Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 72 references

DataScout: Automatic Data Fact Retrieval for Statement Augmentation with an LLM-Based Agent

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DataScout claims an LLM-based agent can automatically retrieve stance-aligned data facts that let authors verify and augment written statements during data-story authoring.

desk verdict DataScout introduces a genuinely new stance-based data fact retrieval workflow, but the paper's effectiveness claim rests on expert praise, not on any test of fact accuracy. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17334 v1 pith:W6AM6TTC submitted 2025-04-24 cs.HC cs.IR

Chuer Chen , Yuqi Liu , Danqing Shi , Shixiong Cao , Nan Cao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.IR
keywords datafactretrievalstorytellinglargelanguagemodelshuman-AIcollaborationstance-basedtreetext-to-SQLquerygenerationmindmapinterface
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

DataScout is an interactive system whose stated goal is to automatically retrieve data facts that support or challenge a user's written statement, so that data-story authors can verify claims and add credible evidence without spending hours searching for data. The paper argues that a stance-aware LLM agent can do this by building a retrieval tree: the statement sits at the root, and each expansion decomposes the current query into multifaceted sub-queries, searches a curated international-development-indicators database, and extracts structured facts aligned with the requested stance. The retrieval tree is shown as a mind map, letting users steer the next branch while the agent recommends promising nodes. Through three expert case studies and interviews, the authors report that the system retrieved stance-aligned facts, such as rising particulate-emission damage and widening labor-force participation gaps, and that experts found the opposing-stance facts useful for reflecting on objectivity. The central claim, as stated, is that DataScout effectively retrieves multifaceted data facts that help users verify statements and enhance story credibility.

What carries the argument

The retrieval tree is the central object. The user's statement is the root; every child node holds a sub-query, the data sub-table it produced, and the extracted facts, and expansion is modeled as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process in which the user's choice of node-and-stance is the action and an LLM policy recommends the next node. The agent that drives the tree has four modules: planning, query decomposition, data search (embedding-based field matching followed by generated-and-executed SQL), and fact extraction (chain-of-thought selection of a {type, subspace, breakdown, measure, focus} tuple, followed by relevance and stance scoring). The interface renders the tree as a mind map with green and red stance colors and size-encoded relevance, which is what makes the agent's reasoning legible and steerable.

What would settle it

Take a fixed set of, say, fifty statements across the paper's three topics, run DataScout, and have independent raters check every retrieved fact against its displayed source for four properties: the visualization matches the caption, the fact has a valid five-part structure, the stance label agrees with the rater's judgment, and the query is answerable by the retrieved data. If the share of facts passing all four checks is low, or if stance labels agree with raters only at chance level, the central utility claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that stance-conditioned, tree-structured retrieval can supply relevant, attributable data facts that match a desired argumentative direction, and that surfacing the tree as a mind map gives authors enough control to make the automation trustworthy. On the paper's own terms, the contribution is the combination: a planning module recommends which node to expand next, a query decomposition module generates stance-aware sub-queries, a search module maps those sub-queries to data fields and generates SQL filters, and a fact-extraction module uses step-by-step reasoning to produce facts in a canonical five-part form and scores each by relevance and predicted stance. The authors report that experts consistently selected highly relevant, clearly stanced facts, expanded the agent-highlighted nodes, and described the system as broadening their thinking and improving efficiency. They conclude that stance-based retrieval helps validate the rigor and objectivity of an argument while enriching the narrative.

