pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.09791 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-10 · 💻 cs.HC

PRAXA: A Grammar for What-If Analysis

Sneha Gathani , Kevin Li , Raghav Thind , Sirui Zeng , Matthew Xu , Peter J. Haas , Cagatay Demiralp , Zhicheng Liu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 07:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords what-if analysiscompositional grammarvisual analyticshuman-computer interactionworkflow compositiondeclarative specificationAI integration
0
0 comments X

The pith

What-if analysis workflows can be unified under a grammar of three primitives: data variables, predictive models, and interaction operation pairs.

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

The paper derives PRAXA as a compositional grammar from patterns in 141 publications to address fragmentation in what-if analysis systems and terminologies. It defines three primitives—data for variables under analysis, models for predictive mechanisms, and interaction operations as user actions paired with system responses—and encodes them in a declarative language called PSL. This structure supports reconstructing existing workflows, composing new multi-step analyses from shared structures, and translating natural-language queries into interactive interfaces. A sympathetic reader would care because the grammar could enable more flexible composition, reuse, and AI integration in analytics tools.

Core claim

PRAXA formulates what-if analysis as compositions of three primitives: data defining variables under analysis, model specifying predictive mechanisms, and interaction operations as pairs of user actions and system responses. Encoded into the declarative specification language PSL, the grammar allows reconstruction of representative workflows from prior work, reveals that distinct terminologies often share the same structure with different parameterizations, and supports new multi-step workflows through composition while serving as an intermediate representation for converting natural-language queries into executable interfaces.

What carries the argument

The PRAXA grammar, which unifies what-if approaches by composing the three primitives of data, model, and interaction operations to structure analyses and enable workflow composition.

If this is right

  • Representative workflows from prior work reconstruct as structured compositions in PRAXA, exposing a predominant focus on single-step rather than multi-step reasoning.
  • Capabilities described under distinct terminologies share the same grammatical structure with different parameterizations.
  • New multi-step what-if workflows emerge through composition of existing capabilities.
  • PSL serves as an intermediate representation for translating natural-language what-if queries into executable interactive interfaces, enabling inspection, validation, and more transparent AI integration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The grammar could support systematic comparison of what-if techniques across different visual analytics platforms by mapping them to common structures.
  • Adoption might allow automated tools to generate and validate complex multi-step interfaces directly from high-level descriptions.
  • This approach connects to broader challenges in standardizing interactive analytics for more reliable human-AI decision support.

Load-bearing premise

The recurring patterns across the 141 publications represent the full space of what-if analysis and the three primitives are sufficient to express all relevant workflows without loss of important distinctions.

What would settle it

A what-if workflow described in additional literature or a new system that cannot be expressed as any composition of the data, model, and interaction operation primitives would challenge the grammar's claimed sufficiency and expressiveness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.09791 by Cagatay Demiralp, Kevin Li, Matthew Xu, Peter J. Haas, Raghav Thind, Sirui Zeng, Sneha Gathani, Zhicheng Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Methodology of the paper selection, codebook development, and coding and analysis followed for the literature review. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example of selected schema and codes of the Wexler et al. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The components of the PRAXA framework for what-if analysis are organized around three key dimensions identified through our literature review: why, what, and how. The why dimension captures the underlying motivations for performing what-if analysis. The what dimension defines its core building blocks: the dataset and the model. The how dimension describes the operational mechanisms through which what-if an… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Combining different components of what-if analysis to form its different TYPES. operationalized: the user operations applied to different what components, the corresponding system operations that are automatically triggered, and the resulting analytical outputs. Each type aligns with core user operations: SENSITIVITY via perturb, GOAL SEEK via optimize, and IMPORTANCE via reweight. We define these types be… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of input interactions for SENSITIVITY analysis type from reviewed literature. coordinate plots (PCPs) (4%) were rare, despite their suitability for high-dimensional data, suggesting barriers to adoption. A small set of domain-specific visuals–including icicle plots, donut plots, flowcharts, and matrices (1–2% each)–were seldom used, likely due to their complexity. Textual annotations (5%) and imag… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of input interactions for GOAL SEEK analysis type from reviewed literature. The results of GOAL SEEK analysis typically included optimized input variable values along with their corresponding predicted output values. These were often conveyed through a combination of visual representations. For example, PCPs showing various input variable combinations or change from original values (Fig. 7A [15, 3… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples visuals used for showing results for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of input interactions for IMPORTANCE analysis type from reviewed literature. IMPORTANCE(α, β, γ, δ) → refinedModel α: dataset, β: model := featureWeights, γ: user_operations := [scope(dataset)] * | [derive(newFeature)] * | [reweight(inputVariables)]+, δ: system_operations := [retrain()]+ Visualization & Interaction. Most reviewed works in IMPORTANCE analysis required minimal user interaction, with… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of output visuals for IMPORTANCE analysis type from reviewed literature. While it may share similar components as GOAL SEEK or SENSITIVITY analyses types, it differs in intent and interaction. In GOAL SEEK, users specify a goal of the outputVariable or a desired output of it, and optimization is conducted to find combinations of inputVariable values to achieve it. In SENSITIVITY, users perturb inp… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Examples of output visuals for COMPARE SCENARIOS analysis type from reviewed literature. 4 Case Studies To demonstrate the practical utility of our framework, we present two case studies that illustrate how complex what-if analyses can be deconstructed into their fundamental components and categorized into the specific types of what-if analyses we find. In the first case study, we examine how a commonly d… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

