pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28517 · v2 · pith:QGLS65IInew · submitted 2026-06-26 · 💻 cs.HC

Drag, Infer, Reproject: Grounding LLMs through Spatial Interaction for Image Clustering

Yang Liu , Xuxin Tang , Jiahao Xu , Chris North This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 21:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords semantic interactionimage clusteringlarge language modelsdrag interactioncriterion inferencedimension reductionhuman feedbackreprojection
0
0 comments X

The pith

Large language models can infer and refine image clustering criteria from sequences of user drag interactions to guide reprojection.

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

The paper introduces a method called CriterionSI that supports image clustering by letting users drag images around a layout. It relies on large language models to watch those drags and work out what semantic dimension the user cares about, such as mood or location. The inferred criterion then steers how the full set of images gets rearranged in the display. This setup is meant for situations where the user's goal only becomes clear through ongoing interaction rather than being stated at the beginning. Simulations indicate the system can identify the intended criterion over time and produce layouts that increasingly match it.

Core claim

CriterionSI uses large language models to infer and refine the clustering criterion from sequential user drags, while grounding semantic interpretation in human-provided feedback rather than fixed prior assumptions. CriterionSI combines the inferred criterion with local drags to guide global reprojection. The simulation-based evaluation and usage scenario demonstrate that CriterionSI can discover and refine the target criterion from sequential interactions and progressively produce criterion-aligned clustering layouts.

What carries the argument

CriterionSI, a method that infers a user clustering criterion from sequences of drag interactions using large language models and applies the result to steer global image layout reprojection.

If this is right

  • Clustering criteria can emerge and be refined gradually through interaction instead of requiring upfront specification.
  • Global image layouts can be adjusted by merging an inferred high-level criterion with immediate local drag feedback.
  • Semantic interpretations stay grounded in ongoing human feedback rather than static prior models.
  • LLMs enable the conversion of incremental spatial drags into criterion-guided changes across the full dataset.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same inference pattern could support interactive tasks in other domains where users clarify goals only by manipulating spatial arrangements, such as sorting documents or arranging charts.
  • Systems built this way would need mechanisms to resolve cases where drag sequences suggest multiple or conflicting criteria at once.
  • Pairing drag-based inference with additional signals like spoken descriptions could strengthen criterion accuracy in future versions.

Load-bearing premise

Large language models can reliably and accurately infer the user's intended clustering criterion from sequences of drag interactions alone, without predefined options or additional context.

What would settle it

Run the same sequence of drag interactions on identical image sets multiple times or with different users and check whether the inferred criteria and resulting layouts remain consistent and match user judgments of alignment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28517 by Chris North, Jiahao Xu, Xuxin Tang, Yang Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: CriterionSI infers and refines the user’s clustering criterion from incremental drag interactions. (a) An initial EVA-CLIP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of CriterionSI: (a) Criterion Tracker interprets each drag as partial evidence of a latent clustering criterion. (b) Criterion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: DR plots after interaction on the Mood task. (same as Sec. 4) (a) Initial layout; (b-d) ImageSI, SpaceEditing, WMDS at step 40; (e-g) CriterionSI (Gemini cls) at steps 10, 20, and 40. uses ground-truth labels only for drag target generation; the tracker receives only the drag event and neighborhood images, with no la￾bel access. No purity constraints are enforced on neighborhoods, so the method is exposed … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Dimension reduction and semantic interaction support image clustering by making similarity structure visible and manipulable. Existing semantic interaction methods encode users' clustering criterion (a user-interpretable semantic dimension, e.g., action, location, or mood) from direct manipulation to steer reprojection, giving users direct control over the resulting layout. Yet they typically depend on learned embeddings or a predefined criterion. In practice, users' clustering criterion often emerges gradually and becomes refined through interaction rather than being fully clear at the outset. In this work, we present CriterionSI (Criterion-guided Semantic Interaction), a method that translates incremental drag interactions into criterion-guided reprojection. CriterionSI uses large language models to infer and refine the clustering criterion from sequential user drags, while grounding semantic interpretation in human-provided feedback rather than fixed prior assumptions. CriterionSI combines the inferred criterion with local drags to guide global reprojection. The simulation-based evaluation and usage scenario demonstrate that CriterionSI can discover and refine the target criterion from sequential interactions and progressively produce criterion-aligned clustering layouts. Our code and data are available at: https://github.com/4C79/CriterionSI.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces CriterionSI, a semantic interaction technique for image clustering. It translates incremental user drag interactions into an inferred clustering criterion (e.g., action, location, mood) via large language models, grounds the inference in human feedback rather than fixed priors or embeddings, and combines the criterion with local drags to steer global reprojection. The central claim is that simulation-based evaluation and a usage scenario demonstrate the method can discover and refine an unknown target criterion from sequential interactions to produce progressively criterion-aligned layouts.