Load-bearing premise

The system's usefulness collapses if the LLM pipeline frequently produces hallucinated numbers, mismatched captions, malformed fact structures, or queries that no dataset can answer; the paper's own Section 7.2 documents these failure modes, so the central claim depends on how often they occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Data-story authors can verify and enrich a statement in minutes instead of spending the 10 to 30 percent of authoring time that the paper's formative study attributes to data search.
  • Opposing-stance facts become ordinary outputs of the tool, so writers can stress-test their claims and build more balanced narratives rather than only reinforcing an initial viewpoint.
  • Novices can follow the visible reasoning trail of the tree, offloading analytical skill to the agent while keeping control of retrieval direction.
  • The four-module decompose–search–extract–plan pipeline can be applied to other multi-step analytical tasks, such as retrieval-augmented generation and question answering over tables.
  • Because every fact carries an editable configuration and its source sub-table, stories can stay grounded in checkable data rather than in unverifiable LLM output.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The stance and relevance scores could be turned into a quantitative benchmark: have independent raters judge whether retrieved facts genuinely support or oppose the statement and whether the top-ranked facts are the ones an author would use; the paper's expert interviews suggest but do not measure this.
  • A head-to-head comparison against plain LLM extraction or enumeration-based fact generation would isolate whether the retrieval tree itself, rather than the underlying LLM, drives the reported gains; the paper notes that no such comparison was run.
  • If the fixed development-indicators database were replaced by live web search, the same agent could cover arbitrary topics, but the paper's own failure cases, such as non-data-oriented queries and redundant fields, suggest query validation and source filtering would become the critical components.
  • The POMDP formulation invites treating retrieval quality as an optimizable objective, but the system uses it descriptively rather than learning a policy from reward; training the planning module on user feedback is a testable next step.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. DataScout is an interactive system for data-storytelling that uses an LLM-based agent (GPT-4o) to decompose a user's statement and stance into sub-queries, search a curated World Development Indicators database via embedding similarity and text-to-SQL, extract structured data facts with Chain-of-Thought prompting, and present results in a mind-map retrieval interface. The paper reports a formative study with four experts, three design goals, a system description, three expert case studies on climate change, gender gap, and aging population, and semi-structured interviews with three experts. The central claim is that DataScout can effectively retrieve multifaceted, stance-aligned data facts that help users verify statements and enhance story credibility.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, DataScout would be a useful contribution to data storytelling and human-LLM collaboration: it addresses a real workflow bottleneck (data fact search and extraction), proposes a concrete agent architecture with query decomposition, data search, fact extraction, and planning modules, and introduces a mind-map interface for steering multi-step retrieval. The formative study is a genuine empirical contribution, and the three case studies provide illustrative evidence of the system's interactive workflow. The paper also ships a clearly described pipeline that is reproducible in principle. However, the evidence presented does not yet establish the effectiveness claim, because the evaluation lacks any independent check of the correctness, faithfulness, or stance accuracy of the retrieved facts, and the paper explicitly acknowledges this gap in Section 7.2.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7.2 (Limitations) and §6 (Evaluation)] The central claim, stated in the abstract and Section 8, is that DataScout 'can effectively retrieve multifaceted data facts from different stances.' The evaluation in Section 6 consists of three expert case studies and interviews, but it contains no ground-truth audit of whether retrieved numbers are correct, whether captions match the visualizations, whether facts are truly generated from the displayed sub-tables, or whether the predicted stance labels agree with independent human judgment. Section 7.2 explicitly states: 'We did not compare the user experience of DataScout with other data fact retrieval systems, nor did we evaluate the quality of the retrieved data facts.' This admission is directly load-bearing: if a non-trivial fraction of facts are hallucinated, mismatched, or mislabeled, then using DataScout to augment statements could damage the very credibility the system is designed to support. The effectiveness claim therefore is not established by the reported evidence. I would like to see either a correctness audit on a sample of retrieved facts, a baseline comparison, or at minimum a systematic error analysis that quantifies the frequency and severity of the failure modes listed in Section 7.2.
  2. [§4.3.4 (Fact Extraction)] The stance probability is computed by asking the same LLM that generated the fact to label its own output as supporting or opposing the statement. This creates a self-referential loop: the fact-extraction prompt already instructs the LLM to produce stance-aligned facts, so the subsequent stance prediction is partly a restatement of the generation instruction rather than an independent measurement. The relevance score at least uses embedding similarity, which is independent of the generator, but the stance probability does not. The paper should either use a separate model or independent human raters for stance validation, or explicitly discuss this circularity as a limitation and temper the claims about stance alignment.
  3. [§4.3.3 (Data Search)] The data search module's accuracy is not evaluated at all: there is no report of how often the text-to-SQL generation produced correct SQL, how often the top-three field selection retrieved relevant datasets, or how often query decomposition led to non-answerable sub-queries. Section 7.2 lists 'non-data-oriented query' as a known failure mode (e.g., Query 1-3-2 in Case Study III), which suggests this is not rare. Because the entire pipeline depends on these intermediate steps, the paper should report at least simple success-rate statistics for query decomposition, text-to-SQL execution, and field selection on the three case-study statements.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3.2] The text says 'As shown in Fig x' but no figure number or figure itself is provided; this unresolved placeholder should be fixed.
  2. [§2.1] The phrase 'organizing them into q cohesive narrative' contains a typo ('q' should be 'a').
  3. [§6.3–6.5 and §5] Figure references are inconsistent: the paper uses 'Fig. 3-1', 'Fig. 3-(a)', and 'Fig. 6(d)' in close proximity. Please standardize the citation style for sub-figures.
  4. [§6.2 and §7.2] The references section contains placeholder tokens: reference [66] uses 'Year' and 'Accessed: YYYY-MM-DD', and the ACM Reference Format block contains '2018' and a dummy DOI. These should be updated before submission.
  5. [§7.2] The phrase 'as noted by E3-5' is ambiguous; it is unclear whether this means experts E3 through E5 or a different notation, and it should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: DataScout's effectiveness claims rest on expert-interview evidence and system design, not on fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

