a log-likelihood. The connection to the maximum-entropy principle should be stated more carefully.
[§2.2] There is a typo: "it unables to rank paths" should be "it is unable to rank paths."
[§4.2.2, Table 1] The GraphScape row is labeled inconsistently ("GraphScape" vs. "GraphSpace" in the hypothesis statement); please unify the naming.
[§3.2.2] The transition from the Vega-Lite grammar components (11 optional values) to the 14-dimensional one-hot state vector is not fully explained; please clarify how the three component types map to the 14 dimensions.
[§4.1] The case study reports qualitative "powerful" and "meaningful" feedback from a single expert. This is fine as an illustration, but the language should not imply general effectiveness beyond the two controlled studies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the IRL reward is trained on expert demonstrations and evaluated against independent user preference rankings.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained and externally evaluated. The reward parameter theta is learned by maximum entropy IRL from 60 expert demonstrations (Section 3.3.3), and the resulting reward in Eq. 6 is used by value iteration to produce sequence/action rankings (Section 3.4). User Study I and II compare those rankings with ratings from 20 participants who did not provide training demonstrations, on chart sequences and next-chart choices that are newly generated for the studies; this is an external benchmark rather than a restatement of the fitted reward. The Task-Only baseline is an explicit ablation and GraphScape is an independent external model, so the comparison also has independent content. GraphScape's perception cost in Eq. 6 is borrowed, not self-cited. There are correctable internal consistency issues between the feature expectation in Eq. 5 and the telescoping reward in Eq. 6 (e.g., the task reward of a transition reduces to theta^T fs_i, so the cumulative task reward is the final-state reward, while the exponent in Eq. 5 interleaves states and actions), but that is a correctness/implementation-fidelity concern, not a circular definition: the paper does not define the learned quantity in terms of the predicted quantity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. Under the rule that an honest non-finding is appropriate when the evaluation is genuinely external, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a learned reward vector, a hand-set trade-off weight, and several domain assumptions about the design space, perception costs, and expert data. There are no invented physical entities. The main unquantified cost is lambda and the unvalidated adequacy of the feature representation.

free parameters (3)

lambda (reward balance weight) = 0.3
Hand-set in Section 3.3.2, Eq. 6, to balance learned task, state, and action rewards against GraphScape perception costs. No sensitivity analysis is reported.
reward weight vector theta = not reported
Learned via maximum entropy IRL from 60 expert demonstrations (20 per task). Exact fitted values and optimization hyperparameters are not given, so the fit cannot be audited.
discount factor gamma = 0.99
Set in Section 3.2.2 to weight future rewards strongly; a standard but arbitrary choice that affects the optimal policy.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The 14-dimensional one-hot state and action feature representation derived from Vega-Lite grammar is expressive enough for task-oriented sequencing.
Introduced in Section 3.2.2; all rewards and rankings depend on this representation, and no feature ablation is reported.
domain assumption GraphScape perception costs c(a_i) are valid cognitive costs for edit operations in the smaller three-chart-type design space.
Borrowed in Section 3.3.2 and included in Eq. 6; the paper does not re-estimate these costs for its own restricted space.
domain assumption 60 demonstration sequences, 20 per task from three expert users, are sufficient and representative for learning each task reward.
Section 3.3.3 describes the pilot study; limitation L3 in Section 5.1 says more experts and more diverse data are needed.
domain assumption The sequencing problem is Markov: the best next chart depends only on the current chart state.
The MDP formulation in Section 3.2.1 ignores exploration history and user feedback; Section 5.1 lists feedback support as a limitation.
standard math Maximum entropy IRL is appropriate for recovering a reward from small, possibly biased demonstrations.
Section 3.3.1 adopts Ziebart et al.'s method; the choice is standard, but the linear reward parameterization and optimization details are paper-specific.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Task-Oriented Optimal Sequencing of Visualization Charts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DTLIX7Y

@misc{pith2026190802502,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Task-Oriented Optimal Sequencing of Visualization Charts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DTLIX7Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02502}
}

