Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 112 references

How Data Narratives Go Wrong: A Taxonomy of Issues Across the Data Communication Process

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Data narratives fail as a whole package, not as isolated bad charts or wrong numbers, and a six-part taxonomy maps where they break.

desk verdict Useful integrative taxonomy that stitches known failure modes into a process lens; soft on generality, but the claim as written holds and the corpus work is real. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10523 v1 pith:HIMNA5QW submitted 2026-07-12 cs.HC cs.CY

Yu Fu , Jiawei Zhou , Sichen Jin , Munmun De Choudhury , Cindy Xiong Bearfield , John Stasko This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CY
keywords datanarrativesmisleadingvisualizationtaxonomyfact-checkingcommunicationreasoningfallaciesaudienceinterpretationsociotechnicalsupport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that failures in data-driven public communication rarely reduce to a single wrong number or a deceptive chart. Instead, they emerge as quantitative evidence is turned into claims, visuals, text, and arguments across a longer meaning-making process. The authors introduce TIC, a taxonomy of issues in data communication built from prior literature and refined by qualitative annotation of 700 real-world narratives from fact-checking sites, research datasets, and controversial media. TIC groups recurring breakdowns into six dimensions: data, quantitative analysis, visual encoding, text and rhetoric, reasoning, and audience interpretation, and places those dimensions inside a process framework of analysis, narrative construction, and audience reception. The contribution is a shared diagnostic language for authors, editors, fact-checkers, and tool builders who need to see how issues arise, propagate, and compound rather than treating statistics, charts, and wording as separate problems.

What carries the argument

TIC (Taxonomy of Issues in Data Communication): a multi-layer scheme of six dimensions, middle-layer categories, and leaf subtypes, mapped onto an analysis–construction–consumption process framework that links issue types to activities, actors, and leverage points.

What would settle it

Independent multi-annotator coding of a broader, modality-balanced sample (including dashboards, video, and scrollytelling outside climate, COVID, and politics) that either fails to recover TIC's dimensions and co-occurrence patterns or shows that many real-world failures fall outside the six dimensions and process stages.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Problematic data narratives are best diagnosed with TIC, a six-dimensional, process-oriented taxonomy of issues spanning data integrity, quantitative analysis, visual encoding, textual and rhetorical framing, reasoning fallacies, and audience interpretation biases, situated across analysis, construction, and consumption so that breakdowns can be located where they enter and how they compound.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that a literature synthesis plus 700 curated narratives from fact-check APIs, prior research sets, and three controversial websites, coded without formal full-corpus reliability, is representative enough to define a general taxonomy of data-communication failures.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TIC, a six-dimensional taxonomy of issues in data-driven communication (data, quantitative analysis, visual encoding, text/rhetoric, reasoning, and audience interpretation), refined from a 34-paper literature synthesis and directed content analysis of 700 real-world narratives from fact-checking APIs, prior research datasets, and controversial websites. TIC is multi-label and process-oriented rather than mutually exclusive; the authors situate it in an analysis–construction–consumption framework (Figure 7) drawing on Hall’s encoding/decoding model, report issue distributions across corpora (Figure 6), release an annotated corpus with rationales and a browsing interface, and discuss validation as a whole package, authorial intent, scrutiny calibration, and design implications for authoring, editorial, and fact-checking support.

Significance. If accepted as an analytical lens rather than a prevalence estimate, TIC is a useful integrative contribution for visualization, HCI, and data journalism. Prior work is largely siloed by modality (statistics, chart design, claim verification); the paper’s main value is connecting issue types to process stages, actors, and leverage points, with concrete extensions such as “scope dilution” and an openly browsable multi-label case corpus. The design-implications section is actionable for linters, claim-review tools, and fact-checking aids. Strengths include transparent methodology (PRISMA-style review, pilot/open/main coding with reconciliation), explicit multi-label framing, and candid Limitations on domain/modality bias and formative coding without full-corpus formal IRR.

major comments (3)
  1. §III.B.2 and §VII.B: The taxonomy is the central contribution, yet formal inter-coder reliability is not reported for the full 700-item set; only pilot calibration, 15% dual open coding with reconciliation, lead-author main coding, and spot-checks are described. For a formative taxonomy this is defensible, but the manuscript should either (a) report agreement metrics on a held-out dual-coded subset for middle-layer categories, or (b) more tightly bound claims of stability/extensibility to “analytic lens refined from literature and practice,” and state how boundary cases (e.g., selective reasoning vs. evidence distortion vs. visual–text mismatch) were resolved in the codebook.
  2. §IV.C / Figure 6 and Abstract/§I: Distribution percentages are corpus-conditioned (Fact-Check text-heavy; Prior Work visualization-centered; Controversial sites climate/vaccines). The text mostly treats them as descriptive, but phrasing such as “most prevalent issue types” can be read as general prevalence. Explicitly frame Figure 6 as corpus-specific descriptive patterns, not estimates of issue rates in data communication at large, and avoid language that implies representativeness beyond the curated sources.
  3. §V / Figure 7 vs. §IV.A.6: Interpretation biases are defined as reception-side and excluded from artifact annotation, yet the process framework places them as a full TIC dimension with leverage points. Clarify operational status: which categories are artifact-codable vs. hypothesized reception mechanisms, and what evidence (beyond literature) supports mapping interpretation biases onto consumption-stage interventions. Without this, Dimension 6 risks reading as a literature appendix rather than an empirically grounded taxonomy layer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: TIC is an inductive qualitative taxonomy refined from external literature and an independently curated 700-case corpus, not a derivation that collapses to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

