Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Visual decoding operators with measurable bias and variance can be composed to predict perception on new charts and tasks without refitting.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 13:55 UTC pith:GA3CHH4I

load-bearing objection Clean existence proof that chart-agnostic operators with quantitative error can be isolated, composed, and transfer zero-parameter to a different chart imes task; one of six strategies matches bias and variance. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2604.02220 v2 pith:GA3CHH4I submitted 2026-04-02 cs.HC

Visual Decoding Operators: Towards a Compositional Theory of Visualization Perception

Sheng Long , Remco Chang , Eugene Wu , Alex Kale , Matthew Kay This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords Visualization TheoryVisual Decoding OperatorComposable ModelsSensor FusionPerceptual EffectivenessGraphical PerceptionHierarchical Bayesian Modeling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper claims that rankings of visual channels and taxonomies of tasks cannot predict how accurately people will read a new chart for a new goal, because those units lack quantitative structure that composes. It proposes instead that quantitative chart reading is sequences of reusable perceptual operations—projecting a point to a curve or axis, finding a peak, judging the steepest slope, bisecting an area—each with bias and variance measured in visual-angle units. Using PDF and CDF charts, the authors isolate five such operators and characterize them with hierarchical Bayesian models; when a task admits more than one operator, inverse-MSE sensor fusion fits better than a simple mixture. They then recompose projection operators under six candidate strategies to predict mean estimation on scatterplots that differ in type, size, aspect ratio, and analytic goal, with no parameters fit to the new responses. One strategy (project-twice mean) captures both bias and variance of observed answers; the other five fail in distinguishable ways. The result is an existence proof that empirical visualization findings can transfer beyond the conditions in which they were measured.

Core claim

Individually measured visual decoding operators can be composed under candidate strategies to generate calibrated posterior predictive distributions of both bias and variance for a structurally different chart × task pair—scatterplot mean estimation—with no parameters fit to the response data. Of six strategies, project-twice mean captures observed bias and variance; the alternatives fail in distinguishable ways. That transfer constitutes an existence proof that findings in graphical perception can compose rather than requiring a new experiment for every pairing.

What carries the argument

Visual decoding operators: chart-agnostic perceptual primitives (project-to-curve, project-to-axis, highest-point, max-slope, bisect-area), each modeled as a distribution with estimable bias and variance in visual-angle space so that multi-step tasks accumulate error traceably when operators are sequenced.

Load-bearing premise

That the projection error models—especially multiplicative scaling of variance with visual-angle distance—learned on one set of PDF and CDF charts remain valid without slope or aspect-ratio corrections when the same operators are applied to scatterplots of different size and shape.