read the original abstract

A chart sequence is used to describe a series of visualization charts generated in the exploratory analysis by data analysts. It provides information details in each chart as well as a logical relationship among charts. While existing research targets on generating chart sequences that match human's perceptions, little attention has been paid to formulate task-oriented connections between charts in a chart design space. We present a novel chart sequencing method based on reinforcement learning to capture the connections between charts in the context of three major analysis tasks, including correlation analysis, anomaly detection, and cluster analysis. The proposed method formulates a chart sequencing procedure as an optimization problem, which seeks an optimal policy to sequencing charts for the specific analysis task. In our method, a novel reward function is introduced, which takes both the analysis task and the factor of human cognition into consideration. We conducted one case study and two user studies to evaluate the effectiveness of our method under the application scenarios of visualization demonstration, sequencing charts for reasoning analysis results, and making a chart design choice. The study results showed the power of our method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02502 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** A case study based on the optimal task-oriented charts sequencing technique. This figure illustrates the results of an expert [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The proposed technique for generating optimal task-oriented chart sequences, which consists of three major steps: (1) design space modeling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The subtraction of (a) two state feature vectors results in (b) an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: A prototype system developed for evaluating the proposed chart sequencing technique, which consists of (a) a data mapping panel, (b) a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Case study results of two analysis tasks, i.e., (a) anomaly detec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: An example chart sequence used in the user study I for participants to rate. In this study, participants were asked to rate chart sequences [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: An example design choice used in the user study II. Participants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The ranking of chart sequences used in the cluster analysis. Only the top six sequences are presented. The source state is a bar chart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

https://plot.ly/feed

Plotly community feed. https://plot.ly/feed. Accessed: 2019-03- 03

work page 2019
[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Principle_of_maximum_entropy

Principle of maximum entropy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Principle_of_maximum_entropy. Accessed: 2019-03-02

work page 2019
[3]

https://public.tableau.com/en-us/s/ gallery

Tableau public gallery. https://public.tableau.com/en-us/s/ gallery. Accessed: 2019-03-03

work page 2019
[4]

Albers, M

D. Albers, M. Correll, and M. Gleicher. Task-driven evaluation of aggrega- tion in time series visualization. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 551–560. ACM, 2014

work page 2014
[5]

R. A. Amar, J. R. Eagan, and J. T. Stasko. Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization. IEEE Symposium on Infor- mation Visualization., pp. 111–117, 2005

work page 2005
[6]

D. Asimov. The grand tour: a tool for viewing multidimensional data. SIAM journal on scientiﬁc and statistical computing 6.1 , pp. 128–143, 1985

work page 1985
[7]

Bavoil, S

L. Bavoil, S. P. Callahan, C. E. Scheidegger, H. T. V o, P. Crossno, C. T. Silva, and J. Freire. Vistrails: enabling interactive multiple-view visualiza- tions. IEEE Visualization., pp. 135–142, 2005

work page 2005
[8]

Bostock, V

M. Bostock, V . Ogievetsky, and J. Heer. D3 data-driven documents. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12):2301–2309, 2011

work page 2011

Show all 39 references

[9]

S. P. Callahan, J. Freire, E. Santos, C. E. Scheidegger, C. T. Silva, and H. T. V o. Managing the evolution of dataﬂows with vistrails.22nd International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops, pp. 71–71, 2006

2006
[10]

Dibia and agatay Demiralp

V . Dibia and agatay Demiralp. Data2vis: Automatic generation of data vi- sualizations using sequence to sequence recurrent neural networks. CoRR, abs/1804.03126, 2018

2018 arXiv
[11]

Gleicher, M

M. Gleicher, M. Correll, C. Nothelfer, and S. Franconeri. Perception of av- erage value in multiclass scatterplots. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12):2316–2325, 2013

2013
[12]

Gotz and Z

D. Gotz and Z. Wen. Behavior-driven visualization recommendation. In IUI, 2009

2009
[13]

Gotz and M

D. Gotz and M. X. Zhou. Characterizing users visual analytic activity for insight provenance. 2008 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology, pp. 123–130, 2008

2008
[14]

Harrison, F

L. Harrison, F. Yang, S. Franconeri, and R. Chang. Ranking visualizations of correlation using weber’s law.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12):1943–1952, 2014

1943
[15]

J. Heer, J. D. Mackinlay, C. Stolte, and M. Agrawala. Graphical histories for visualization: Supporting analysis, communication, and evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 14, 2008

2008
[16]

Heer and G

J. Heer and G. G. Robertson. Animated transitions in statistical data graphics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13:1240–1247, 2007

2007
[17]

Heer and B

J. Heer and B. Shneiderman. Interactive dynamics for visual analysis. Communications of the ACM, 55(4):45–54, 2012

2012
[18]

K. Hu, N. Gaikwad, M. Bakker, M. Hulsebos, and E. Zgraggen. Viznet: Towards a large-scale visualizationlearning and benchmarking repository. CoRR, 2018

2018
[19]

K. Z. Hu, M. A. Bakker, S. K. H. Li, T. Kraska, and C. A. Hidalgo. Vizml: A machine learning approach to visualization recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.04819, 2018

2018 arXiv
[20]

Hullman, S

J. Hullman, S. M. Drucker, N. H. Riche, B. Lee, D. Fisher, and E. Adar. A deeper understanding of sequence in narrative visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 19:2406–2415, 2013

2013
[21]

Hullman, R

J. Hullman, R. Kosara, and H. Lam. Finding a clear path: Structuring strategies for visualization sequences. Comput. Graph. Forum, 36:365– 375, 2017