This is a formative HCI taxonomy paper, not a first-principles derivation or predictive model. The claimed contribution (TIC’s six dimensions + process mapping) is obtained by (1) PRISMA-guided synthesis of 34 prior works that already documented statistical, visual, and textual issues, followed by thematic clustering, then (2) directed content analysis that applies and extends those categories on 700 real-world narratives drawn from Google Fact Check, prior research datasets, and controversial sites. Categories are multi-label analytic lenses, not equations; distribution percentages are descriptive counts of the annotated set, not fitted parameters re-labeled as predictions. Self-citations to the authors’ earlier visualization/fact-checking systems appear only as related work or design implications and are not load-bearing premises that force the taxonomy. Limitations already concede domain/modality bias and the absence of full-corpus formal IRR, confirming the work is presented as an extensible analytical lens rather than a closed, self-justifying result. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness theorem imported from the same authors, or renaming of a known result as a novel derivation is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

This is a qualitative taxonomy paper, not a parametric model. Load-bearing commitments are methodological and conceptual: that literature plus the chosen corpora can surface recurring issue types; that Hall’s encoding/decoding model is an appropriate scaffold; and that multi-label qualitative coding without full-corpus IRR is adequate for a formative taxonomy. No numerical free parameters are fitted. The main invented construct is TIC itself and its six dimensions plus the process framework.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hall’s encoding/decoding model is an appropriate scaffold for locating issues across analysis, construction, and audience reception of data narratives.
    Invoked in §I and §V to structure the process framework (Figure 7); not derived from the corpus.
  • ad hoc to paper Recurring issues in data communication can be productively organized into the six TIC dimensions (data, analysis, visual encoding, text, reasoning, interpretation) as analytic lenses rather than mutually exclusive classes.
    Emerges from thematic synthesis of 34 papers and directed content analysis (§III–IV); structure is a design choice of the taxonomy.
  • domain assumption The three curated corpora (fact-check claims, prior research visualization datasets, controversial websites) plus literature are sufficiently diverse to refine a general taxonomy of multimodal data-narrative issues.
    Stated as the empirical foundation in §III.B; limitations later acknowledge domain and modality bias.
  • domain assumption Formative taxonomy development via pilot coding, subset dual coding, reconciliation, and spot-checking is adequate without reporting formal inter-coder reliability on the full set.
    Explicitly defended in Limitations §VII.B as appropriate for non-mutually-exclusive, multi-label issue coding.
invented entities (3)
  • TIC (Taxonomy of Issues in Data Communication) independent evidence
    purpose: Organize recurring breakdowns in data narratives across six dimensions and support diagnosis and sociotechnical intervention design.
    Central contribution of the paper; leaf subtypes are extensible and multi-label.
  • Scope dilution (as a named selective-reasoning subtype) independent evidence
    purpose: Capture use of overly broad temporal/spatial/population baselines to downplay present risks, observed especially in Corpus III.
    Authors state it is not explicitly addressed in prior literature (§IV.A.5); illustrated with climate and public-health cases (Figure 4).
  • Analysis–construction–consumption process framework mapping TIC dimensions to actors and leverage points
    purpose: Show where issues arise, propagate, and can be mitigated for authors, editors, fact-checkers, and audiences.
    Synthesized from storytelling/visualization process models plus Hall (§V, Figure 7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Data Narratives Go Wrong: A Taxonomy of Issues Across the Data Communication Process." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HIMNA5QW

@misc{pith2026260710523,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Data Narratives Go Wrong: A Taxonomy of Issues Across the Data Communication Process},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HIMNA5QW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10523}
}
read the original abstract