DataScout does not present a formal derivation in which an output quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict. The core claim—that the system can retrieve stance-aligned data facts to augment statements—is supported by three case studies and semi-structured expert interviews, and the paper explicitly concedes in Section 7.2 that it 'did not compare the user experience of DataScout with other data fact retrieval systems, nor did we evaluate the quality of the retrieved data facts.' That admission is a limitation of evidence, not circularity of argument. The fact-extraction module uses LLM-generated relevance and stance scores, and the evaluation lets experts agree or disagree with those scores; no equation forces the outcome. Self-citations to prior work by the same authors (e.g., the data-fact tuple from Calliope [47] and the CoT-inspired decomposition from Talk2Data [16]) supply definitions and design inspiration, but they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or as proof of DataScout's effectiveness. The POMDP formulation is descriptive scaffolding rather than a derivation whose predictions reduce to its assumptions. Consequently, there is no specific step in which a claimed prediction is equivalent, by construction, to an input fitted value or to an unverified self-citation.

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

The central claim depends on the WDI database being adequate, on the LLM producing accurate facts, and on expert opinion being evidence of utility. The paper provides only partial support for these assumptions and explicitly documents failures in Section 7.2.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The pre-constructed World Development Indicators (WDI) database is sufficiently comprehensive to supply stance-based facts for arbitrary user statements.
    Introduced in Section 6.1, the database contains 1,492 series, which limits coverage; Section 7.2 notes that when the statement focuses on a specific topic, the searchable data fields are restricted, so facts often fail to match the query.
  • domain assumption The LLM (GPT-4o) can generate valid, grounded data facts from retrieved sub-tables.
    The fact extraction module (Section 4.3.4) relies on CoT prompting to produce structured facts; Section 7.2 documents caption mismatches, invalid structures, and non-data-oriented queries, showing this assumption is not always satisfied.
  • domain assumption Expert self-report during interviews is a valid measure of system utility.
    The evaluation in Section 6.6 uses qualitative expert feedback as the main evidence for effectiveness, without quantitative measures or behavioral logs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DataScout: Automatic Data Fact Retrieval for Statement Augmentation with an LLM-Based Agent." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6AM6TTC

@misc{pith2026250417334,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DataScout: Automatic Data Fact Retrieval for Statement Augmentation with an LLM-Based Agent},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6AM6TTC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17334}
}
read the original abstract

