Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 122 references

Perception-aware Sampling for Scatterplot Visualizations

T0 review · 5 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 Perception-aware sampling for scatterplots selects points by weighting saliency and density inside a greedy farthest-point heuristic, yielding samples that the paper shows are perceptually closer to the original data than five prior…

desk verdict Useful new sampling method for scatterplots, but the headline outperformance claim rests on a self-referential DVS evaluation and a too-thin user study. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20369 v4 pith:HDWMFHFM submitted 2025-04-29 cs.HC cs.DB

Zafeiria Moumoulidou , Hamza Elhamdadi , Ke Yang , Subrata Mitra , Cindy Xiong Bearfield , Alexandra Meliou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.DB
keywords perception-awaresamplingscatterplotssaliencymapsdatavisualizationapproximatefarthest-pointperceptualsimilarity
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

Scatterplot down-sampling routinely hides the very structure—small clusters, trends, outliers—that motivated drawing the plot in the first place, and existing sampling methods optimize data properties such as density or coverage rather than how people see. The paper argues that sampling should be perception-aware: weight each candidate point by a saliency map, which predicts where viewers look, augmented by local density, and then greedily select points that maximize the product of this weight and distance to the already-selected set. It claims that the resulting PAwS samples are perceptually closer to the original full-data visualization than Random, Density-Biased Sampling, Max-Min, Visualization-Aware Sampling, and Blue-noise samples across six datasets and five similarity metrics, and that the approximate variant ApproPAwS is up to 100x faster with minimal perceptual loss. If the claim holds, analysts could work with smaller and faster samples without giving up the patterns they are trying to read.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-point perception weight $w_p = \max(q_s, \gamma \cdot q_d)$, which turns a saliency heatmap into a sampling score: $q_s$ says where attention is predicted to go, $q_d$ adds the density information that saliency models miss, and the $\max$ ensures either can elevate a point. PAwS plugs this weight into a greedy farthest-first traversal, scoring candidates as $w_y \cdot \min_{x \in D'} d(y, x)$; the multiplicative combination is what balances perception with coverage, so the sample does not collapse onto attention hotspots. ApproPAwS adds a second mechanism: a quad-tree partition splits any cell whose Chamfer distance to uniform random points exceeds $\lambda$ or whose perception-weight variance exceeds $\sigma$, yielding a compressed box representation from which representative points are drawn uniformly, so the approximate visualization never touches the original data.

What would settle it

Run an eye-tracking study where participants view the full scatterplot and then pairs of samples; if fixation maps on PAwS samples are not systematically closer to fixation maps on the full data than the baselines' fixation maps are, the perception-preservation claim fails. A cheaper test is to swap the DVS model for a different saliency model or for human-fixation maps inside the pipeline and re-run the same five metrics; if the reported gains vanish, PAwS's advantage is an artifact of self-evaluation with the same model family.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the best scatterplot sample is the one that distorts the original image's saliency map least, and that this objective can be chased with a greedy farthest-point heuristic. PAwS assigns each point a perception weight $w_p = \max(q_s, \gamma \cdot q_d)$, where $q_s$ is the saliency value from the Data Visualization Saliency model aggregated across 16 rendering configurations and $q_d$ is a kernel-density estimate, with $\gamma$ set adaptively from the variance of densities. It then iteratively adds the point maximizing $w_y \cdot \min_{x \in D'} d(y, x)$, a multiplicative score that forces the sample to favor salient and dense regions while still covering the whole point cloud. The paper reports that PAwS consistently outscores five baselines on SSIM, CC, SIM, 1-JSD, and EMD across six datasets, reaches a given perceptual similarity at far smaller sample sizes, and that ApproPAwS, sampling from a quad-tree-compressed representation, matches PAwS's saliency scores while running up to 100x faster on a 3.5-million-point dataset.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's quantitative case assumes that the DVS saliency model's predicted attention maps faithfully mirror what humans actually see in scatterplots, because all five evaluation metrics compare saliency maps produced by that same model family and the paper explicitly declines to test this assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PAwS needs fewer points to reach a target perceptual similarity: with 844 points it averages a 0.75 SSIM score where VAS needs roughly five times as many points.
  • PAwS is orders of magnitude faster than VAS and blue-noise on large data, reducing sample generation from hours to minutes on a 3.5-million-point dataset.
  • ApproPAwS's compressed representation lets analysts generate approximate visualizations without re-reading the original data, with reported speedups up to 100x and saliency-similarity scores close to PAwS.
  • Because the saliency model is a plug-in black box, future improvements in visualization saliency prediction should carry over directly to better perception-aware samples.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The evaluation scores samples with the same saliency-model family that builds the sampling weights; a human-fixation benchmark would give a fairer test, and the paper's own 17-participant study shows blue-noise slightly ahead in the 'best overall' category.
  • PAwS's advantage is concentrated on datasets with hidden or mixed structure, such as the synthetic Hidden Correlation; on uniformly clustered data like MNIST all methods converge, suggesting perception-aware sampling matters most when structure is easily missed.
  • ApproPAwS's boxes could serve as a spatial index for interactive exploration, allowing re-sampling at new zoom levels or filtered regions from the same compressed representation without recomputing saliency.
  • The aggregation of saliency across rendering configurations (currently the per-pixel maximum) is an arbitrary choice; testing other fusion rules or replacing DVS with another model would reveal how much of the gain depends on that choice.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces perception-aware sampling for scatterplots. It proposes a perception-augmented database that stores aggregated Data Visualization Saliency (DVS) maps, augments them with density information to define per-point perception weights w_p = max(q_s, gamma*q_d), and then runs a greedy Max-Min-style algorithm (PAwS) that selects points maximizing weight times distance to the current sample. A second algorithm, ApproPAwS, uses a quad-tree compression of the canvas into boxes with approximately uniform data and similar perception weights, then samples representative points from boxes instead of the true data, claiming up to 100x speedups with minimal perceptual loss. The paper evaluates PAwS and ApproPAwS against Random, DBS, Max-Min, VAS, and Blue-noise on six datasets using five saliency-map similarity metrics (SSIM, CC, SIM, JSD, EMD) and reports a 17-participant user study in which PAwS is often preferred.