Data narratives increasingly shape public understanding, but their failures are rarely just isolated factual errors or deceptive charts. Instead, they emerge through a broader meaning-making process in which quantitative evidence is transformed into claims, representations, and arguments. While prior work has examined these failures across disparate fields (e.g., statistics, visualization, and fact-checking), the community lacks a holistic lens to explain how these issues arise, propagate, and compound. To address this gap, we introduce TIC, a Taxonomy of Issues in Data Communication, synthesized from prior literature and refined through the qualitative annotation of 700 real-world data narratives from fact-checking sites, research datasets, and controversial media. TIC organizes recurring breakdowns across six dimensions-data, analysis, visual encoding, text, reasoning, and interpretation-and situates them within a framework spanning analysis, narrative construction, and audience reception. Alongside the taxonomy and process framework, we contribute a qualitatively annotated case corpus with coding justifications and an interactive browsing interface. Collectively, these contributions provide a structured lens for diagnosing problematic data narratives and informing future sociotechnical support for trustworthy data communication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10523 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of our methodology and contributions. We first construct a preliminary taxonomy of issues in data-driven communication through a systematic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of Scale & Geometry Distortions. SG1: Axis range manipulation compresses or amplifies temperature change by expanding the y-axis to an irrelevant scale. SG2: Scale unit manipulation (millions of gigatonnes) minimizes apparent Antarctic ice loss by shrinking vertical variation. SG3: Axis inversion reverses the visual direction of change, making increases appear as decreases. invert apparent differences. Aspe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of visual-based Causal Reasoning Errors, where correlations or temporal alignments are presented as evidence of direct causation. Cases include claims that rising CO2 drives crop yields (CR1–CR2), that reduced logging explains wildfire growth (CR3), and that COVID-19 policy shifts directly determine case trends (CR4–CR6). Spurious Causal Inference treats observed correlation or visual co-variation as suffic… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of Scope Dilution (a subtype of selective reasoning), where overly broad temporal or spatial baselines—often paired with scale manipulation— are used to downplay present risks. Climate cases (SD1–SD5) invoke geologic or millennial timescales, while public heal…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Exploration interface for browsing annotated claims, inspecting issue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of annotated TIC issue types across the three corpora. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Framework situating the TIC taxonomy within the data communication process. It maps six dimensions of issues onto activities of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    More than data stories: Broadening the role of visualization in contemporary journalism,

    Y . Fu and J. Stasko, “More than data stories: Broadening the role of visualization in contemporary journalism,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 30, no. 8, p. 5240–5259, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    The Persuasive Power of Data Visualization

    A. V . Pandey, A. Manivannan, O. Nov, M. Satterthwaite, and E. Bertini, “The Persuasive Power of Data Visualization.”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 2211–2220, Dec. 2014

    2014

  3. [3]

    T. M. Porter,Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995

    1995

  4. [4]

    Huff,How to Lie with Statistics

    D. Huff,How to Lie with Statistics. W. W. Norton & Company, 1954

    1954

  5. [5]

    Criado Perez,Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men

    C. Criado Perez,Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. New York: Abrams Press, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    D’Ignazio and L

    C. D’Ignazio and L. F. Klein,Data Feminism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2020, open access edition. [Online]. Available: https://data-feminism.mitpress.mit.edu/

    2020

  7. [7]

    Data feminism for AI,

    L. F. Klein and C. D’Ignazio, “Data feminism for AI,” inProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, ser. FAccT ’24. New York, NY , USA: ACM, 2024, pp. 100–112. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106. 3658543

    doi:10.1145/3630106 2024

  8. [8]

    Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data,

    E. Segel and J. Heer, “Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1139–1148, 2010

    2010

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    An Extensible Framework for Verification of Numerical Claims,

    J. Thorne and A. Vlachos, “An Extensible Framework for Verification of Numerical Claims,” inProceedings of the Software Demonstrations of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Valencia, Spain: Association for Computationa...

    2017

  2. [10]

    “The Data Says Otherwise

    Y . Fu, S. Guo, V . S. Bursztyn, J. Hoffswell, R. Rossi, and J. Stasko, ““The Data Says Otherwise” – Towards Automated Fact-checking and Communication of Data Claims,” inProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 2024. [Online]. Ava...

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Few,Show Me the Numbers: Designing Tables and Graphs to Enlighten, 2nd ed

    S. Few,Show Me the Numbers: Designing Tables and Graphs to Enlighten, 2nd ed. Oakland, CA, USA: Analytics Press, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    Visualization rhetoric: Framing effects in narrative visualization,

    J. Hullman and N. Diakopoulos, “Visualization rhetoric: Framing effects in narrative visualization,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 2231–2240, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    The evolving duet of two modalities: A survey on integrating text and visualization for data communication,

    X. Lan, X. Li, Y . Zhang, M. Cheng, J. Wang, and S. Chen, “The evolving duet of two modalities: A survey on integrating text and visualization for data communication,” inProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’26. New York, NY , ...

    2026

  6. [14]

    More Than Telling a Story: Transforming Data into Visually Shared Stories,

    B. Lee, N. H. Riche, P. Isenberg, and S. Carpendale, “More Than Telling a Story: Transforming Data into Visually Shared Stories,”IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 84–90, Sep. 2015, place: Washington, DC, USA. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2015.99

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Where Are We So Far? Understanding Data Storytelling Tools from the Perspective of Human-AI Collaboration,

    H. Li, Y . Wang, and H. Qu, “Where Are We So Far? Understanding Data Storytelling Tools from the Perspective of Human-AI Collaboration,” inProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Honolulu HI USA: ACM, May 2024, pp. 1–19. [Online]. Available: ht...