What would settle it

Hold operator parameters fixed from the isolation tasks and apply them to mean estimation on scatterplots (or other held-out chart × task pairs) of new sizes, aspect ratios, or mark types; if no composition strategy produces predictive distributions whose bias and variance match observed responses, or if the previously successful project-twice mean strategy systematically mispredicts under those changes, the transfer claim fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Design tools can enumerate candidate visualizations, decompose each into an operator sequence, and report predicted error distributions rather than only ordinal channel rankings.
  • Once operator-level perceptual error is known as a baseline, remaining error can be attributed more cleanly to non-perceptual sources such as task mistranslation or elicitation artifacts.
  • A fuller operator library would let empirical findings transfer across chart types and display contexts without a new experiment for every visualization × task pairing.
  • When multiple operators apply to one task, inverse-MSE weighting can model how viewers integrate strategies rather than selecting a single one.
  • A failed composed prediction points to which specific operator needs revision instead of leaving an undifferentiated residual.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Axis-reading and color-extraction operators would compose directly with the projection operators already measured and are the natural next primitives for the library.
  • The same composition rules could serve as cost functions inside automated visualization recommenders that optimize predicted decoding error rather than channel orderings alone.
  • If variance scales with projection distance only approximately when local slope is ignored, adding first-order slope-dependent terms should tighten out-of-sample predictions without changing the operator concept.
  • Classic channel-ranking studies could be re-cast as operator-isolation experiments so historical results become reusable parameters instead of ordinal tables.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes visual decoding operators—perceptual primitives with estimable bias and variance in visual-angle space—as a composable unit of analysis for quantitative visualization interpretation. Using PDF and CDF charts, it isolates five operators (horizontal/vertical projection, highest-point, max-slope, bisect-area) via hierarchical Bayesian models and reports a sensor-fusion account of PDF median estimation. It then reuses the learned ProjectToAxis_Y operator, without refitting, under six composition strategies to predict Moritz et al.’s scatterplot mean-estimation responses (different chart type, size, aspect ratio, and analytic goal). One strategy (project-twice mean) matches observed bias and variance; five alternatives fail in distinguishable ways. The authors present this as an existence proof that empirical findings in visualization can compose and transfer beyond the conditions in which they were measured.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper supplies a concrete alternative to channel rankings and task taxonomies: units that carry quantitative error profiles and compose into falsifiable predictions for untested chart × task pairs. Strengths that support this contribution include hierarchical Bayesian estimation with posterior predictive and PIT-ECDF checks, virtual-chinrest calibration into visual angle, open materials and analysis scripts on OSF, and a transfer evaluation that fits no parameters to the held-out response data. The sensor-fusion finding for PDF median is an additional explanatory contribution. Even as a scoped existence proof on position encodings, the work reframes how empirical visualization research can accumulate reusable primitives rather than isolated ordinal comparisons.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.3.1, footnote 4, abstract, §5.4.3] §5.3.1 and footnote 4: the pre-registered strategies were project-once×mean, project-once×median, and project-twice×sensor-fusion. The strategy that captures both bias and variance (project-twice×mean; Fig. 14 top) was added when the full 2×3 factorial was completed post hoc. The abstract and §5.4.3 frame the result as arising under a pre-registered analysis plan. Please restate the confirmatory vs. exploratory status of each cell explicitly in the abstract, §5.4, and discussion, and qualify claims of pre-registered success so they attach only to the three pre-specified strategies (none of which fully matches both location and spread).
  2. [§4.1.3–4.1.4, §5.4.1] §4.1.3 and §4.1.4: Study 1 recruited 24 participants and excluded 8 under criteria that the paper states were not pre-registered (eye-to-screen distance <20 cm or Pearson r <0.5), leaving n=16 for hierarchical models with participant-level bias and scale parameters. Study 2 applied the same criteria after pre-registration and excluded none. The transfer claim is the paper’s load-bearing result; please report sensitivity of the Study 1 operator posteriors (and of the composed predictions that depend on them) to the exclusion rule, or justify why the non-preregistered exclusions do not materially affect the operator parameters used in §5.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.1, §5.4.3] §4.2.1 notes that projection variance is conditioned on distance but not local slope, with slope-dependent first-order propagation left as future work. A short forward reference in §5.4.3 would help readers see that residual aspect/slope misspecification is acknowledged and not claimed to be resolved by the existence proof.
  2. [§5.4.2, Fig. 14] Fig. 14 and §E.2.2–E.2.3: project-once strategies produce substantially narrower predictive intervals. A one-sentence quantitative summary (e.g., interval width relative to observed SD) in the main text would make the distinguishable failures easier to assess without the appendix.
  3. [§3, Table 1, §5.3.1] Table 1 and operator naming: the manuscript mixes prose names (ProjectHorizontally, HighestPoint, BisectArea) with ad-hoc symbols. A single consistent operator notation table early in §3 would reduce cognitive load when reading the composition equations in §5.3.1.
  4. [Figs. 3–5, 7–14] Several figure captions and in-text references use placeholder or garbled tokens (e.g., visual-angle equations and operator names rendered as boxes). Ensure the camera-ready version restores readable math and labels throughout Figs. 3–5 and 7–14.
  5. [§3, §6.1] §6.1’s four validity conditions for an operator are useful; consider stating them earlier (end of §3) so readers can evaluate the five operators against those criteria as they are introduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: operators are estimated solely on isolated projection (and related) tasks, then composed with zero free parameters to generate calibrated posterior predictives for held-out mean-estimation responses.