Significance. If the perception premise is externally validated, the work is a meaningful step: it is, to my knowledge, a clean and modular proposal for making sampling objectives perception-aware rather than purely geometric or statistical. PAwS is a simple O(kn) greedy extension of Max-Min, ApproPAwS addresses scalability in a principled way, and the paper is honest in Section 2.4 that it treats DVS as a black-box component. The evaluation design, with five metrics, six datasets, and aggregate saliency over multiple visual configurations, is thorough on its own terms. However, the significance of the central claim is conditional on the DVS saliency model being a faithful proxy for human perception of scatterplots, and that premise is not independently established in the paper.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5 and Section 3.1] The quantitative evaluation is self-referential: the five metrics (SSIM, CC, SIM, JSD, EMD) all compare DVS saliency maps of the sample against DVS saliency maps of the original data (Section 5, Figure 18b), while PAwS derives its perception weights from the same aggregate DVS saliency with w_p = max(q_s, gamma*q_d) (Section 3.1). Optimizing and scoring with the same model family can produce systematic advantages that reflect fitting DVS rather than preserving what humans perceive. Section 2.4 explicitly disclaims evaluating how well saliency models capture visual attention, so the user study is the only independent check in the paper. The central claim of consistent outperformance will be load-bearing only if the paper adds external validation, such as eye-tracking or a larger user study covering all methods and ApproPAwS, or a sensitivity analysis that varies the saliency model to show the conclusions are not an artifact of the DVS choice.
  2. [Section 6.1, Figure 15] The user study is too weak to carry the central perception claim alone. It has 17 participants and roughly 50 trials per comparison pair, reports no significance tests or confidence intervals, and in the 'best overall' category Blue-noise is slightly preferred over PAwS, which is the opposite of the paper's overall narrative. Since this is the only external evidence connecting the sampling objective to human perception, the paper should report per-dataset effect sizes with statistical tests (including multiple-comparison correction), and the inconclusive best-overall result should be discussed rather than minimized.
  3. [Section 6.2, Figure 16, Appendix A] The claim that ApproPAwS achieves 'minimal loss in visual fidelity' is supported only by the same DVS-based metrics used to construct the method, and ApproPAwS was not included in the user study. In addition, the compression thresholds for ACSI are adjusted differently from the other datasets 'to observe notable differences across compression schemes' (Section 6.2 and Appendix A), which is a post hoc selection that weakens the robustness claim. The paper should provide a sensitivity analysis over lambda, sigma, and C, and ideally independent evaluation of ApproPAwS outputs, before claiming comparable fidelity to PAwS.
  4. [Section 6, footnote 8] For Hidden Correlation, the largest dataset (~3.5M points), the density component of the perception weight was not computed with the kernel density estimator but approximated by rendering the data with a small point size and opacity. Because Hidden Correlation is also a dataset where PAwS shows particularly large reported gains, this substitution should be disclosed prominently in the main evaluation section and its effect on the density term in w_p should be analyzed.
  5. [Algorithm 2] Algorithm 2 as written is not well-defined: line 6 initializes D' with 'a random point in P', but P is the set of partitions/boxes, not data points, so the distance d(r,x) in line 8 and the membership test in line 10 are not defined as printed. This should be corrected (e.g., initialize from the representative set R) before the ApproPAwS runtime and results can be reproduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5, JSD formula] The Jensen-Shannon Divergence formula has a typo: the second term should be D_KL(q_D || mu), not D_KL(p_D' || mu), otherwise the expression is not symmetric as claimed.
  2. [Figure 15 caption] The caption states that 'Vas is slightly preferred in the best overall category', while the body text says Blue-noise slightly overtakes PAwS in that category; the reported result should be made consistent between the caption and the text.
  3. [Section 3.1] The adaptive setting of gamma via a sigmoid mapping of density variance is described only verbally; the paper should give the concrete mapping and any default parameter values so that the method is reproducible.
  4. [Figure 10] The labeling of low, medium, and high compression in Figure 10 is confusing because the lower-right panel is described as the highest compression in the caption but the relative order of the panels is not labeled directly in the figure; please add explicit labels.
  5. [Algorithm 2] Line 10 says 'where v in b', but v is a representative point, not a box; please clarify that b is the box from which v was originally drawn.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Quantitative evaluation is self-referential: PAwS is built from DVS saliency weights and scored by DVS saliency similarity; the user study provides independent but limited support.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.1 (Measuring quality), Section 3.1 (Deriving perception weights), Section 5 (Perceptual Similarity Metrics)]
    "Saliency maps ... predict areas of a visualization that attract viewers' attention ... The system derives a per-tuple saliency score q_s on the fly ... The perception-augmented DB then derives a perception weight for each point as w_p = max(q_s, γ·q_d) ... We use well-established image- and distribution-based metrics to measure how similar the saliency of a sample is to the saliency of the original data."