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Crossdata: Leveraging text-data connections for authoring data documents,

    Z. Chen and H. Xia, “Crossdata: Leveraging text-data connections for authoring data documents,” inProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’22. ACM, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517485

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    Leveraging text-chart links to support authoring of data-driven articles with vizflow,

    N. Sultanum, F. Chevalier, Z. Bylinskii, and Z. Liu, “Leveraging text-chart links to support authoring of data-driven articles with vizflow,” inProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’21. ACM, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://d...

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    DataWeaver: Authoring Data-Driven Narratives through the Integrated Composition of Visualization and Text,

    Y . Fu, D. Bromley, and V . Setlur, “DataWeaver: Authoring Data-Driven Narratives through the Integrated Composition of Visualization and Text,”Computer Graphics Forum, p. e70098, May 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.70098

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    DataTales: Investigating the use of Large Language Models for Authoring Data-Driven Articles,

    N. Sultanum and A. Srinivasan, “DataTales: Investigating the use of Large Language Models for Authoring Data-Driven Articles,” in2023 IEEE VIS, 2023, pp. 231–235

    2023

  12. [20]

    Chart-to-Text: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Chart Summarization,

    S. Kantharaj, R. T. Leong, X. Lin, A. Masry, M. Thakkar, E. Hoque, and S. Joty, “Chart-to-Text: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Chart Summarization,” inProceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the 18 Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), S. Muresan, P...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Campbell,Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking, ser

    S. Campbell,Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking, ser. Dover Books on Mathematics Series. Dover Publications, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?id=3q-GAsILFWoC

    2004

  14. [22]

    Cairo,How Charts Lie: Getting Smarter about Visual Information

    A. Cairo,How Charts Lie: Getting Smarter about Visual Information. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Surfacing visualization mirages,

    A. McNutt, G. Kindlmann, and M. Correll, “Surfacing visualization mirages,” inProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’20. ACM, 2020, p. 1–16. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376420

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Misinformed by Visualization: What Do We Learn From Misinformative Visualizations?

    L. Y .-H. Lo, A. Gupta, K. Shigyo, A. Wu, E. Bertini, and H. Qu, “Misinformed by Visualization: What Do We Learn From Misinformative Visualizations?”Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 515–525, 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111...

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Computational Fact Checking through Query Perturbations,

    Y . Wu, P. K. Agarwal, C. Li, J. Yang, and C. Yu, “Computational Fact Checking through Query Perturbations,”ACM Trans. Database Syst., vol. 42, no. 1, Jan. 2017. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1145/2996453

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Accessible Visualization via Natural Language Descriptions: A Four-Level Model of Semantic Content,

    A. Lundgard and A. Satyanarayan, “Accessible Visualization via Natural Language Descriptions: A Four-Level Model of Semantic Content,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1073–1083, Jan. 2022, place: USA. [Online]. Available: https://do...

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    From Instruction to Insight: Exploring the Functional and Semantic Roles of Text in Interactive Dashboards,

    N. Sultanum and V . Setlur, “From Instruction to Insight: Exploring the Functional and Semantic Roles of Text in Interactive Dashboards,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 382–392, Jan. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore. ...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Encoding/decoding,

    S. Hall, “Encoding/decoding,” inCulture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972–79, S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, and P. Willis, Eds. London: Routledge, 1980, pp. 128–138

    1972

  21. [29]

    Statistical errors in medical research - a review of common pitfalls,

    A. Strasak, Q. Zaman, K. Pfeiffer, G. G ¨obel, and H. Ulmer, “Statistical errors in medical research - a review of common pitfalls,”Swiss Medical Weekly, vol. 137, no. 0304, p. 44, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://smw.ch/index.php/smw/article/view/693

    2007

  22. [30]

    How to Display Data Badly,

    Howard Wainer, “How to Display Data Badly,”The American Statis- tician, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 137–147, 1984. [Online]. Available: https: //www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.1984.10483186

    1984 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    How not to lie with visualization,

    B. E. Rogowitz, L. A. Treinish, and S. Bryson, “How not to lie with visualization,”Computers in Physics, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 268, 1996

    1996

  24. [32]

    E. R. Tufte,The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, 2nd ed. Graphics Press, 2001

    2001

  25. [33]

    Vislies,

    “Vislies,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.vislies.org/2023/

    2023

  26. [34]

    How deceptive are deceptive visualizations? an empirical analysis of common distortion techniques,

    A. V . Pandey, K. Rall, M. L. Satterthwaite, O. Nov, and E. Bertini, “How deceptive are deceptive visualizations? an empirical analysis of common distortion techniques,” inProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’15. ACM, 2...

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    “I Came Across a Junk

    X. Lan and Y . Liu, ““I Came Across a Junk”: Understanding Design Flaws of Data Visualization from the Public’s Perspective,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 393–403, 2025, number: 1

    2025

  28. [36]

    Truncating the Y-Axis: Threat or Menace?