Significance. If the central claim holds, CriterionSI would advance semantic interaction methods by supporting emergent, user-refined criteria without predefined options, increasing flexibility in visual analytics and HCI for image data. The open-source code and data at the provided GitHub link are a clear strength for reproducibility and further testing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'simulation-based evaluation ... demonstrate[s] that CriterionSI can discover and refine the target criterion from sequential interactions' is load-bearing for the central claim, yet the described evaluation supplies a hidden target criterion to generate drags and then measures recovery; this does not test LLM inference reliability on real, noisy, inconsistent human drags where the criterion truly emerges during interaction.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (and Evaluation section): no details are supplied on simulation design, metrics, baselines, statistical controls, or how 'correct' drags are generated, so the degree of empirical support for the inference step cannot be assessed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on the evaluation and abstract. We address the two major comments point by point below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and detail on the simulation design.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'simulation-based evaluation ... demonstrate[s] that CriterionSI can discover and refine the target criterion from sequential interactions' is load-bearing for the central claim, yet the described evaluation supplies a hidden target criterion to generate drags and then measures recovery; this does not test LLM inference reliability on real, noisy, inconsistent human drags where the criterion truly emerges during interaction.

    Authors: We agree that the simulation supplies a known target criterion to generate the drag sequences and then measures how well CriterionSI recovers and refines it. This controlled design isolates the performance of the LLM inference step without confounding factors from real-user variability. The usage scenario section illustrates the system in an open-ended interaction where the criterion is not pre-specified to the system. We will revise the abstract to describe the simulation more precisely as a controlled recovery experiment rather than a direct demonstration of criterion emergence from noisy human input. A multi-participant user study measuring inference on inconsistent drags would strengthen the claim but is outside the current scope. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and Evaluation section): no details are supplied on simulation design, metrics, baselines, statistical controls, or how 'correct' drags are generated, so the degree of empirical support for the inference step cannot be assessed.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current manuscript does not provide sufficient detail on these aspects. We will expand the Evaluation section with a complete description of the simulation design, including the procedure for generating 'correct' drags from the target criterion, the quantitative metrics (e.g., criterion alignment over iterations), any baselines, and statistical controls or significance testing. This revision will allow readers to evaluate the empirical support for the inference component. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper describes a procedural method (CriterionSI) that uses LLMs to infer clustering criteria from sequential drag interactions and combines them with local drags for reprojection. No equations, fitted parameters, or mathematical derivations are present in the provided text. The central claim rests on the LLM inference step and simulation-based demonstration rather than any self-definitional reduction, fitted-input prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The evaluation setup (simulation with target criteria) raises questions about external validity but does not constitute circularity in the method's derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that LLMs possess the capability to infer semantic criteria from interaction sequences; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Large language models can infer and refine user clustering criteria from sequences of drag interactions
    The method's operation and evaluation claims depend on this LLM capability being effective.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5732 in / 1229 out tokens · 35555 ms · 2026-07-02T21:11:11.347368+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

28 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Y . Bian, R. Faust, and C. North. NeuralSI: Neural design of se- mantic interaction for interactive deep learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17178, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.17178 1

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.17178 2024

  2. [2]

    Bian and C

    Y . Bian and C. North. DeepSI: Interactive deep learning for semantic interaction. InProceedings of the 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 197–207. ACM, 2021. doi: 10.1145/ 3397481.3450670 1, 2

    work page arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Cavallo and C ¸

    M. Cavallo and C ¸ . Demiralp. Clustrophile 2: Guided visual clustering analysis.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):267–276, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864477 1

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2864477 2019

  4. [4]

    Endert, P

    A. Endert, P. Fiaux, and C. North. Semantic interaction for sensemak- ing: inferring analytical reasoning for model steering.IEEE Trans- actions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12):2879–2888,

  5. [5]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2012.260 1, 2

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2012.260 2012

  6. [6]

    Espadoto, R

    M. Espadoto, R. M. Martins, A. Kerren, N. S. Hirata, and A. C. Telea. Toward a quantitative survey of dimension reduction techniques.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(3):2153– 2173, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2019.2944182 1

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2944182 2021

  7. [7]

    A. K. Jain. Data clustering: 50 years beyond k-means.Pattern Recog- nition Letters, 31(8):651–666, 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.patrec.2009.09. 011 1, 2

    work page doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2009.09 2010

  8. [8]

    D. A. Keim, F. Mansmann, J. Schneidewind, J. Thomas, and H. Ziegler. Visual analytics: Scope and challenges. InVisual data mining: Theory, techniques and tools for visual analytics, pp. 76–90. Springer, 2008. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-71080-6 6 1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71080-6 2008

  9. [9]

    B. C. Kwon, B. Eysenbach, J. Verma, K. Ng, C. De Filippi, W. F. Stewart, and A. Perer. Clustervision: Visual supervision of unsuper- vised clustering.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):142–151, 2018. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2745085 1