    PAwS's selection score is w_p = max(q_s, γ·q_d), where q_s is read from the DVS saliency map, and all five quantitative metrics (SSIM, CC, SIM, JSD, EMD) compare DVS saliency maps of the sample and the original data. A method that deliberately places points where DVS predicts saliency will, by construction, tend to make the DVS saliency map of its sample resemble the DVS saliency map of the original, so the reported quantitative outperformance over methods that do not use DVS is partly an artifact of the same model appearing on both sides.

full rationale

The algorithmic derivation of PAwS itself is not circular: it is a genuine greedy Max-Min variant with a multiplicative perception-weight/distance objective, and its runtime and coverage behavior are independently defined. The circularity is in the evaluation of the central perceptual-quality claim. The perception weights are derived from the aggregate DVS saliency map, and the quantitative quality metrics compare DVS saliency maps; thus the benchmark rewards exactly the model family used to build the method. This is a real, quotable reduction: w_p = max(q_s, γ·q_d) and the metrics both use DVS. However, the paper also conducts a user study with human participants, which is an external check on the claim that humans prefer PAwS samples, so the central claim has independent content beyond the self-referential metrics. That independent content is limited: 17 participants, roughly 50 trials per matchup, no inferential statistics, and Blue-noise slightly overtaking PAwS in the 'best overall' category. The paper's explicit disclaimer that it does not evaluate saliency-model validity (Section 2.4) further shows that the load-bearing premise of the quantitative evaluation is assumed rather than tested. On balance, the quantitative superiority claim is partially circular, but the user study keeps the paper from being wholly self-referential; hence a score of 4 rather than 6 or higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on one external tool, DVS saliency, and a set of heuristic choices: gamma, aggregation mode, compression thresholds, and C. None of these is derived from a theory of perception; they are calibrated by the authors to make the method work. The evaluation adds a small user study, which is the only component that does not share the DVS saliency assumption.

free parameters (4)
  • gamma density influence = adaptive via sigmoid of density variance; exact mapping unspecified
    In Section 3.1, w_p = max(q_s, gamma*q_d), and gamma is set per dataset from density variance, so it is a fitted or adaptive constant rather than a derived quantity.
  • compression thresholds lambda and sigma = 0.001 to 0.01; changed for ACSI to 0.005 and 0.01
    Section 6.2: these thresholds control box splitting and are hand-selected to produce low, medium, and high compression; values were changed for ACSI after inspection.
  • representatives per box C = not specified
    Algorithm 2 uses C random points per box; the runtime and robustness depend on C, but the paper does not state its value.
  • saliency aggregation mode = maximum across 16 configurations
    Section 3.1: choosing maximum rather than mean or another aggregate is a design decision that affects all perception weights.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DVS saliency maps are a valid proxy for human visual attention in scatterplots.
    Section 2.4 explicitly outsources validation of saliency models; all sampling weights and evaluation metrics rely on this model.
  • domain assumption Saliency-map similarity metrics measure perceptual similarity of samples.
    Section 5 says alignment of such metrics with human perception is an open research question and is not the focus of this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Weighted Max-Min greedy sampling approximates the optimal perception-aware sample.
    Section 2.2 states the true objective cannot be optimized directly because saliency models are blackbox, so the heuristic is unproven.
  • domain assumption Humans cannot perceive small perturbations in scatterplots, so approximate visualizations are acceptable.
    Section 4 relies on Healey and Enns [44] and the claim that users do not read individual data points.
  • ad hoc to paper Quad-tree boxes with low Chamfer distance and low perception-weight variance contain data that can be approximated by uniform random draws.
    Section 4.1: the compression scheme assumes uniform random draws within a box closely match actual data when both thresholds are satisfied; no formal guarantee is given.
invented entities (1)
  • perception-augmented database
    purpose: Stores aggregate saliency maps and density scores as metadata so sampling queries can be answered with perception weights.
    This is a proposed system architecture; the paper demonstrates a proof-of-concept but provides no independent evidence for the concept outside its own experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Perception-aware Sampling for Scatterplot Visualizations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HDWMFHFM

@misc{pith2026250420369,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Perception-aware Sampling for Scatterplot Visualizations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HDWMFHFM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20369}
}
read the original abstract