    M. Correll, E. Bertini, and S. Franconeri, “Truncating the Y-Axis: Threat or Menace?” inProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’20. ACM, 2020, pp. 1–12. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376222

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Illusion of Causality in Visualized Data,

    C. Xiong, J. K. Shapiro, J. R. Hullman, and S. L. Franconeri, “Illusion of Causality in Visualized Data,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 26, pp. 853–862, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:199064422

    2019

  30. [38]

    Dispersion Vs Disparity: Hiding Variability Can Encourage Stereotyping When Visualizing Social Outcomes,

    E. Holder and C. Xiong, “Dispersion Vs Disparity: Hiding Variability Can Encourage Stereotyping When Visualizing Social Outcomes,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, pp. 1–11, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/ 9913065/

    2022

  31. [39]

    Misleading Beyond Visual Tricks: How People Actually Lie with Charts,

    M. Lisnic, C. Polychronis, A. Lex, and M. Kogan, “Misleading Beyond Visual Tricks: How People Actually Lie with Charts,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’23. ACM, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/35445...

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    CALVI: Critical Thinking Assessment for Literacy in Visualizations,

    L. W. Ge, Y . Cui, and M. Kay, “CALVI: Critical Thinking Assessment for Literacy in Visualizations,” inProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’23. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023. [Online]. Available...

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    V-FRAMER: Visualization Framework for Mitigating Reasoning Errors in Public Policy,

    L. W. Ge, M. Easterday, M. Kay, E. Dimara, P. Cheng, and S. L. Franconeri, “V-FRAMER: Visualization Framework for Mitigating Reasoning Errors in Public Policy,” inProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’24. New York, NY , USA: As...

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Beyond Memorability: Visualiza- tion Recognition and Recall,

    M. A. Borkin, Z. Bylinskii, N. W. Kim, C. M. Bainbridge, C. S. Yeh, D. Borkin, H. Pfister, and A. Oliva, “Beyond Memorability: Visualiza- tion Recognition and Recall,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 519–528, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    Frames and Slants in Titles of Visualizations on Controversial Topics,

    H.-K. Kong, Z. Liu, and K. Karahalios, “Frames and Slants in Titles of Visualizations on Controversial Topics,” inProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’18, 2018, pp. 1–12. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174012

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    Trust and recall of information across varying degrees of title-visualization misalignment,

    ——, “Trust and recall of information across varying degrees of title-visualization misalignment,” inProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’19. ACM, 2019, pp. 1–13. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300576

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Testing the Susceptibility of Users to Deceptive Data Visualizations When Paired with Explanatory Text,

    S. O’Brien and C. Lauer, “Testing the Susceptibility of Users to Deceptive Data Visualizations When Paired with Explanatory Text,” inProceedings of the 36th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, ser. SIGDOC ’18. New York, NY , USA: Association for Comput...

    2018 doi

  38. [46]

    What Is the Difference Between a Mountain and a Molehill? Quantifying Semantic Labeling of Visual Features in Line Charts,

    D. Bromley and V . Setlur, “What Is the Difference Between a Mountain and a Molehill? Quantifying Semantic Labeling of Visual Features in Line Charts,” in2023 IEEE VIS, 2023, pp. 161–165

    2023

  39. [47]

    A survey on automated fact-checking,

    Z. Guo, M. Schlichtkrull, and A. Vlachos, “A survey on automated fact-checking,”Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 10, pp. 178–206, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2022.tacl-1.11

    2022

  40. [48]

    Automated fact-checking for assisting human fact-checkers,

    P. Nakov, D. Corney, M. Hasanain, F. Alam, T. Elsayed, A. Barr ´on- Cede˜no, P. Papotti, S. Shaar, and G. Da San Martino, “Automated fact-checking for assisting human fact-checkers,” inProceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCA...

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    QuanTemp: A real-world open-domain benchmark for fact-checking numerical claims,

    V . V , A. Anand, A. Anand, and V . Setty, “QuanTemp: A real-world open-domain benchmark for fact-checking numerical claims,” in Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, ser. SIGIR ’24. New York, NY , USA:...

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    ChartCheck: An Evidence-Based Fact-Checking Dataset over Real-World Chart Images,

    M. Akhtar, N. Subedi, V . Gupta, S. Tahmasebi, O. Cocarascu, and E. Simperl, “ChartCheck: An Evidence-Based Fact-Checking Dataset over Real-World Chart Images,”CoRR, vol. abs/2311.07453, 2023, arXiv: 2311.07453. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2311.07453

    2023 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    Verifying text summaries of relational data sets,

    S. Jo, I. Trummer, W. Yu, X. Wang, C. Yu, D. Liu, and N. Mehta, “Verifying text summaries of relational data sets,” inProceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data, 2019, pp. 299–316

    2019

  44. [52]

    Scrutinizer: A mixed-initiative approach to large-scale, data-driven claim verification,

    G. Karagiannis, M. Saeed, P. Papotti, and I. Trummer, “Scrutinizer: A mixed-initiative approach to large-scale, data-driven claim verification,” Proc. VLDB Endow., vol. 13, no. 12, p. 2508–2521, jul 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.14778/3407790.3407841

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    VisuaLint: Sketchy In Situ Annotations of Chart Construction Errors,

    A. K. Hopkins, M. Correll, and A. Satyanarayan, “VisuaLint: Sketchy In Situ Annotations of Chart Construction Errors,”Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 219–228, Jun. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cgf.13975

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    VizLinter: A Linter and Fixer Framework for Data Visualization,

    Q. Chen, F. Sun, X. Xu, Z. Chen, J. Wang, and N. Cao, “VizLinter: A Linter and Fixer Framework for Data Visualization,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 206–216, Jan. 2022, place: USA. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TV...