full rationale

The central claim is an existence proof of transfer: hierarchical Bayesian posteriors for ProjectToAxisY (and the other four operators) are obtained exclusively from PDF/CDF tasks that isolate single perceptual acts (Sections 4.2.1–4.2.4). Those fixed posteriors are then composed, under six candidate projection-path × aggregation-rule strategies, into predictive distributions for Moritz et al.’s scatterplot mean-estimation responses (Section 5). The paper states explicitly that “No parameters are fit to the mean-estimation data” and that “these posterior predictions are generated entirely from operators learned on the ProjectToAxisY task imes imes charts with a different size and aspect ratio.” The successful project-twice-mean strategy therefore matches observed bias and variance by genuine out-of-sample composition, not by construction or by re-fitting. Sensor-fusion weights appear only inside the PDF-median model of Study 1 and are never used in the transfer evaluation. Self-citations (reVISit platform, virtual-chinrest reimplementation) supply experimental infrastructure, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes that force the predictive match. Minor post-hoc completion of the 2 imes3 factorial and non-pre-registered exclusions in Study 1 are methodological caveats, not circular reductions of the derivation. The paper is therefore self-contained against its external benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central transfer claim rests on five free hierarchical parameters per operator (participant-level bias and scale, plus population hyper-parameters), three distributional family choices, the multiplicative distance-scaling rule, the inverse-MSE fusion rule, and the postulate that the same operators appear across chart types. No new physical constants or particles are introduced; the invented entity is the operator abstraction itself.

free parameters (3)
  • participant-level bias β_i and scale σ_i (or Weibull shape/scale) for each of the five operators
    Estimated from the first experiment’s hierarchical Bayesian models; used unchanged for the transfer predictions.
  • population hyper-parameters (means and SDs of β and σ)
    Fitted in the multi-level models of Section 4; required to generate the posterior predictive distributions that are later composed.
  • inverse-MSE fusion weight w for the BisectArea + HighestPoint combination
    Derived from the fitted MSEs of the two component operators on the PDF-median task; not used in the scatterplot transfer but part of the operator library.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Projection error is Normal and its standard deviation scales multiplicatively with visual-angle distance between start and end points.
    Stated and compared against additive scaling on pilot data in Section 4.2.1; used for all three projection operators.
  • domain assumption Highest-point and max-slope errors are non-negative and follow participant-specific Weibull distributions.
    Selected via LOO-CV over heavy-tailed candidates (Section 4.2.2–4.2.3).
  • domain assumption Visual angle (via virtual chinrest) is a perceptually uniform space that renders operator parameters invariant to display size and viewing distance.
    Introduced in Section 3 and used for all modeling and composition.
  • ad hoc to paper When multiple operators are available, viewers combine them by inverse-MSE weighting rather than mixture selection.
    Motivated by sensor-fusion literature and anchoring-and-adjustment; mixture model fails posterior checks while weighted model succeeds (Section 4.2.4).
  • domain assumption The same projection operator measured on PDF/CDF charts applies without modification to scatterplot points of different size and aspect ratio.
    Load-bearing for the Section 5 transfer claim; tested only by the success of one composition strategy.
invented entities (1)
  • visual decoding operator independent evidence
    purpose: Reusable, chart-agnostic perceptual primitive carrying estimable bias and variance that can be sequenced to predict task performance.
    The central theoretical unit introduced in the paper; four necessary validity conditions are stated in Section 6.1 but the entity itself is postulated rather than derived from prior theory.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 26742 in / 3107 out tokens · 28251 ms · 2026-07-13T13:55:07.042117+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Visual Decoding Operators: Towards a Compositional Theory of Visualization Perception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GA3CHH4I