Visualizing data is often a crucial first step in data analytics workflows, but growing data sizes pose challenges due to computational and visual perception limitations. As a result, data analysts commonly down-sample their data and work with subsets. Deriving representative samples, however, remains a challenge. This paper focuses on scatterplots, a widely-used visualization type, and introduces a novel sampling objective -- perception-awareness -- aiming to improve sample efficacy by targeting humans' perception of a visualization. We make the following contributions: (1) We propose perception-augmented databases and design PAwS: a novel perception-aware sampling method for scatterplots that leverages saliency maps -- a computer vision tool for predicting areas of attention focus in visualizations -- and models perception-awareness via saliency, density, and coverage objectives. (2) We design ApproPAwS: a fast, perception-aware method for approximate visualizations, which exploits the fact that small visual perturbations are often imperceptible to humans. (3) We introduce the concept of perceptual similarity as a metric for sample quality, and present a novel method that compares saliency maps to measure it. (4) Our extensive experimental evaluation shows that our methods consistently outperform prior art in producing samples with high perceptual similarity, while ApproPAwS achieves up to 100x speed-ups with minimal loss in visual fidelity. Our user study shows that PAwS is often preferred by humans, validating our quantitative findings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20369 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A random sample (b) of the original dataset (a) obscures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. State-of-the-art sampling methods fail to preserve key [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Human attention focuses on the outline of highly-dense areas. As a result, the saliency maps of the two shapes above—one solid and one hollow—are remarkably similar; yet, the shapes are perceptually different. Our perceptual model avoids this pitfall by augmenting saliency with density information. scatterplot saliency map saliency weights perception weights high low a b c d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The DVS model [67, 96] derives a saliency map (b) of a scatterplot visualization (a). Human attention typically does not focus on the interior of dense areas, so the center of the map has low saliency. This heatmap can be projected on the data to assign saliency weight…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Perception weights for the dataset in Figure 1a. (b) A weight￾based sample, which selects points with probabilities proportional to their perception weights, obscures the outlier trend and the two smaller clusters. (c) Max-Min provides coverage but fails to reveal clus…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A human user is unlikely to detect that the approximate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Our perception-augmented DB stores an aggregate saliency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same dataset will look different with different point size and opacity configurations (a), which will translate to different saliency maps (b). Our model aggregates the saliency across varied stimuli to capture all these perspectives (c). good configuration for a s…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The perception-augmented DB can store a compressed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Varying the thresholds 𝝀 and 𝝈 results in different com￾pression rates (a). Lower compression rates (lower values for 𝝀 and 𝝈) lead to lower distortion in the approximate visualizations by Ap￾proPAwS (b), shown for a sample size of 𝒌 = 9, 611 points. Algorithm 2 Appro…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: We use several metrics to evaluate the perceptual similar￾ity of samples to the original data. The top three metrics measure similarity , and the last two dissimilarity. We report 1 − 𝐽 𝑆𝐷 in our experiments, which is a similarity metric. JSD is a symmetric version of…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: PAwS prioritizes the selection of data points in salient and high-density areas, while providing data coverage. Max-Min and Vas optimize for coverage, and may fail to preserve trends (e.g., in hidden correlation). Random and DBS preserve relative density, while Blue-n…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: PAwS shows strong performance across all metrics and is also more scalable than other state-of-the-art on hidden correlation, a ∼ 3.5M dataset. Only probabilistic-based methods are faster but perform poorly at producing perceptually good samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: In one-to-one matchups against the state-of-the-art, users largely prefer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: ApproPAwS shows similar performance to PAwS across all metrics and various levels of compression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: ApproPAwS is significantly more efficient than PAwS and state-of-the-art, even at low compression levels. ↑ marks the compression levels used in the results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (a) Visualizations of the datasets we use in the experimental evaluation and their aggregate saliency maps. (b) We demonstrate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Perception weights for the datasets in our experimental evaluation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Experimental results across all datasets and metrics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Visual stimuli used in the user study experiments for all datasets and sampling methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_21.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Perception-aware compression schemes for the datasets in our evaluation. We show how the parameters of the perception-aware [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Approximate visualizations of various sample sizes, as derived by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_27.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mirrokni, and Mayur Thakur

    Zeinab Abbassi, Vahab S. Mirrokni, and Mayur Thakur. 2013. Diversity Maxi- mization Under Matroid Constraints. InKDD ’13. 32–40

    2013

  2. [2]

    Swarup Acharya, Phillip B Gibbons, and Viswanath Poosala. 1999. Aqua: A fast decision support systems using approximate query answers. InProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. 754–757

    1999

  3. [3]

    Panos Achlioptas, Olga Diamanti, Ioannis Mitliagkas, and Leonidas Guibas

  4. [4]

    Raghavendra Addanki, Andrew McGregor, Alexandra Meliou, and Zafeiria Moumoulidou. 2022. Improved Approximation and Scalability for Fair Max- Min Diversification. In25th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT) (LIPIcs, Vol. 220). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 7:1–7:21. https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICDT.2022.7

    doi:10.4230/lipics.icdt.2022.7 2022

  5. [5]

    Sameer Agarwal, Barzan Mozafari, Aurojit Panda, Henry Milner, Samuel Mad- den, and Ion Stoica. 2013. BlinkDB: queries with bounded errors and bounded response times on very large data. InProceedings of the 8th ACM European conference on computer systems. 29–42

    2013

  6. [6]

    Daniel Alabi and Eugene Wu. 2016. Pfunk-h: Approximate query processing using perceptual models. InProceedings of the workshop on human-in-the-loop data analytics. 1–6

    2016

  7. [7]

    Robert Amar, James Eagan, and John Stasko. 2005. Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization. InIEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, 2005. INFOVIS 2005.IEEE, 111–117

    2005

  8. [8]

    Ralph G Andrzejak, Klaus Lehnertz, Florian Mormann, Christoph Rieke, Peter David, and Christian E Elger. 2001. Indications of nonlinear deterministic and finite-dimensional structures in time series of brain electrical activity: Dependence on recording region and brain state.Physical Review E(2001)

    2001

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    Hirojiro Aoyama. 1954. A study of stratified random sampling.Ann. Inst. Stat. Math6, 1 (1954), 1–36

    1954

  2. [10]

    Leilani Battle, Remco Chang, and Michael Stonebraker. 2016. Dynamic prefetch- ing of data tiles for interactive visualization. InProceedings of the 2016 Interna- tional Conference on Management of Data. 1363–1375

    2016

  3. [11]

    Leilani Battle, Michael Stonebraker, and Remco Chang. 2013. Dynamic reduction of query result sets for interactive visualizaton. In2013 IEEE International Conference on Big Data. IEEE, 1–8

    2013

  4. [12]

    Jon Louis Bentley. 1975. Multidimensional binary search trees used for associa- tive searching.Commun. ACM18, 9 (1975), 509–517

    1975

  5. [13]

    Enrico Bertini and Giuseppe Santucci. 2004. By chance is not enough: pre- serving relative density through nonuniform sampling. InProceedings. Eighth International Conference on Information Visualisation, 2004. IV 2004.IEEE, 622– 629