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    Annotating line charts for addressing deception,

    A. Fan, Y . Ma, M. Mancenido, and R. Maciejewski, “Annotating line charts for addressing deception,” inProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’22. ACM, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3491102.3502138 19

    2022

  48. [56]

    EMPHASIS- CHECKER: A Tool for Guiding Chart and Caption Emphasis,

    D. H. Kim, S. Choi, J. Kim, V . Setlur, and M. Agrawala, “EMPHASIS- CHECKER: A Tool for Guiding Chart and Caption Emphasis,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 120–130, 2024, number: 1

    2024

  49. [57]

    SlopeSeeker: A Search Tool for Exploring a Dataset of Quantifiable Trends

    A. Bendeck, D. Bromley, and V . Setlur, “SlopeSeeker: A Search Tool for Exploring a Dataset of Quantifiable Trends.” Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Mar. 2024, pp. 817–836

    2024

  50. [58]

    Three approaches to qualitative content analysis,

    H.-F. Hsieh and S. E. Shannon, “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis,”Qualitative Health Research, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1277–1288, Nov. 2005

    2005

  51. [59]

    The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,

    M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, L. Shamseer, J. M. Tetzlaff, E. A. Akl, S. E. Brennan, and others, “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,”BMJ, vol. 372, p. n71, 2021

    2020

  52. [60]

    Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering,

    C. Wohlin, “Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering,” inProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, ser. EASE ’14. New York, NY , USA: ACM, 2014. [Online]. ...

    2014 doi

  53. [61]

    Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews,

    J. Thomas and A. Harden, “Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews,”BMC Medical Research Methodology, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 45, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

    2008 doi

  54. [62]

    “liar, liar pants on fire

    W. Y . Wang, ““liar, liar pants on fire”: A new benchmark dataset for fake news detection,” inProceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), R. Barzilay and M.-Y . Kan, Eds. Vancouver, Canada: Association for C...

    2017

  55. [63]

    FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERification,

    J. Thorne, A. Vlachos, C. Christodoulopoulos, and A. Mittal, “FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERification,” inProceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, V...

    2018

  56. [64]

    Multifc: A real-world multi- domain dataset for evidence-based fact checking of claims,

    I. Augenstein, C. Lioma, D. Wang, L. Chaves Lima, C. Hansen, C. Hansen, and J. Grue Simonsen, “Multifc: A real-world multi- domain dataset for evidence-based fact checking of claims,” inEMNLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019

    2019

  57. [65]

    ClaimBuster: A Benchmark Dataset of Check-worthy Factual Claims,

    F. Arslan, N. Hassan, C. Li, and M. Tremayne, “ClaimBuster: A Benchmark Dataset of Check-worthy Factual Claims,” May 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3836810

    2020 doi

  58. [66]

    Fact Check Tools API — Google for Developers,

    Google, “Fact Check Tools API — Google for Developers,”

  59. [67]

    Available: https://developers.google.com/fact-check/ tools/api/reference/rest

    [Online]. Available: https://developers.google.com/fact-check/ tools/api/reference/rest

  60. [68]

    [Online]

    PolitiFact, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.politifact.com/

    2024

  61. [69]

    [Online]

    FactCheck.org, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.factcheck.org/

    2024

  62. [70]

    Visual narratives to edutain against misleading visualizations in healthcare,

    A. Shilo and R. G. Raidou, “Visual narratives to edutain against misleading visualizations in healthcare,”Comput. Graph., vol. 123, no. C, Oct. 2024, place: USA. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2024.104011

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    Can GPT-4 Models Detect Misleading Visualizations?

    J. Alexander, P. Nanda, K.-C. Yang, and A. Sarvghad, “Can GPT-4 Models Detect Misleading Visualizations?” in2024 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS), 2024, pp. 106–110

    2024

  64. [72]

    Finding, monitoring, and checking claims computationally based on structured data,

    B. Walenz, Y . Wu, S. Song, E. Sonmez, E. Wu, K. Wu, P. K. Agarwal, J. Yang, N. Hassan, A. Sultana, G. Zhang, C. Li, and C. Yu, “Finding, monitoring, and checking claims computationally based on structured data,” inComputation + Journalism Symposium, 2014

    2014

  65. [73]

    Typology of Analytical and Interpretational Errors in Quantitative and Qualitative Educational Research,