2017
[22]

T. J. Jankun-Kelly, K.-L. Ma, and M. Gertz. A model and framework for visualization exploration. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13, 2007

2007
[23]

Kay and J

M. Kay and J. Heer. Beyond weber’s law: A second look at ranking visualizations of correlation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1):469–478, 2016

2016
[24]

Kim and J

Y . Kim and J. Heer. Assessing effects of task and data distribution on the effectiveness of visual encodings. Comput. Graph. Forum, 37:157–167, 2018

2018
[25]

Y . Kim, K. Wongsuphasawat, J. Hullman, and J. Heer. Graphscape: A model for automated reasoning about visualization similarity and se- quencing. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2017

2017
[26]

Y . Luo, X. Qin, N. Tang, and G. Li. Deepeye: Towards automatic data visu- alization. 2018 IEEE 34th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp. 101–112, 2018

2018
[27]

K.-L. Ma. Image graphs-a novel approach to visual data exploration. Proceedings Visualization (Cat. No.99CB37067), pp. 81–88, 1999

1999
[28]

J. D. Mackinlay. Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. ACM Trans. Graph., 5:110–141, 1986

1986
[29]

J. D. Mackinlay, P. Hanrahan, and C. Stolte. Show me: Automatic pre- sentation for visual analysis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13, 2007

2007
[30]

Moritz, C

D. Moritz, C. Wang, G. L. Nelson, H. Lin, A. M. Smith, B. Howe, and J. Heer. Formalizing visualization design knowledge as constraints: Ac- tionable and extensible models in draco. IEEE Transactions on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics, 25:438–448, 2018

2018
[31]

Qu and J

Z. Qu and J. Hullman. Keeping multiple views consistent: Constraints, validations, and exceptions in visualization authoring. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24:468–477, 2018

2018
[32]

Saket, A

B. Saket, A. Endert, and C. Demiralp. Task-based effectiveness of basic vi- sualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2018

2018
[33]

Satyanarayan, D

A. Satyanarayan, D. Moritz, K. Wongsuphasawat, and J. Heer. Vega-lite: A grammar of interactive graphics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 23:341–350, 2017

2017
[34]

C. E. Scheidegger, H. T. V o, D. Koop, J. Freire, and C. T. Silva. Querying and creating visualizations by analogy.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13:1560–1567, 2007

2007
[35]

Segel and J

E. Segel and J. Heer. Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16:1139– 1148, 2010

2010
[36]

R. S. Sutton, A. G. Barto, et al. Introduction to reinforcement learning, vol. 135. MIT press Cambridge, 1998

1998
[37]

D. A. Szaﬁr, S. Haroz, M. Gleicher, and S. Franconeri. Four types of ensemble coding in data visualizations. Journal of vision, 16(5):11–11, 2016

2016
[38]

Wongsuphasawat, D

K. Wongsuphasawat, D. Moritz, A. Anand, J. D. Mackinlay, B. Howe, and J. Heer. V oyager: Exploratory analysis via faceted browsing of visualization recommendations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22:649–658, 2016

2016
[39]

B. D. Ziebart, A. L. Maas, J. A. Bagnell, and A. K. Dey. Maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning. In AAAI, vol. 8, pp. 1433–1438. Chicago, IL, USA, 2008

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

https://plot.ly/feed

Plotly community feed. https://plot.ly/feed. Accessed: 2019-03- 03

work page 2019

[2] [2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Principle_of_maximum_entropy

Principle of maximum entropy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Principle_of_maximum_entropy. Accessed: 2019-03-02

work page 2019

[3] [3]

https://public.tableau.com/en-us/s/ gallery

Tableau public gallery. https://public.tableau.com/en-us/s/ gallery. Accessed: 2019-03-03

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Albers, M

D. Albers, M. Correll, and M. Gleicher. Task-driven evaluation of aggrega- tion in time series visualization. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 551–560. ACM, 2014

work page 2014

[5] [5]

R. A. Amar, J. R. Eagan, and J. T. Stasko. Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization. IEEE Symposium on Infor- mation Visualization., pp. 111–117, 2005

work page 2005

[6] [6]

D. Asimov. The grand tour: a tool for viewing multidimensional data. SIAM journal on scientiﬁc and statistical computing 6.1 , pp. 128–143, 1985

work page 1985

[7] [7]

Bavoil, S

L. Bavoil, S. P. Callahan, C. E. Scheidegger, H. T. V o, P. Crossno, C. T. Silva, and J. Freire. Vistrails: enabling interactive multiple-view visualiza- tions. IEEE Visualization., pp. 135–142, 2005

work page 2005

[8] [8]

Bostock, V

M. Bostock, V . Ogievetsky, and J. Heer. D3 data-driven documents. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(12):2301–2309, 2011

work page 2011