    2004

  6. [14]

    Enrico Bertini and Giuseppe Santucci. 2006. Give chance a chance: model- ing density to enhance scatter plot quality through random data sampling. Information Visualization5, 2 (2006), 95–110

    2006

  7. [15]

    Ayan Biswas, Soumya Dutta, Han-Wei Shen, and Jonathan Woodring. 2013. An information-aware framework for exploring multivariate data sets.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics19, 12 (2013), 2683–2692

    2013

  8. [16]

    Corinna E Bonhage, Jutta L Mueller, Angela D Friederici, and Christian J Fiebach

  9. [17]

    Allan Borodin, Aadhar Jain, Hyun Chul Lee, and Yuli Ye. 2017. Max-sum diversification, monotone submodular functions, and dynamic updates.ACM Transactions on Algorithms (TALG)13, 3 (2017), 1–25

    2017

  10. [18]

    Zoya Bylinskii, Tilke Judd, Aude Oliva, Antonio Torralba, and Frédo Durand

  11. [19]

    Zoya Bylinskii, Adrià Recasens, Ali Borji, Aude Oliva, Antonio Torralba, and Frédo Durand. 2016. Where should saliency models look next?. InComputer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part V 14. Springer, 809–824

    2016

  12. [20]

    Surajit Chaudhuri, Gautam Das, and Vivek Narasayya. 2007. Optimized strati- fied sampling for approximate query processing.ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS)32, 2 (2007), 9–es

    2007

  13. [21]

    What do different evaluation metrics tell us about saliency models?IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence41, 3 (2018), 740–757

    2018

  14. [22]

    Min Chen and Heike Jäenicke. 2010. An information-theoretic framework for visualization.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics16, 6 (2010), 1206–1215

    2010

  15. [23]

    Xin Chen, Tong Ge, Jian Zhang, Baoquan Chen, Chi-Wing Fu, Oliver Deussen, and Yunhai Wang. 2019. A recursive subdivision technique for sampling multi- class scatterplots.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics26, 1 (2019), 729–738

    2019

  16. [24]

    Min Chen and Amos Golan. 2015. What may visualization processes optimize? IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics22, 12 (2015), 2619– 2632

    2015

  17. [25]

    Robert L Cook. 1986. Stochastic sampling in computer graphics.ACM Transac- tions on Graphics (TOG)5, 1 (1986), 51–72

    1986

  18. [26]

    Graham Cormode, Minos Garofalakis, Peter J Haas, Chris Jermaine, et al. 2011. Synopses for massive data: Samples, histograms, wavelets, sketches.Foundations and Trends®in Databases4, 1–3 (2011), 1–294

    2011

  19. [27]

    Kathy Conklin and Ana Pellicer-Sánchez. 2016. Using eye-tracking in applied linguistics and second language research.Second Language Research32, 3 (2016), 453–467

    2016

  20. [28]

    Kyriaki Dimitriadou, Olga Papaemmanouil, and Yanlei Diao. 2016. AIDE: an ac- tive learning-based approach for interactive data exploration.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering28, 11 (2016), 2842–2856

    2016

  21. [29]

    Bolin Ding, Silu Huang, Surajit Chaudhuri, Kaushik Chakrabarti, and Chi Wang

  22. [30]

    Çağatay Demiralp, Michael S Bernstein, and Jeffrey Heer. 2014. Learning perceptual kernels for visualization design.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics20, 12 (2014), 1933–1942

    2014

  23. [31]

    Marina Drosou, Hosagrahar V Jagadish, Evaggelia Pitoura, and Julia Stoy- anovich. 2017. Diversity in big data: A review.Big data5, 2 (2017), 73–84

    2017

  24. [32]

    Marina Drosou and Evaggelia Pitoura. 2013. Diverse set selection over dynamic data.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering26, 5 (2013), 1102– 1116

    2013

  25. [33]

    Soumya Dutta, Ayan Biswas, and James Ahrens. 2019. Multivariate pointwise information-driven data sampling and visualization.Entropy21, 7 (2019), 699

    2019

  26. [34]

    Frances Ding, Moritz Hardt, John Miller, and Ludwig Schmidt. 2021. Retiring adult: New datasets for fair machine learning.Advances in neural information processing systems34 (2021), 6478–6490

    2021

  27. [35]

    Yuval Eldar, Michael Lindenbaum, Moshe Porat, and Yehoshua Y Zeevi. 1997. The farthest point strategy for progressive image sampling.IEEE transactions on image processing6, 9 (1997), 1305–1315

    1997

  28. [36]

    Geoffrey Ellis and Alan Dix. 2007. A taxonomy of clutter reduction for infor- mation visualisation.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 13, 6 (2007), 1216–1223

    2007

  29. [37]

    Haoqiang Fan, Hao Su, and Leonidas J Guibas. 2017. A point set generation network for 3d object reconstruction from a single image. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 605–613

    2017

  30. [38]

    Muhammad El-Hindi, Zheguang Zhao, Carsten Binnig, and Tim Kraska. 2016. Vistrees: fast indexes for interactive data exploration. InProceedings of the Workshop on Human-In-the-Loop Data Analytics. 1–6

    2016

  31. [39]

    Steven L Franconeri, Lace M Padilla, Priti Shah, Jeffrey M Zacks, and Jessica Hullman. 2021. The science of visual data communication: What works.Psy- chological Science in the public interest22, 3 (2021), 110–161

    2021

  32. [40]