A data story typically integrates data facts from multiple perspectives and stances to construct a comprehensive and objective narrative. However, retrieving these facts demands time for data search and challenges the creator's analytical skills. In this work, we introduce DataScout, an interactive system that automatically performs reasoning and stance-based data facts retrieval to augment the user's statement. Particularly, DataScout leverages an LLM-based agent to construct a retrieval tree, enabling collaborative control of its expansion between users and the agent. The interface visualizes the retrieval tree as a mind map that eases users to intuitively steer the retrieval direction and effectively engage in reasoning and analysis. We evaluate the proposed system through case studies and in-depth expert interviews. Our evaluation demonstrates that DataScout can effectively retrieve multifaceted data facts from different stances, helping users verify their statements and enhance the credibility of their stories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17334 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DataScout enables automatic stance-based data fact retrieval to enhance user statements. Generally, the retrieval process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of the LLM-Based agent. When the agent receives the user’s instruction to expand a node, it sequentially executes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The interface consists of three major views: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A retrieval space (a) and three retrieved data facts (b, c, d) for the statement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A retrieval space (a) and two retrieved data facts (b, c) for the statement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A retrieval space (a) and three retrieved data facts (b, c, d) for the statement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Benjamin Bach, Moritz Stefaner, Jeremy Boy, Steven Drucker, Lyn Bartram, Jo Wood, Paolo Ciuccarelli, Yuri Engelhardt, Ulrike Koeppen, and Barbara Tversky. 2018. Narrative design patterns for data-driven storytelling. In Data-driven storytelling. AK Peters/CRC Press, 107–133

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Jing Bai, Jian-Yun Nie, Guihong Cao, and Hugues Bouchard. 2007. Using query contexts in information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval . 15–22

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Yonatan Belinkov and James Glass. 2019. Analysis methods in neural language processing: A survey.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 7 (2019), 49–72

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Jordan Hoffmann, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Katie Millican, George Bm Van Den Driessche, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Bogdan Damoc, Aidan Clark, et al. 2022. Improving language models by retrieving from trillions of tokens. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2206–2240

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Tom B Brown. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Curran Associates Inc., Article 159 (2020), 25 pages. 16 DataScout: Automatic Data Fact Retrieval for Statement Augmentation with an LLM-Based Agent Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Chris Bryan, Kwan-Liu Ma, and Jonathan Woodring. 2016. Temporal summary images: An approach to narrative visualization via interactive annotation generation and placement. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 23, 1 (2016), 511–520

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Siming Chen, Jie Li, Gennady Andrienko, Natalia Andrienko, Yun Wang, Phong H Nguyen, and Cagatay Turkay. 2018. Supporting story synthesis: Bridging the gap between visual analytics and storytelling. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 26, 7 (2018), 2499–2516

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Liying Cheng, Xingxuan Li, and Lidong Bing. 2023. Is gpt-4 a good data analyst? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15038 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    Matthew Conlen, Megan Vo, Alan Tan, and Jeffrey Heer. 2021. Idyll studio: A structured editor for authoring interactive & data-driven articles. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–12

    2021

  2. [10]

    Kenneth Cox, Rebecca E Grinter, Stacie L Hibino, Lalita Jategaonkar Jagadeesan, and David Mantilla. 2001. A multi-modal natural language interface to an information visualization environment. International Journal of Speech Technology 4 (2001), 297–314

    2001

  3. [11]

    Victor Dibia. 2023. LIDA: A tool for automatic generation of grammar-agnostic visualizations and infographics using large language models. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations) . 113–126

    2023

  4. [12]

    Tuan Dinh, Yuchen Zeng, Ruisu Zhang, Ziqian Lin, Michael Gira, Shashank Rajput, Jy-yong Sohn, Dimitris Papailiopoulos, and Kangwook Lee

  5. [13]

    Graham Dove and Sara Jones. 2012. Narrative visualization: Sharing insights into complex data. (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Tong Gao, Mira Dontcheva, Eytan Adar, Zhicheng Liu, and Karrie G Karahalios. 2015. Datatone: Managing ambiguity in natural language interfaces for data visualization. In Proceedings of the 28th annual acm symposium on user interface software & technology . 489–500

    2015

  7. [15]

    Fabrizio Gilardi, Meysam Alizadeh, and Maël Kubli. 2023. ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 30 (2023), e2305016120

    2023

  8. [16]

    Yi Guo, Danqing Shi, Mingjuan Guo, Yanqiu Wu, Nan Cao, and Qing Chen. 2024. Talk2Data: A Natural Language Interface for Exploratory Visual Analysis via Question Decomposition. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 14, 2, Article 8 (apr 2024), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3643894

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Rishi Hazra, Pedro Zuidberg Dos Martires, and Luc De Raedt. 2024. Saycanpay: Heuristic planning with large language models using learnable domain knowledge. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 38. 20123–20133

    2024

  10. [18]

    Jonathan Herzig, Thomas Müller, Syrine Krichene, and Julian Eisenschlos. 2021. Open Domain Question Answering over Tables via Dense Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language T...