@misc{pith2026260402220,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Visual Decoding Operators: Towards a Compositional Theory of Visualization Perception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GA3CHH4I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.02220}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Prior work on perceptual effectiveness has decomposed visualizations into smaller common units (e.g., channels such as angle, position, and length) to establish rankings. While useful, these decompositions lack the computational structure to predict performance for new visualization x task combinations, requiring new experiments for each. We propose an alternative unit of analysis: operationalizing quantitative visualization interpretation as sequences of composable visual decoding operators. Using probability density function (PDF) and cumulative distribution function (CDF) charts, we examine how four chart-specific tasks can be decomposed into five reusable, chart-agnostic perceptual operations and characterize their error profiles through hierarchical Bayesian modeling. We then test generalizability by composing one kind of learned operators to predict performance on a structurally different task: Moritz et al.'s [37] scatterplot mean-estimation experiment, where the chart type, chart dimensions, and analytic goal all differ from the learning conditions. With a pre-registered analysis plan, we compose operators under six candidate strategies and evaluate each against empirical data with no parameters fit to the response data. One strategy captures both bias and variance of observed responses; five alternatives fail in distinguishable ways. We argue that this decoding-operator-oriented approach to empirical visualization research demonstrates the feasibility of a different way of doing empirical visualization research, one where findings compose, and predictions extend beyond the conditions in which they were measured. Free copy of this paper and supplemental materials: https://osf.io/prtfq.

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

69 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R. Amar, J. Eagan, and J. Stasko. Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization. InIEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005., pp. 111–117. IEEE, 2005. doi: ��� ��������������������1, 2

    2005

  2. [2]

    Bertin.Semiology of graphics

    J. Bertin.Semiology of graphics. University of Wisconsin press, 1983. 2

    1983

  3. [3]

    Bostock, V

    M. Bostock, V . Ogievetsky, and J. Heer. D³: Data-Driven Documents. 17(12):2301–2309. doi:���������������������4

  4. [4]

    P.-C. Bürkner. brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan.Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1):1–28, 2017. doi: ������������� ��������4

    2017

  5. [5]

    W. S. Cleveland and R. McGill. Graphical perception: Theory, experimen- tation, and application to the development of graphical methods.Journal of the American statistical association, 79(387):531–554, 1984. doi: ��� ������������1, 2, 9

    1984

  6. [6]

    Cutler, J

    Z. Cutler, J. Wilburn, H. Shrestha, Y . Ding, B. Bollen, K. A. Nadib et al. Revisit 2: A full experiment life cycle user study framework.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2026. doi: ��� ����������������������3, 4

    2026

  7. [7]

    C. Davis. sgt: Skewed generalized t distribution tree, 2015. doi: ��� ����������������������4

    2015

  8. [8]

    Davis, X

    R. Davis, X. Pu, Y . Ding, B. D. Hall, K. Bonilla, M. Feng et al. The Risks of Ranking: Revisiting Graphical Perception to Model Individual Differences in Visualization Performance. pp. 1–16. doi: ������������� ������������2

  9. [9]

    Y . Ding, J. Wilburn, H. Shrestha, A. Ndlovu, K. Gadhave, C. Nobre et al. reVISit: Supporting Scalable Evaluation of Interactive Visualizations. In 2023 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS), pp. 31–35. doi: ��� ������������������������3, 4

    2023

  10. [10]

    M. A. Elliott, C. Nothelfer, C. Xiong, and D. A. Szafir. A Design Space of Vision Science Methods for Visualization Research. 27(2):1117–1127. doi:�������������������������9

  11. [11]

    Elmenreich

    W. Elmenreich. An introduction to sensor fusion.Vienna University of Technology, Austria, 502(1-28):37, 2002. 6

    2002

  12. [12]

    Gabry and T

    J. Gabry and T. Mahr. bayesplot: Plotting for bayesian models, 2025. R package version 1.15.0. doi:�������������������������������4

    2025

  13. [13]

    Gabry, D

    J. Gabry, D. Simpson, A. Vehtari, M. Betancourt, and A. Gelman. Visu- alization in bayesian workflow.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society, 182(2):389–402, 2019. doi: ������������� �����12