What-if analysis is widely used to explore hypothetical scenarios and evaluate alternative pathways to desired results. However, current approaches are fragmented: systems implement what-if capabilities under diverse terminologies with different analytic techniques. Such fragmentation limits expressiveness, impedes flexible composition and reuse of workflows, and hinders tighter integration with AI. We present PRAXA, a compositional grammar of what-if analysis derived from recurring patterns across 141 publications in visual analytics and HCI venues. PRAXA formulates three primitives: (1) data, defining variables under analysis, (2) model, specifying predictive mechanisms, and (3) interaction operations-pairs of user actions and system responses that execute analyses. We encode PRAXA into a declarative specification language, PSL. To evaluate PRAXA, we first show expressiveness by reconstructing representative workflows from prior work as structured compositions, exposing the predominant focus on single-step rather than multi-step reasoning. Second, we demonstrate composability by revealing that capabilities described under distinct terminologies share the same grammatical structure with different parameterizations, and that new multi-step workflows emerge through composition. Third, we illustrate PSL as an intermediate representation for translating natural-language what-if queries into executable interactive interfaces, enabling inspection, validation, and more transparent AI integration. By unifying diverse what-if approaches as a grammar, PRAXA provides a foundation for analyzing, composing, and supporting workflows in next-generation what-if systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces PRAXA, a compositional grammar for what-if analysis derived from recurring patterns across 141 publications in visual analytics and HCI. It defines three primitives—data (variables under analysis), model (predictive mechanisms), and interaction operations (pairs of user actions and system responses)—and encodes them in a declarative specification language PSL. Evaluation proceeds by reconstructing representative workflows from the corpus to demonstrate expressiveness, showing that distinct terminologies map to the same structures to illustrate composability, and positioning PSL as an intermediate representation for translating natural-language queries into executable interfaces.

Significance. If the grammar is shown to be representative and sufficiently expressive without loss of key distinctions, it could provide a unifying foundation for analyzing, composing, and integrating what-if workflows, particularly in support of AI-assisted systems. The systematic extraction from a large corpus of prior work is a strength that grounds the primitives empirically. However, the evaluation's qualitative and corpus-internal nature limits the strength of the conclusions regarding sufficiency and generalizability.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The expressiveness and composability claims rest on qualitative reconstructions of workflows drawn exclusively from the same 141 publications used to derive the grammar. No held-out test set, quantitative coverage metrics, error analysis for intent preservation, or external examples (e.g., stochastic simulation or multi-objective trade-off analysis) are provided to test whether the three primitives suffice without loss of important distinctions. This directly bears on the central claim of sufficiency and representativeness.
  2. [The PRAXA Grammar] The PRAXA Grammar section: The sufficiency of the three primitives is asserted on the basis of pattern identification in the sampled literature, yet the manuscript supplies no formal syntax/semantics definition, completeness argument, or falsifiable test against the broader space of what-if analyses beyond the corpus. This leaves the unification claim vulnerable to the representativeness concern.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief statement of the publication selection criteria and venue distribution for the 141 papers to allow readers to assess potential sampling bias.
  2. [PSL] Figure captions and PSL examples could be expanded with one or two fully worked multi-step compositions to make the emergence of new workflows through composition more concrete for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and indicate revisions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The expressiveness and composability claims rest on qualitative reconstructions of workflows drawn exclusively from the same 141 publications used to derive the grammar. No held-out test set, quantitative coverage metrics, error analysis for intent preservation, or external examples (e.g., stochastic simulation or multi-objective trade-off analysis) are provided to test whether the three primitives suffice without loss of important distinctions. This directly bears on the central claim of sufficiency and representativeness.