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    Carolyn H. Hopper. 2007. Practicing College Learning Strategies (4th ed.). Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 139–143 pages

    2007

  12. [20]

    Jessica Hullman, Steven Drucker, Nathalie Henry Riche, Bongshin Lee, Danyel Fisher, and Eytan Adar. 2013. A deeper understanding of sequence in narrative visualization. IEEE Transactions on visualization and computer graphics 19, 12 (2013), 2406–2415

    2013

  13. [21]

    Madelon Hulsebos, Wenjing Lin, Shreya Shankar, and Aditya Parameswaran. 2024. It Took Longer than I was Expecting: Why is Dataset Search Still so Hard?. In Proceedings of the 2024 Workshop on Human-In-the-Loop Data Analytics (Santiago, AA, Chile) (HILDA 24). Association for Co...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Rekha Jain and GN Purohit. 2011. Page ranking algorithms for web mining. International journal of computer applications 13, 5 (2011), 22–25

    2011

  15. [23]

    Shivani Jain, KR Seeja, and Rajni Jindal. 2021. A fuzzy ontology framework in information retrieval using semantic query expansion. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights 1, 1 (2021), 100009

    2021

  16. [24]

    Navjot Kaur and Himanshu Aggarwal. 2021. Query reformulation approach using domain specific ontology for semantic information retrieval. International Journal of Information Technology 13, 5 (2021), 1745–1753

    2021

  17. [25]

    Hyunwoo Kim, Khanh Duy Le, Gionnieve Lim, Dae Hyun Kim, Yoo Jin Hong, and Juho Kim. 2024. DataDive: Supporting Readers’ Contextualization of Statistical Statements with Data Exploration. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 623–639

    2024

  18. [26]

    Junhua Lu, Wei Chen, Hui Ye, Jie Wang, Honghui Mei, Yuhui Gu, Yingcai Wu, Xiaolong Luke Zhang, and Kwan-Liu Ma. 2021. Automatic Generation of Unit Visualization-based Scrollytelling for Impromptu Data Facts Delivery. 2021 IEEE 14th Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis) ...

    2021

  19. [27]

    Pingchuan Ma, Rui Ding, Shuai Wang, Shi Han, and Dongmei Zhang. 2023. InsightPilot: An LLM-Empowered Automated Data Exploration System. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations , Yansong Feng and Els Lefev...

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Paula Maddigan and Teo Susnjak. 2023. Chat2vis: Fine-tuning data visualisations using multilingual natural language text and pre-trained large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.14292 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sean McKenna, Nathalie Henry Riche, Bongshin Lee, Jeremy Boy, and Miriah Meyer. 2017. Visual narrative flow: Exploring factors shaping data visualization story reading experiences. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 36. Wiley Online Library, 377–387

    2017

  22. [30]

    Arpit Narechania, Arjun Srinivasan, and John Stasko. 2020. NL4DV: A toolkit for generating analytic specifications for data visualization from natural language queries. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2020), 369–379

    2020

  23. [31]

    OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. https://openai.com/research/gpt-4. Accessed: 2024-09-09

    2023

  24. [32]

    Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is ChatGPT a general-purpose natural language processing task solver? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06476 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Nitarshan Rajkumar, Raymond Li, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2022. Evaluating the Text-to-SQL Capabilities of Large Language Models. arXiv:2204.00498 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.00498 17 Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Trovato et al

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    ENCODING RECOGNITION RECALL. 2016. Beyond Memorability: Visualization Recognition and Recall. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS 22, 1 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Donghao Ren, Matthew Brehmer, Bongshin Lee, Tobias Höllerer, and Eun Kyoung Choe. 2017. Chartaccent: Annotation for data-driven storytelling. In 2017 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (PacificVis) . Ieee, 230–239