    2019

  14. [14]

    Gabry, R

    J. Gabry, R. ˇCešnovar, A. Johnson, and S. Bronder.cmdstanr: R Inter- face to ’CmdStan’, 2025. R package version 0.9.0, https://discourse.mc- stan.org. 4

    2025

  15. [15]

    Gelman and J

    A. Gelman and J. Hill.Data analysis using regression and multi- level/hierarchical models. Cambridge university press, 2007. 12

    2007

  16. [16]

    D. J. Gillan and R. Lewis. A componential model of human interaction with graphs: 1. linear regression modeling.Human Factors, 36(3):419– 440, 1994. doi:��������������������������2

    1994

  17. [17]

    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. doi: ������������������ �������2

    1943

  18. [18]

    Heer and M

    J. Heer and M. Bostock. Crowdsourcing graphical perception: Using mechanical turk to assess visualization design. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 203–

  19. [19]

    doi:�����������������������2

    ACM. doi:�����������������������2

  20. [20]

    M. Hegarty. The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: Implications for design.Topics in cognitive science, 3(3):446–474, 2011. doi: ���������� ����������������������2

    2011

  21. [21]

    Hollands and B

    J. Hollands and B. P. Dyre. Bias in proportion judgments: the cyclical power model.Psychological review, 107(3):500, 2000. doi: ������������ ���������������9

    2000

  22. [22]

    Honda, R

    H. Honda, R. Kagawa, and M. Shirasuna. On the round number bias and wisdom of crowds in different response formats for numerical estimation. 12(1):8167. doi:��������������������������2

  23. [23]

    M.-H. Hong, J. K. Witt, and D. A. Szafir. The Weighted Average Illusion: Biases in Perceived Mean Position in Scatterplots. doi:������������������� ������2

  24. [24]

    Huang and C

    O. Huang and C. Nobre. Vistruct: Simulating expert-like reasoning through task decomposition and visual attention. In2025 IEEE Visu- alization and Visual Analytics (VIS), pp. 216–220. IEEE, 2025. doi: ��� ������������������������2

    2025

  25. [25]

    Ibrekk and M

    H. Ibrekk and M. G. Morgan. Graphical communication of uncertain quantities to nontechnical people.Risk analysis, 7(4):519–529, 1987. doi: ����������������������������������4

    1987

  26. [26]

    A. Kale, M. Kay, and J. Hullman. Visual Reasoning Strategies for Effect Size Judgments and Decisions. 27(2):272–282. doi: ������������������ �������9

  27. [27]

    Kay.tidybayes: Tidy Data and Geoms for Bayesian Models

    M. Kay.tidybayes: Tidy Data and Geoms for Bayesian Models. R package version 3.0.7. doi:����������������������4

  28. [28]

    M. Kay. ggdist: Visualizations of distributions and uncertainty in the grammar of graphics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(1):414–424, 2024. doi:�������������������������4

    2024

  29. [29]

    Kim and J

    Y . Kim and J. Heer. Assessing effects of task and data distribution on the effectiveness of visual encodings. InComputer Graphics Forum, vol. 37, pp. 157–167. Wiley Online Library, 2018. doi:�����������������2

    2018

  30. [30]

    S. M. Kosslyn. Understanding charts and graphs. 3(3):185–225. doi: ��� �������������������1

  31. [31]

    B. Lee, C. Plaisant, C. S. Parr, J.-D. Fekete, and N. Henry. Task taxon- omy for graph visualization. InProceedings of the 2006 AVI workshop on BEyond time and errors: novel evaluation methods for information visualization, pp. 1–5, 2006. doi:�����������������������1

    2006

  32. [32]

    Q. Li, S. J. Joo, J. D. Yeatman, and K. Reinecke. Controlling for Partici- pants’ Viewing Distance in Large-Scale, Psychophysical Online Experi- ments Using a Virtual Chinrest. 10(1):904. doi: ������������������������ ��3