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2017.2745085 2018

  10. [10]

    S. Kwon, J. Park, M. Kim, J. Cho, E. K. Ryu, and K. Lee. Image clus- tering conditioned on text criteria. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024. 1, 2, 4

    2024

  11. [11]

    J. Lin, R. Faust, and C. North. ImageSI: Semantic interaction for deep learning image projections. In2024 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS), pp. 91–95. IEEE, 2024. doi: 10.1109/VIS55277.2024 .00026 1, 2, 4

    work page doi:10.1109/vis55277.2024 2024

  12. [12]

    L. G. Nonato and M. Aupetit. Multidimensional projection for visual analytics: Linking techniques with distortions, tasks, and layout en- richment.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graph- ics, 25(8):2650–2673, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018.2846735 1

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2846735 2019

  13. [13]

    A. A. Oliveira, M. Espadoto, R. Hirata Jr, R. M. Cesar Jr, and A. C. Telea. Creating user-steerable projections with interactive semantic mapping.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15479, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2506.15479 1, 2, 4

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Pirolli and S

    P. Pirolli and S. Card. The Sensemaking Process and Leverage Points for Analyst Technology as Identified through Cognitive Task Analy- sis. InProceedings of the International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, pp. 2–4. McLean, V A, USA, 2005. 1

    2005

  15. [15]

    Sacha, A

    D. Sacha, A. Stoffel, F. Stoffel, B. C. Kwon, G. Ellis, and D. A. Keim. Knowledge generation model for visual analytics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12):1604–1613, 2014. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346481 1

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2014.2346481 2014

  16. [16]

    Sacha, L

    D. Sacha, L. Zhang, M. Sedlmair, J. A. Lee, J. Peltonen, D. Weiskopf, S. C. North, and D. A. Keim. Visual interaction with dimensional- ity reduction: A structured literature analysis.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 23(1):241–250, 2017. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2016.2598495 1

    work page arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    J. Z. Self, M. Dowling, J. Wenskovitch, I. Crandell, M. Wang, L. House, S. Leman, and C. North. Observation-level and parametric interaction for high-dimensional data analysis.ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 8(2):1–36, 2018. doi: 10.1145/ 3158230 2, 4

    2018

  18. [18]

    Q. Sun, Y . Fang, L. Wu, X. Wang, and Y . Cao. Eva-clip: Improved training techniques for clip at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15389,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.15389 3, 4

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.15389

  20. [20]

    X. Tang, I. Tahmid, E. Krokos, K. Whitley, X. Wang, and C. North. Semantic prompting: Agentic incremental narrative refinement through spatial semantic interaction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.19971, 2026. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.19971 2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.19971 2026

  21. [21]

    Ware.Information visualization: perception for design

    C. Ware.Information visualization: perception for design. Morgan Kaufmann, 2019. 1

    2019

  22. [22]

    J. Wei, D. Xia, H. Xie, C.-M. Chang, C. Li, and X. Yang. SpaceEdit- ing: A latent space editing interface for integrating human knowledge into deep neural networks. InProceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 489–503. ACM, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3640543.3645211 1, 2, 4

    work page doi:10.1145/3640543.3645211 2024

  23. [23]

    Wenskovitch, M

    J. Wenskovitch, M. Dowling, and C. North. Toward addressing am- biguous interactions and inferring user intent with dimension reduc- tion and clustering combinations in visual analytics.ACM Transac- tions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 14(1):1–35, 2024. doi: 10. 1145/3588565 1, 2

    2024

  24. [24]

    J. Xia, Y . Zhang, J. Song, Y . Chen, Y . Wang, and S. Liu. Revisiting dimensionality reduction techniques for visual cluster analysis: An empirical study.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):529–539, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114694 1

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2021.3114694 2022

  25. [25]

    B. Yao, X. Jiang, A. Khosla, A. L. Lin, L. Guibas, and L. Fei-Fei. Human action recognition by learning bases of action attributes and parts. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Com- puter Vision (ICCV), pp. 1331–1338. IEEE, 2011. doi: 10.1109/ICCV .2011.6126386 4

    work page doi:10.1109/iccv 2011

  26. [26]

    J. Yao, Q. Qian, and J. Hu. Multi-modal proxy learning towards per- sonalized visual multiple clustering. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 14066– 14075. IEEE, 2024. doi: 10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.01334 2

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01334 2024

  27. [27]

    ACDC: The adverse conditions dataset with correspondences for robust semantic driving scene perception,

    J. Zhang, J. Huang, S. Jin, and S. Lu. Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(8):5625–5644, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI. 2024.3369699 1

    work page doi:10.1109/tpami 2024

  28. [28]

    Y . Zhao, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhang, X. Zhao, J. Wang, Z. Shao, C. Turkay, and S. Chen. LEV A: Using large language models to enhance visual analytics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graph- ics, 31(3):1830–1847, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3368060 1, 2

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3368060 2025