    2017

  29. [37]

    Nathalie Henry Riche, Christophe Hurter, Nicholas Diakopoulos, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2018. Data-Driven Storytelling (1st ed.). A. K. Peters, Ltd., USA

    2018

  30. [38]

    Nathalie Henry Riche, Christophe Hurter, Nicholas Diakopoulos, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2018. Data-driven storytelling. CRC Press

    2018

  31. [39]

    Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 3, 4 (2009), 333–389

    2009

  32. [40]

    Jaromir Savelka, Kevin D Ashley, Morgan A Gray, Hannes Westermann, and Huihui Xu. 2023. Can gpt-4 support analysis of textual data in tasks requiring highly specialized domain expertise? arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13906 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Edward Segel and Jeffrey Heer. 2010. Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 16, 6 (2010), 1139–1148

    2010

  34. [42]

    Vidya Setlur, Sarah E Battersby, Melanie Tory, Rich Gossweiler, and Angel X Chang. 2016. Eviza: A natural language interface for visual analysis. In Proceedings of the 29th annual symposium on user interface software and technology . 365–377

    2016

  35. [43]

    Leixian Shen, Haotian Li, Yun Wang, and Huamin Qu. 2024. From Data to Story: Towards Automatic Animated Data Video Creation with LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems. arXiv:2408.03876 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.03876

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Leixian Shen, Enya Shen, Yuyu Luo, Xiaocong Yang, Xuming Hu, Xiongshuai Zhang, Zhiwei Tai, and Jianmin Wang. 2022. Towards natural language interfaces for data visualization: A survey. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 29, 6 (2022), 3121–3144

    2022

  37. [45]

    Danqing Shi, Yang Shi, Xinyue Xu, Nan Chen, Siwei Fu, Hongjin Wu, and Nan Cao. 2019. Task-oriented optimal sequencing of visualization charts. In 2019 IEEE Visualization in Data Science (VDS) . IEEE, 58–66

    2019

  38. [46]

    Danqing Shi, Fuling Sun, Xinyue Xu, Xingyu Lan, David Gotz, and Nan Cao. 2021. Autoclips: An automatic approach to video generation from data facts. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 40. Wiley Online Library, 495–505

    2021

  39. [47]

    Danqing Shi, Xinyue Xu, Fuling Sun, Yang Shi, and Nan Cao. 2020. Calliope: Automatic visual data story generation from a spreadsheet. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2020), 453–463

    2020

  40. [48]

    Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2023. Replug: Retrieval- augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Tanveer J Siddiqui and Uma Shanker Tiwary. 2005. Integrating relation and keyword matching in information retrieval. In International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems . Springer, 64–73

    2005

  42. [50]

    Matthijs TJ Spaan. 2012. Partially observable Markov decision processes. In Reinforcement learning: State-of-the-art. Springer, 387–414

    2012

  43. [51]

    Drucker, Alex Endert, and John Stasko

    Arjun Srinivasan, Steven M. Drucker, Alex Endert, and John Stasko. 2019. Augmenting Visualizations with Interactive Data Facts to Facilitate Interpretation and Communication. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1 (2019), 672–681. https://doi.org/10.110...

    2019

  44. [52]

    Charles D Stolper, Bongshin Lee, Nathalie Henry Riche, and John Stasko. 2016. Emerging and recurring data-driven storytelling techniques: Analysis of a curated collection of recent stories.(2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Mengdi Sun, Ligan Cai, Weiwei Cui, Yanqiu Wu, Yang Shi, and Nan Cao. 2022. Erato: Cooperative data story editing via fact interpolation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 1 (2022), 983–993

    2022

  46. [54]

    Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Shuaiqiang Wang, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Is ChatGPT good at search? investigating large language models as re-ranking agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09542 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Yiwen Sun, Jason Leigh, Andrew Johnson, and Sangyoon Lee. 2010. Articulate: A semi-automated model for translating natural language queries into meaningful visualizations. In Smart Graphics: 10th International Symposium on Smart Graphics, Banff, Canada, June 24-26, 2010 Procee...