  33. [33]

    W. G. Lily, A.-F. Cabouat, K. Bonilla, Y . Cui, Y . Ding, N. Rakoton- dravony et al. An autoethnography on visualization literacy: A wicked measurement problem.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2025. doi:�������������������������9

    2025

  34. [34]

    Mackinlay

    J. Mackinlay. Automating the design of graphical presentations of rela- tional information. 5(2):110–141. doi:�������������������1

  35. [35]

    Marr.Vision: A computational investigation into the human represen- tation and processing of visual information

    D. Marr.Vision: A computational investigation into the human represen- tation and processing of visual information. MIT press, 2010. doi: ��� ������������������������������������9

    2010

  36. [36]

    Matejka, M

    J. Matejka, M. Glueck, T. Grossman, and G. Fitzmaurice. The effect of visual appearance on the performance of continuous sliders and visual analogue scales. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 5421–5432, 2016. doi:��������������� ��������9

    2016

  37. [37]

    Mather.Foundations of sensation and perception

    G. Mather.Foundations of sensation and perception. Psychology Press,

  38. [38]

    Moritz, L

    D. Moritz, L. M. Padilla, F. Nguyen, and S. L. Franconeri. Average 10 © 2026 IEEE. This is the author’s version of the article that has been published in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. The final version of this record is available at: xx.xxxx/TVCG.201x.xxxxxxx/ estimates in line graphs are biased toward areas of higher variabili...

    2026

  39. [39]

    doi:�������������������������1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10

  40. [40]

    Moritz, C

    D. Moritz, C. Wang, G. L. Nelson, H. Lin, A. M. Smith, B. Howe et al. Formalizing Visualization Design Knowledge as Constraints: Actionable and Extensible Models in Draco. doi:�������������������������1

  41. [41]

    Nobre, K

    C. Nobre, K. Zhu, E. Mörth, H. Pfister, and J. Beyer. Reading between the pixels: Investigating the barriers to visualization literacy. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–17, 2024. doi:�����������������������2, 9

    2024

  42. [42]

    J. Ooms. The jsonlite package: A practical and consistent mapping between json data and r objects.arXiv:1403.2805 [stat.CO], 2014. doi: ������������������������������7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [43]

    L. M. Padilla, S. H. Creem-Regehr, M. Hegarty, and J. K. Stefanucci. Deci- sion making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 3(1):29, 2018. doi: ��� ����������������������2

    2018

  44. [44]

    Peebles and P

    D. Peebles and P. C. H. Cheng. Extending task analytic models of graph- based reasoning: A cognitive model of problem solving with Cartesian graphs in ACT-R/PM. 3(1):77–86. doi:�����������������������������2

  45. [45]

    Peebles and P

    D. Peebles and P. C.-H. Cheng. Modeling the effect of task and graphical representation on response latency in a graph reading task.Human factors, 45(1):28–46, 2003. doi:��������������������������2

    2003

  46. [46]

    Pinker.A theory of graph comprehension, pp

    S. Pinker.A theory of graph comprehension, pp. 73–126. Psychology Press, 2014. 1, 2

    2014

  47. [47]

    R. A. Proma, M. Correll, G. J. Quadri, and P. Rosen. Visual Stenography: Feature Recreation and Preservation in Sketches of Noisy Line Charts. pp. 1–16. doi:�������������������������2

  48. [48]

    Säilynoja, A

    T. Säilynoja, A. R. Johnson, O. A. Martin, and A. Vehtari. Recommen- dations for visual predictive checks in bayesian workflow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01509, 2025. doi:�������������������������4

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Sarma, M

    A. Sarma, M. Hedayati, and M. Kay. More forecasts, more (decision) problems: How uncertainty representations for multiple forecasts impact decision making. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–14, 2025. doi: ���������������� �������9

    2025

  50. [50]

    Sarma, S

    A. Sarma, S. Long, M. Correll, and M. Kay. Tasks and telephones: threats to experimental validity due to misunderstandings of visualisation tasks and strategies position paper. In2024 IEEE Evaluation and Beyond- Methodological Approaches for Visualization (BELIV), pp. 33–40. IEEE,