    Shaddy Garg, Subrata Mitra, Tong Yu, Yash Gadhia, and Arjun Kashettiwar

  33. [41]

    Saheli Ghosh and Ahmed Eldawy. 2020. Aid*: a spatial index for visual explo- ration of geo-spatial data.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 34, 8 (2020), 3569–3582

    2020

  34. [42]

    Danyel Fisher, Igor Popov, Steven Drucker, and MC Schraefel. 2012. Trust me, I’m partially right: incremental visualization lets analysts explore large datasets faster. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1673–1682

    2012

  35. [43]

    Lane Harrison, Fumeng Yang, Steven Franconeri, and Remco Chang. 2014. Ranking visualizations of correlation using weber’s law.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics20, 12 (2014), 1943–1952

    2014

  36. [44]

    Christopher Healey and James Enns. 2011. Attention and visual memory in visualization and computer graphics.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics18, 7 (2011), 1170–1188

    2011

  37. [45]

    Joseph M Hellerstein, Ron Avnur, Andy Chou, Christian Hidber, Chris Olston, Vijayshankar Raman, Tali Roth, and Peter J Haas. 1999. Interactive data analysis: The control project.Computer32, 8 (1999), 51–59

    1999

  38. [46]

    Ralph H Henderson and Thalanayar Sundaresan. 1982. Cluster sampling to as- sess immunization coverage: a review of experience with a simplified sampling method.Bulletin of the World Health Organization60, 2 (1982), 253

    1982

  39. [47]

    Phillip B Gibbons and Yossi Matias. 1998. New sampling-based summary statistics for improving approximate query answers. InProceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. 331–342

    1998

  40. [48]

    Laurent Itti and Christof Koch. 2001. Computational modelling of visual atten- tion.Nature reviews neuroscience2, 3 (2001), 194–203. 13 Zafeiria Moumoulidou, Hamza Elhamdadi, Ke Yang, Subrata Mitra, Cindy Xiong Bearfield, and Alexandra Meliou

    2001

  41. [49]

    Laurent Itti, Christof Koch, and Ernst Niebur. 1998. A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis.IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence20, 11 (1998), 1254–1259

    1998

  42. [50]

    Paulo Joia, Fabiano Petronetto, and Luis Gustavo Nonato. 2015. Uncovering representative groups in multidimensional projections. InComputer Graphics Forum, Vol. 34. Wiley Online Library, 281–290

    2015

  43. [51]

    Daniel A Keim, Ming C Hao, Umeshwar Dayal, Halldor Janetzko, and Peter Bak

  44. [52]

    Ruizhen Hu, Tingkai Sha, Oliver Van Kaick, Oliver Deussen, and Hui Huang

  45. [53]

    Jang-Hyun Kim, Wonho Choo, and Hyun Oh Song. 2020. Puzzle Mix: Exploiting Saliency and Local Statistics for Optimal Mixup. InProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 119), Hal Daumé III and Aarti Singh...

    2020

  46. [54]

    Nam Wook Kim, Zoya Bylinskii, Michelle A Borkin, Krzysztof Z Gajos, Aude Oliva, Fredo Durand, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2017. Bubbleview: an interface for crowdsourcing image importance maps and tracking visual attention.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)24, 5...

    2017

  47. [55]

    Younghoon Kim and Jeffrey Heer. 2018. Assessing effects of task and data distribution on the effectiveness of visual encodings. InComputer Graphics Forum, Vol. 37. Wiley Online Library, 157–167

    2018

  48. [56]

    Matthäus Kleindessner, Pranjal Awasthi, and Jamie Morgenstern. 2019. Fair k- center clustering for data summarization. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 3448–3457

    2019

  49. [57]

    Bum Chul Kwon, Janu Verma, Peter J Haas, and Cagatay Demiralp. 2017. Sam- pling for scalable visual analytics.IEEE computer graphics and applications37, 1 (2017), 100–108

    2017

  50. [58]

    Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. 1998. Gradient- based learning applied to document recognition.Proc. IEEE86, 11 (1998), 2278–2324

    1998

  51. [59]

    Albert Kim, Eric Blais, Aditya Parameswaran, Piotr Indyk, Sam Madden, and Ronitt Rubinfeld. 2015. Rapid sampling for visualizations with ordering guar- antees. InProceedings of the vldb endowment international conference on very large data bases, Vol. 8. NIH Public Access, 521

    2015

  52. [60]

    Sanghyeok Lee, Minkyu Jeon, Injae Kim, Yunyang Xiong, and Hyunwoo J Kim. 2022. SageMix: Saliency-Guided Mixup for Point Clouds. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agar- wal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh (Eds.), Vol. 35. Curran Asso...

    2022

  53. [61]

    Jia Li, Changqun Xia, Yafei Song, Shu Fang, and Xiaowu Chen. 2015. A data- driven metric for comprehensive evaluation of saliency models. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. 190–198

    2015

  54. [62]

    Yiqun Lin, Lichang Chen, Haibin Huang, Chongyang Ma, Xiaoguang Han, and Shuguang Cui. 2022. Task-aware sampling layer for point-wise analysis.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics(2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    Shixia Liu, Jiannan Xiao, Junlin Liu, Xiting Wang, Jing Wu, and Jun Zhu. 2017. Visual diagnosis of tree boosting methods.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics24, 1 (2017), 163–173

    2017

  56. [64]

    Zhicheng Liu and Jeffrey Heer. 2014. The effects of interactive latency on exploratory visual analysis.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics20, 12 (2014), 2122–2131

    2014

  57. [65]

    William G Madow and Lillian H Madow. 1944. On the theory of systematic sampling, I.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics15, 1 (1944), 1–24

    1944

  58. [66]

    Christian Ledig, Lucas Theis, Ferenc Huszár, Jose Caballero, Andrew Cunning- ham, Alejandro Acosta, Andrew Aitken, Alykhan Tejani, Johannes Totz, Zehan Wang, et al. 2017. Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a gen- erative adversarial network. InProceedings of t...