    A. J. Onwuegbuzie and L. G. Daniel, “Typology of Analytical and Interpretational Errors in Quantitative and Qualitative Educational Research,”Current Issues in Education, vol. 6, May 2015. [Online]. Available: https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1609

    2015

  66. [74]

    What is research data “misuse

    I. V . Pasquetto, Z. Cullen, A. Thomer, and M. Wofford, “What is research data “misuse”? And how can it be prevented or mitigated?” J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 75, no. 12, pp. 1413–1429, Nov. 2024, place: USA. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24944

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    The Deceptive Potential of Common Design Tactics Used in Data Visualizations,

    C. Lauer and S. O’Brien, “The Deceptive Potential of Common Design Tactics Used in Data Visualizations,” inProceedings of the 38th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, ser. SIGDOC ’20. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery,

  68. [76]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3380851.3416762

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3380851.3416762

    doi

  69. [77]

    Revisiting common pitfalls in graphical representations utilizing a case-based learning approach,

    V . T. Nguyen, K. Jung, and T. Dang, “Revisiting common pitfalls in graphical representations utilizing a case-based learning approach,” inProceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Visual Information Communication and Interaction, ser. VINCI ’20. New York, NY , USA: A...

    2020 doi

  70. [78]

    The good, the bad, and the biased: five ways visualizations can mislead (and how to fix them),

    D. A. Szafir, “The good, the bad, and the biased: five ways visualizations can mislead (and how to fix them),”Interactions, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 26–33, Jun. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3231772

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    Declutter and Focus: Empirically Evaluating Design Guidelines for Effective Data Communication,

    K. Ajani, E. Lee, C. Xiong, C. N. Knaflic, W. Kemper, and S. Franconeri, “Declutter and Focus: Empirically Evaluating Design Guidelines for Effective Data Communication,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 3351–3364, Oct. 2022. [Onlin...

    2022

  72. [80]

    Misrepresenting COVID-19: Lying With Charts During the Second Golden Age of Data Design,

    S. Doan, “Misrepresenting COVID-19: Lying With Charts During the Second Golden Age of Data Design,”Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 73–79, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920958392

    2021 doi

  73. [81]

    In Dice We Trust: Uncertainty Displays for Maintaining Trust in Election Forecasts Over Time,

    F. Yang, C. R. Mortenson, E. Nisbet, N. Diakopoulos, and M. Kay, “In Dice We Trust: Uncertainty Displays for Maintaining Trust in Election Forecasts Over Time,” inProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Honolulu HI USA: ACM, May 2024, pp. 1–24....

    2024 doi

  74. [82]

    VisText: A Benchmark for Semantically Rich Chart Captioning,

    B. J. Tang, A. Boggust, and A. Satyanarayan, “VisText: A Benchmark for Semantically Rich Chart Captioning,” inThe Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2023. [Online]. Available: http://vis.csail.mit.edu/pubs/vistext

    2023

  75. [83]

    Identification and Verification of Simple Claims about Statistical Properties,

    A. Vlachos and S. Riedel, “Identification and Verification of Simple Claims about Statistical Properties,” inProceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, L. M `arquez, C. Callison-Burch, and J. Su, Eds. Lisbon, Portugal: Association f...

    2015

  76. [84]

    ”Yeah, this graph doesn’t show that

    M. Lisnic, A. Lex, and M. Kogan, “”Yeah, this graph doesn’t show that”: Analysis of Online Engagement with Misleading Data Visualizations,” inProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computi...

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    Kernighan,Millions, Billions, Zillions: Defending Yourself in a World of Too Many Numbers

    B. Kernighan,Millions, Billions, Zillions: Defending Yourself in a World of Too Many Numbers. USA: Princeton University Press, 2018

    2018

  78. [86]

    A Task-Based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visual- ization,

    E. Dimara, S. Franconeri, C. Plaisant, A. Bezerianos, and P. Dragicevic, “A Task-Based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visual- ization,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1413–1432, 2020

    2020

  79. [87]

    The Science of Visual Data Communication: What Works,

    S. L. Franconeri, L. M. Padilla, P. Shah, J. M. Zacks, and J. Hullman, “The Science of Visual Data Communication: What Works,”Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 110–161, Dec. 2021. [Online]. Available: https://journals.sagepub. com/doi/10.1177/15...

    2021 doi

  80. [88]

    Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online,

    C. Lee, T. Yang, G. D. Inchoco, G. M. Jones, and A. Satyanarayan, “Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online,” inProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’21. Ne...

    2021

  81. [89]

    Data is personal: Attitudes and perceptions of data visualization in rural pennsylvania,

    E. M. Peck, S. E. Ayuso, and O. El-Etr, “Data is personal: Attitudes and perceptions of data visualization in rural pennsylvania,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’19. ACM, 2019, pp. 1–12. [Online]. Available: https://d...

    2019 doi

  82. [90]

    Decision making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines,

    L. M. Padilla, S. H. Creem-Regehr, M. Hegarty, and J. K. Stefanucci, “Decision making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines,”Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 29, Dec. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://cognitiveresearch...