    2010

  48. [56]

    Martin Szummer and Emine Yilmaz. 2011. Semi-supervised learning to rank with preference regularization. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management . 269–278

    2011

  49. [57]

    Qiaoyu Tang, Jiawei Chen, Bowen Yu, Yaojie Lu, Cheng Fu, Haiyang Yu, Hongyu Lin, Fei Huang, Ben He, Xianpei Han, et al. 2024. Self-Retrieval: Building an Information Retrieval System with One Large Language Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00801 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Yuan Tian, Weiwei Cui, Dazhen Deng, Xinjing Yi, Yurun Yang, Haidong Zhang, and Yingcai Wu. 2024. Chartgpt: Leveraging llms to generate charts from abstract natural language. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Chao Tong, Richard Roberts, Rita Borgo, Sean Walton, Robert S Laramee, Kodzo Wegba, Aidong Lu, Yun Wang, Huamin Qu, Qiong Luo, et al. 2018. Storytelling and visualization: An extended survey. Information 9, 3 (2018), 65

    2018

  52. [60]

    KR Uthayan and GS Anandha Mala. 2015. Hybrid ontology for semantic information retrieval model using keyword matching indexing system. The Scientific World Journal 2015, 1 (2015), 414910

    2015

  53. [61]

    Qiming Wang and RaulCastro Fernandez. 2023. Data Discovery using Natural Language Questions via a Self-Supervised Approach. (Jan 2023). 18 DataScout: Automatic Data Fact Retrieval for Statement Augmentation with an LLM-Based Agent Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Wood...

    2023

  54. [62]

    Yun Wang, Zhida Sun, Haidong Zhang, Weiwei Cui, Ke Xu, Xiaojuan Ma, and Dongmei Zhang. 2020. DataShot: Automatic Generation of Fact Sheets from Tabular Data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 895–905. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934398

    2020

  55. [63]

    Yun Wang, Haidong Zhang, He Huang, Xi Chen, Qiufeng Yin, Zhitao Hou, Dongmei Zhang, Qiong Luo, and Huamin Qu. 2018. Infonice: Easy creation of information graphics. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12

    2018

  56. [64]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. arXiv:2201.11903 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Zhen Wen, Michelle X Zhou, and Vikram Aggarwal. 2005. An optimization-based approach to dynamic visual context management. In IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005. IEEE, 187–194

    2005

  58. [66]

    World Bank. Year. World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators Accessed: YYYY-MM-DD

  59. [67]

    Yang Wu, Yao Wan, Hongyu Zhang, Yulei Sui, Wucai Wei, Wei Zhao, Guandong Xu, and Hai Jin. 2024. Automated Data Visualization from Natural Language via Large Language Models: An Exploratory Study. Proc. ACM Manag. Data 2, 3, Article 115 (may 2024), 28 pages. https: //doi.org/10...

    2024 doi

  60. [68]

    Tom Young, Devamanyu Hazarika, Soujanya Poria, and Erik Cambria. 2018. Recent trends in deep learning based natural language processing. ieee Computational intelligenCe magazine 13, 3 (2018), 55–75

    2018

  61. [69]

    Bowen Yu and Cláudio T Silva. 2019. FlowSense: A natural language interface for visual data exploration within a dataflow system.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 26, 1 (2019), 1–11

    2019

  62. [70]

    Jian Zhao, Shenyu Xu, Senthil Chandrasegaran, Chris Bryan, Fan Du, Aditi Mishra, Xin Qian, Yiran Li, and Kwan-Liu Ma. 2021. Chartstory: Automated partitioning, layout, and captioning of charts into comic-style narratives. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphic...

    2021

  63. [71]

    Yutao Zhu, Huaying Yuan, Shuting Wang, Jiongnan Liu, Wenhan Liu, Chenlong Deng, Haonan Chen, Zhicheng Dou, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Large language models for information retrieval: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07107 (2023). Received 20 February 2007; revised 12 March 2009...

    2023

  64. [2022]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 11763–11784

    Lift: Language-interfaced fine-tuning for non-language machine learning tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 11763–11784

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.