    Authors: We agree that the evaluation is qualitative and corpus-internal, which limits the strength of generalizability claims. The 141-publication corpus was used both to derive and validate the grammar to ensure empirical grounding. In the revision we add: (1) a quantitative coverage metric reporting the fraction of sampled workflows fully expressible with the three primitives, (2) a brief error analysis on intent preservation for a random subset of reconstructions, and (3) one external example drawn from stochastic simulation. We also expand the limitations discussion to explicitly note the absence of a held-out test set. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [The PRAXA Grammar] The PRAXA Grammar section: The sufficiency of the three primitives is asserted on the basis of pattern identification in the sampled literature, yet the manuscript supplies no formal syntax/semantics definition, completeness argument, or falsifiable test against the broader space of what-if analyses beyond the corpus. This leaves the unification claim vulnerable to the representativeness concern.

    Authors: The grammar is presented as an empirically derived set of primitives rather than a formally complete theory. PSL supplies a declarative syntax for the primitives and their compositions. We do not provide a mathematical completeness proof because what-if analysis is an open-ended activity; however, we have revised the section to include an explicit context-free grammar notation for the core productions and a short discussion of edge cases (e.g., multi-objective optimization) that may require future extensions. This clarifies the scope without overstating universality. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in PRAXA grammar derivation

full rationale

The paper derives PRAXA by identifying recurring patterns across 141 external publications in visual analytics and HCI, then formulates three primitives (data, model, interaction operations) as an abstraction. Evaluation reconstructs workflows from the same cited corpus to demonstrate expressiveness and composability, but this is validation against external literature rather than a reduction of the central claim to self-generated inputs or self-citations by construction. No self-definitional loops, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, uniqueness theorems from the authors, or ansatzes smuggled via citation are present. The grammar is positioned as a unifying foundation over prior work, keeping the derivation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The contribution centers on a new grammar derived from literature patterns; the main added element is the three-primitive decomposition and PSL encoding, which rest on the domain assumption that what-if analysis decomposes cleanly into data, model, and interaction components.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption What-if analysis capabilities can be decomposed into data variables, predictive models, and interaction operation pairs.
    This decomposition is the core structuring choice used to derive PRAXA from the 141 publications.
invented entities (1)
  • PRAXA grammar no independent evidence
    purpose: To serve as a unified, compositional framework for what-if analysis.
    The grammar is introduced as a new organizing structure synthesized from existing work.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5803 in / 1311 out tokens · 33422 ms · 2026-05-18T07:24:16.775843+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Bridging Natural Language and Interactive What-If Interfaces via LLM-Generated Declarative Specification

    cs.AI 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LLM-generated declarative specifications bridge natural language what-if questions to interactive interfaces, with benchmarks showing improvement from 52% to 80% success rate after targeted repairs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 114 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Yongsu Ahn, Quinn K Wolter, Jonilyn Dick, Janet Dick, and Yu-Ru Lin. 2024. Interactive Counterfactual Exploration of Algorithmic Harms in Recommender Systems. In2024 IEEE Visualization in Data Science (VDS). IEEE, 35–39

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Daniel Atzberger, Tim Cech, Willy Scheibel, Jürgen Döllner, Michael Behrisch, and Tobias Schreck. 2024. A Large-Scale Sensitivity Analysis on Latent Embeddings and Dimensionality Reductions for Text Spatializations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics(2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Michael Beham, Wolfgang Herzner, M Eduard Gröller, and Johannes Kehrer. 2014. Cupid: Cluster-based exploration of geometry generators with parallel coordinates and radial trees.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics20, 12 (2014), 1693–1702

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Alexander Bendeck, Dennis Bromley, and Vidya Setlur. 2024. SlopeSeeker: a search tool for exploring a dataset of quantifiable trends. InProceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 817–836

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Aditya Bhattacharya, Jeroen Ooge, Gregor Stiglic, and Katrien Verbert. 2023. Directive explanations for monitoring the risk of diabetes onset: introducing directive data-centric explanations and combinations to support what-if explorations. InProceedings of the 28th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. 204–219

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Yali Bian, Chris North, Eric Krokos, and Sarah Joseph. 2021. Semantic explanation of interactive dimensionality reduction. In2021 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS). IEEE, 26–30

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Ayan Biswas, Guang Lin, Xiaotong Liu, and Han-Wei Shen. 2016. Visualization of time-varying weather ensembles across multiple resolutions. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics23, 1 (2016), 841–850

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Maryam Booshehrian, Torsten Möller, Randall M Peterman, and Tamara Munzner. 2012. Vismon: Facilitating analysis of trade-offs, uncertainty, and sensitivity in fisheries management decision making. InComputer Graphics Forum, V ol. 31. Wiley Online Library, 1235–1244

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    David Borland, Arran Zeyu Wang, and David Gotz. 2024. Using counterfactuals to improve causal inferences from visualizations.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications44, 1 (2024), 95–104