  51. [51]

    doi:�����������������������������2, 9

  52. [52]

    D. Shi, Y . Wang, Y . Bai, A. Bulling, and A. Oulasvirta. Chartist: Task- driven eye movement control for chart reading. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–14,

    2025

  53. [53]

    doi:�����������������������9

  54. [54]

    Simkin and R

    D. Simkin and R. Hastie. An information-processing analysis of graph perception.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(398):454– 465, 1987. doi:������������������������������2, 6

    1987

  55. [55]

    Talbot, J

    J. Talbot, J. Gerth, and P. Hanrahan. An empirical model of slope ratio comparisons.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12):2613–2620, 2012. doi:���������������������2

    2012

  56. [56]

    stdlib, 2016

    The Stdlib Authors. stdlib, 2016. 4

    2016

  57. [57]

    Theodossiou

    P. Theodossiou. Financial Data and the Skewed Generalized T Distribution. 44(12):1650–1661. doi:�����������������������4, 12

  58. [58]

    van Rooij, B

    I. van Rooij, B. Devezer, J. Skewes, S. Varma, and T. Wareham. What makes a good theory? interdisciplinary perspectives.Computational Brain & Behavior, 7(4):503–507, 2024. doi:��������������������������9

    2024

  59. [59]

    Varona, M

    M. Varona, M. Hedayati, M. Kay, and C. Nobre. Theory is shapes. In Proceedings of alt.vis 2025, 2025. doi:�������������������������3

    2025

  60. [60]

    H. W. Wang, J. Hoffswell, S. M. Thazin Thane, V . S. Bursztyn, and C. X. Bearfield. How aligned are human chart takeaways and llm predictions? a case study on bar charts with varying layouts.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(1):536–546, 2025. doi: �������� �����������������9

    2025

  61. [61]

    J. Wang, L. Pagani, R. K. Leach, W. Zeng, B. M. Colosimo, and L. Zhou. Study of weighted fusion methods for the measurement of surface geome- try.Precision Engineering, 47:111–121, 2017. doi: ����������������������� �����������6

    2017

  62. [62]

    F. A. Wichmann and R. Geirhos. Are deep neural networks adequate behavioral models of human visual perception?Annual review of vision science, 9(1):501–524, 2023. doi:������������������������������������9

    2023

  63. [63]

    Wickham.ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis

    H. Wickham.ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer- Verlag New York, 2016. 4

    2016

  64. [64]

    Wickham.modelr: Modelling Functions that Work with the Pipe, 2023

    H. Wickham.modelr: Modelling Functions that Work with the Pipe, 2023. R package version 0.1.11, https://github.com/tidyverse/modelr. 4

    2023

  65. [65]

    Wickham, M

    H. Wickham, M. Averick, J. Bryan, W. Chang, L. D. McGowan, R. François et al. Welcome to the tidyverse.Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43):1686, 2019. doi:�������������������4

    2019

  66. [66]

    Wickham and L

    H. Wickham and L. Henry.purrr: Functional Programming Tools, 2026. R package version 1.2.1. 7

    2026

  67. [67]

    Wu and R

    E. Wu and R. Chang. Design-specific transformations in visualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06404, 2024. doi:�������������������������2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Y . Wu, Z. Guo, M. Mamakos, J. Hartline, and J. Hullman. The rational agent benchmark for data visualization.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 30(1):338–347, 2023. doi: ������������������ �������9

    2023

  69. [69]

    Xiong, C

    C. Xiong, C. R. Ceja, C. J. Ludwig, and S. Franconeri. Biased Average Position Estimates in Line and Bar Graphs: Underestimation, Overestima- tion, and Perceptual Pull. 26(1):301–310. doi: ������������������������� 2 11 A SLIDERINTERFACE ������ �������� ������ ������ �� ������ �������� �������������������������������������������������������������������� �...

    2026