    2017

  59. [67]

    Laura E Matzen, Michael J Haass, Kristin M Divis, Zhiyuan Wang, and Andrew T Wilson. 2017. Data visualization saliency model: A tool for evaluating abstract data visualizations.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics24, 1 (2017), 563–573

    2017

  60. [68]

    Adrian Mayorga and Michael Gleicher. 2013. Splatterplots: Overcoming over- draw in scatter plots.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 19, 9 (2013), 1526–1538

    2013

  61. [69]

    Luana Micallef, Gregorio Palmas, Antti Oulasvirta, and Tino Weinkauf. 2017. Towards perceptual optimization of the visual design of scatterplots.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics23, 6 (2017), 1588–1599

    2017

  62. [70]

    NG Minos and BG Philip. 2011. Approximate Query Processing: Taming the TeraBytes.processdings of SIGMOD(2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Dominik Moritz, Danyel Fisher, Bolin Ding, and Chi Wang. 2017. Trust, but verify: Optimistic visualizations of approximate queries for exploring big data. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 2904–2915

    2017

  64. [72]

    Zafeiria Moumoulidou, Andrew McGregor, and Alexandra Meliou. 2021. Diverse Data Selection under Fairness Constraints. InICDT 2021. 13:1–13:25

    2021

  65. [73]

    Moeti M Masiane, Anne Driscoll, Wuchun Feng, John Wenskovitch, and Chris North. 2020. Towards insight-driven sampling for big data visualisation.Be- haviour & Information Technology39, 7 (2020), 788–807

    2020

  66. [74]

    Christopher R Palmer and Christos Faloutsos. 2000. Density biased sampling: An improved method for data mining and clustering. InProceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. 82–92

    2000

  67. [75]

    Yongjoo Park, Michael Cafarella, and Barzan Mozafari. 2016. Visualization- aware sampling for very large databases. In2016 IEEE 32nd International Con- ference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 755–766

    2016

  68. [76]

    Emanuel Parzen. 1962. On estimation of a probability density function and mode.The annals of mathematical statistics33, 3 (1962), 1065–1076

    1962

  69. [77]

    Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, et al. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. the Journal of machine Learning research12 (2011), 2825–2830

    2011

  70. [78]

    Ofir Pele and Michael Werman. 2008. A linear time histogram metric for im- proved sift matching. InComputer Vision–ECCV 2008: 10th European Conference on Computer Vision, Marseille, France, October 12-18, 2008, Proceedings, Part III

    2008

  71. [79]

    Ofir Pele and Michael Werman. 2009. Fast and robust earth mover’s distances. In2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE, 460–467

    2009

  72. [80]

    Jim Nilsson and Tomas Akenine-Möller. 2020. Understanding ssim.arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.13846(2020)

    2020 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Vibhor Porwal, Subrata Mitra, Fan Du, John Anderson, Nikhil Sheoran, Anup Rao, Tung Mai, Gautam Kowshik, Sapthotharan Nair, Sameeksha Arora, et al

  74. [82]

    Xin Qian, Ryan A Rossi, Fan Du, Sungchul Kim, Eunyee Koh, Sana Malik, Tak Yeon Lee, and Joel Chan. 2021. Learning to recommend visualizations from data. InProceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 1359–1369

    2021

  75. [83]

    Xuedi Qin, Yuyu Luo, Nan Tang, and Guoliang Li. 2020. Making data visual- ization more efficient and effective: a survey.The VLDB Journal29, 1 (2020), 93–117

    2020

  76. [84]

    Ghulam Jilani Quadri, Jennifer Adorno Nieves, Brenton M Wiernik, and Paul Rosen. 2022. Automatic scatterplot design optimization for clustering identifi- cation.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics(2022)

    2022

  77. [85]

    Ghulam Jilani Quadri and Paul Rosen. 2020. Modeling the influence of visual density on cluster perception in scatterplots using topology.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics27, 2 (2020), 1829–1839

    2020

  78. [86]

    Ghulam Jilani Quadri and Paul Rosen. 2021. A survey of perception-based visualization studies by task.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics28, 12 (2021), 5026–5048

    2021

  79. [87]

    R Doyle Portugal and Benar Fux Svaiter. 2011. Weber-Fechner law and the optimality of the logarithmic scale.Minds and Machines21 (2011), 73–81

    2011

  80. [88]

    S. S. Ravi, D. J. Rosenkrantz, and G. K. Tayi. 1994. Heuristic and Special Case Algorithms for Dispersion Problems.Oper. Res.42, 2 (April 1994), 299–310

    1994

  81. [89]

    Adria Recasens, Petr Kellnhofer, Simon Stent, Wojciech Matusik, and Antonio Torralba. 2018. Learning to zoom: a saliency-based sampling layer for neural networks. InProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). 51–66

    2018

  82. [90]

    Ronald A Rensink and Gideon Baldridge. 2010. The perception of correlation in scatterplots. InComputer graphics forum, Vol. 29. Wiley Online Library, 1203–1210

    2010

  83. [91]

    Julian A Ramos Rojas, Mary Beth Kery, Stephanie Rosenthal, and Anind Dey

  84. [92]