    2018 doi

  83. [91]

    Ensemble perception and focused attention: Two different modes of visual processing to cope with limited capacity,

    J. Baek and S. C. Chong, “Ensemble perception and focused attention: Two different modes of visual processing to cope with limited capacity,”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 602–606, Aug. 2020. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10. 3758/s13423-020-01718-7

    2020

  84. [92]

    The Weighted Average Illusion: Biases in Perceived Mean Position in Scatterplots,

    M.-H. Hong, J. K. Witt, and D. A. Szafir, “The Weighted Average Illusion: Biases in Perceived Mean Position in Scatterplots,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 987–997, 2022, number: 1. 20

    2022

  85. [93]

    Priming and Anchoring Effects in Visualization,

    A. C. Valdez, M. Ziefle, and M. Sedlmair, “Priming and Anchoring Effects in Visualization,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 584–594, Jan. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8022891/

    2018

  86. [94]

    Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,

    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,”Science, vol. 185, no. 4157, pp. 1124–1131,

  87. [95]

    Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1738360

    [Online]. Available: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1738360

  88. [96]

    On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning,

    J. S. B. T. Evans, J. L. Barston, and P. Pollard, “On the conflict between logic and belief in syllogistic reasoning,”Memory & Cognition, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 295–306, May 1983. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/10.3758/BF03196976

    1983 doi

  89. [97]

    S. Card, S. Shneiderman, M. Card, J. Mackinlay, and B. Shneiderman, Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think, ser. Interactive Technologies. Elsevier Science, 1999. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?id=wdh2gqWfQmgC

    1999

  90. [98]

    The Truth and Lies Behind the Infamous “Blood Graph

    N. Mills, “The Truth and Lies Behind the Infamous “Blood Graph”,” https://medium.com/@nigelmills2000/ the-truth-and-lies-behind-the-infamous-blood-graph-f6d6691c3626, Sep. 2024, medium. Accessed: June 1, 2026

    2024

  91. [99]

    Ethos, pathos and logos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A re-examination,

    A. C. Braet, “Ethos, pathos and logos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A re-examination,”Argumentation, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 307–320, Aug

  92. [100]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154696

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154696

    doi

  93. [101]

    Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports,

    C. Higgins and R. Walker, “Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports,”Accounting Forum, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 194–208, 2012. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0155998212000178

    2012

  94. [102]

    Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs,

    C. S. Taber and M. Lodge, “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs,”American Journal of Political Science, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 755–769, 2006

    2006

  95. [103]

    GeoLinter: A Linting Framework for Choropleth Maps,

    F. Lei, A. Fan, A. M. MacEachren, and R. Maciejewski, “GeoLinter: A Linting Framework for Choropleth Maps,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 1592–1607, Feb. 2024, arXiv:2310.13707 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13707

    2024 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Linting for Visualization: Towards a Practical Automated Visualization Guidance System,

    A. McNutt and G. Kindlmann, “Linting for Visualization: Towards a Practical Automated Visualization Guidance System,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:208615818

    2018

  97. [105]

    Visualizationary: Automating Design Feedback for Visualization Designers Using LLMs,

    S. Shin, S. Hong, and N. Elmqvist, “Visualizationary: Automating Design Feedback for Visualization Designers Using LLMs,”IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, pp. 1–17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11034749/

    2025

  98. [106]

    Challenges in data-to- document generation,

    S. Wiseman, S. Shieber, and A. Rush, “Challenges in data-to- document generation,” inProceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, M. Palmer, R. Hwa, and S. Riedel, Eds. Copenhagen, Denmark: Association for Computational Linguistics, S...

    2017

  99. [107]

    ToTTo: A controlled table-to-text generation dataset,

    A. Parikh, X. Wang, S. Gehrmann, M. Faruqui, B. Dhingra, D. Yang, and D. Das, “ToTTo: A controlled table-to-text generation dataset,” inProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), B. Webber, T. Cohn, Y . He, and Y . Liu, Eds....

    2020

  100. [108]

    A Survey on Neural Data-to-Text Generation,

    Y . Lin, T. Ruan, J. Liu, and H. Wang, “A Survey on Neural Data-to-Text Generation,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1431–1449, 2024

    2024

  101. [109]

    Natural Language Generation for Visualizations: State of the Art, Challenges and Future Directions,

    E. Hoque and M. S. Islam, “Natural Language Generation for Visualizations: State of the Art, Challenges and Future Directions,” Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 44, no. 1, p. e15266, Feb

  102. [110]

    Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ cgf.15266

    [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ cgf.15266

  103. [111]

    S. E. Toulmin,The Uses of Argument, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, online publication date: June 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005

    2003 doi

  104. [112]

    Visualization guardrails: Designing interventions against cherry-picking in interactive data explorers,

    M. Lisnic, Z. Cutler, M. Kogan, and A. Lex, “Visualization guardrails: Designing interventions against cherry-picking in interactive data explorers,” inProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’25. ACM, 2025. [Online]. Available: h...

    2025 doi

Pith tools

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