    Alper Sarikaya and Michael Gleicher. 2017. Scatterplots: Tasks, data, and designs. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics24, 1 (2017), 402–412

    2017

  85. [93]

    2015.Multivariate density estimation: theory, practice, and visualization

    David W Scott. 2015.Multivariate density estimation: theory, practice, and visualization. John Wiley & Sons

    2015

  86. [94]

    Karthikeyan Shanmuga Vadivel, Thuyen Ngo, Miguel Eckstein, and BS Manju- nath. 2015. Eye tracking assisted extraction of attentionally important objects from videos. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 3241–3250

    2015

  87. [95]

    Sajjadur Rahman, Maryam Aliakbarpour, Ha Kyung Kong, Eric Blais, Karrie Karahalios, Aditya Parameswaran, and Ronitt Rubinfield. 2017. I’ve seen" enough" incrementally improving visualizations to support rapid decision mak- ing.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment10, 11 (2017), 1262–1273

    2017

  88. [96]

    Sungbok Shin, Sunghyo Chung, Sanghyun Hong, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2022. A scanner deeply: Predicting gaze heatmaps on visualizations using crowdsourced eye movement data.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 1 (2022), 396–406

    2022

  89. [97]

    Ben Shneiderman. 1984. Response time and display rate in human performance with computers.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)16, 3 (1984), 265–285. 14 Perception-aware Sampling for Scatterplot Visualizations

    1984

  90. [98]

    2018.Density estimation for statistics and data analysis

    Bernard W Silverman. 2018.Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Routledge

    2018

  91. [99]

    Danielle Albers Szafir. 2017. Modeling color difference for visualization design. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics24, 1 (2017), 392–401

    2017

  92. [100]

    Manasi Vartak, Sajjadur Rahman, Samuel Madden, Aditya Parameswaran, and Neoklis Polyzotis. 2015. Seedb: Efficient data-driven visualization recommen- dations to support visual analytics. InProceedings of the VLDB Endowment International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Vol...

    2015

  93. [101]

    Yue Wang, Alexandra Meliou, and Gerome Miklau. 2018. Rc-index: Diversifying answers to range queries.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment11, 7 (2018), 773–786

    2018

  94. [102]

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE transactions on image processing13, 4 (2004), 600–612

    2004

  95. [103]

    Li-Yi Wei. 2010. Multi-class blue noise sampling.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)29, 4 (2010), 1–8

    2010

  96. [104]

    Ran Shi, Ngi King Ngan, and Hongliang Li. 2017. Gaze-based object segmenta- tion.IEEE Signal Processing Letters24, 10 (2017), 1493–1497

    2017

  97. [105]

    Shouxing Xiang, Xi Ye, Jiazhi Xia, Jing Wu, Yang Chen, and Shixia Liu. 2019. Interactive correction of mislabeled training data. In2019 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (V AST). IEEE, 57–68

    2019

  98. [106]

    Dong-Ming Yan, Jian-Wei Guo, Bin Wang, Xiao-Peng Zhang, and Peter Wonka

  99. [107]

    Jun Yuan, Shouxing Xiang, Jiazhi Xia, Lingyun Yu, and Shixia Liu. 2020. Evalu- ation of sampling methods for scatterplots.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics27, 2 (2020), 1720–1730

    2020

  100. [108]

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang

  101. [109]

    Hang Zhao, Orazio Gallo, Iuri Frosio, and Jan Kautz. 2016. Loss functions for image restoration with neural networks.IEEE Transactions on computational imaging3, 1 (2016), 47–57

    2016

  102. [110]

    Yan Zheng, Jeffrey Jestes, Jeff M Phillips, and Feifei Li. 2013. Quality and efficiency for kernel density estimates in large data. InProceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 433–444

    2013

  103. [111]

    Kostas Zoumpatianos, Stratos Idreos, and Themis Palpanas. 2014. Indexing for interactive exploration of big data series. InProceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data. 1555–1566. A Appendix Overview of experimental design.Figure 18 provide...

    2014

  104. [113]

    Tong Wu, Liang Pan, Junzhe Zhang, Tai Wang, Ziwei Liu, and Dahua Lin. 2021. Density-aware chamfer distance as a comprehensive metric for point cloud completion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.12702(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  105. [116]

    A survey of blue-noise sampling and its applications.Journal of Computer Science and Technology30, 3 (2015), 439–452

    2015

  106. [119]

    InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 586–595

  107. [2010]

    Generalized scatter plots.Information Visualization9, 4 (2010), 301–311

    2010

  108. [2015]

    Combined eye tracking and fMRI reveals neural basis of linguistic predic- tions during sentence comprehension.Cortex68 (2015), 33–47

    2015

  109. [2016]

    InProceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data

    Sample+ seek: Approximating aggregates with distribution precision guarantee. InProceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Management of Data. 679–694

    2016

  110. [2017]

    In2017 IEEE 7th symposium on large data analysis and visualization (LDA V)

    Sampling techniques to improve big data exploration. In2017 IEEE 7th symposium on large data analysis and visualization (LDA V). IEEE, 26–35

  111. [2018]

    In International conference on machine learning

    Learning representations and generative models for 3d point clouds. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 40–49

  112. [2019]

    Data sampling in multi-view and multi-class scatterplots via set cover optimization.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics26, 1 (2019), 739–748

    2019

  113. [2022]

    InProceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Management of Data

    Efficient Insights Discovery through Conditional Generative Model based Query Approximation. InProceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Management of Data. 2397–2400

    2022

  114. [2023]

    InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol

    Reinforced approximate exploratory data analysis. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 37. 7660–7669

Pith tools

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