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Clara Bove, Marie-Jeanne Lesot, Charles Albert Tijus, and Marcin Detyniecki. 2023. Investigating the intelligibility of plural counterfactual examples for non-expert users: an explanation user interface proposition and user study. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 188–203

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Kieran Browne, Ben Swift, and Terhi Nurmikko-Fuller. 2020. Camera adversaria. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–9

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Chris Bryan, Xue Wu, Susan Mniszewski, and Kwan-Liu Ma. 2015. Integrating predictive analytics into a spatiotemporal epidemic simulation. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST). IEEE, 17–24. Manuscript submitted to ACM PRAXA: A Framework for What-If Analysis 27

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Francisco Maria Calisto, João Fernandes, Margarida Morais, Carlos Santiago, João Maria Abrantes, Nuno Nunes, and Jacinto C Nascimento. 2023. Assertiveness-based agent communication for a personalized medicine on medical imaging diagnosis. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–20

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Marco Cavallo and Ça˘gatay Demiralp. 2018. A visual interaction framework for dimensionality reduction based data exploration. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Furui Cheng, Yao Ming, and Huamin Qu. 2020. Dece: Decision explorer with counterfactual explanations for machine learning models.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics27, 2 (2020), 1438–1447

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    SAP Community. [n. d.]. What-if analysis with SAP Analytics Cloud: Simulate your future business

    work page

  17. [17]

    Daniel Cornel, Artem Konev, Bernhard Sadransky, Zsolt Horvath, Eduard Gröller, and Jürgen Waser. 2015. Visualization of object-centered vulnerability to possible flood hazards. InComputer Graphics Forum, V ol. 34. Wiley Online Library, 331–340

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Anamaria Crisan, Nathan Butters, et al. 2024. Exploring Subjective Notions of Explainability through Counterfactual Visualization of Sentiment Analysis. In2024 IEEE Evaluation and Beyond-Methodological Approaches for Visualization (BELIV). IEEE, 15–24

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Anamaria Crisan and Michael Correll. 2021. User ex machina: Simulation as a design probe in human-in-the-loop text analytics. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–16

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Carolina Veiga Ferreira de Souza, Suzanna Maria Bonnet, Daniel de Oliveira, Marcio Cataldi, Fabio Miranda, and Marcos Lage. 2023. PROWIS: A Visual Approach for Building, Managing, and Analyzing Weather Simulation Ensembles at Runtime.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics(2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Vaishali Dhanoa, Conny Walchshofer, Andreas Hinterreiter, Eduard Gröller, and Marc Streit. 2021. Fuzzy spreadsheet: Understanding and exploring uncertainties in tabular calculations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics29, 2 (2021), 1463–1477

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Dennis Dingen, Marcel van’t Veer, Patrick Houthuizen, Eveline HJ Mestrom, Erik HHM Korsten, Arthur RA Bouwman, and Jarke Van Wijk. 2018. RegressionExplorer: Interactive exploration of logistic regression models with subgroup analysis.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics25, 1 (2018), 246–255

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Mennatallah El-Assady, Rita Sevastjanova, Fabian Sperrle, Daniel Keim, and Christopher Collins. 2017. Progressive learning of topic modeling parameters: A visual analytics framework.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics24, 1 (2017), 382–391

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Mateus Espadoto, Gabriel Appleby, Ashley Suh, Dylan Cashman, Mingwei Li, Carlos Scheidegger, Erik W Anderson, Remco Chang, and Alexandru C Telea. 2021. UnProjection: Leveraging inverse-projections for visual analytics of high-dimensional data.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics29, 2 (2021), 1559–1572

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Noyan Evirgen, Ruolin Wang, and Xiang’Anthony Chen. 2024. From text to pixels: Enhancing user understanding through text-to-image model explanations. InProceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 74–87

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Microsoft Excel. [n. d.]. Introduction to What-If Analysis

    work page

  27. [27]

    Rebecca Faust, Carlos Scheidegger, and Chris North. 2023. Aardvark: Comparative visualization of data analysis scripts. In2023 IEEE Visualization in Data Science (VDS). IEEE, 30–38

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Nivan Ferreira, Marcos Lage, Harish Doraiswamy, Huy V o, Luc Wilson, Heidi Werner, Muchan Park, and Cláudio Silva. 2015. Urbane: A 3D framework to support data driven decision making in urban development. In2015 IEEE conference on visual analytics science and technology (VAST). IEEE, 97–104

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Juliana Freire, Cláudio T Silva, Steven P Callahan, Emanuele Santos, Carlos E Scheidegger, and Huy T V o. 2006. Managing rapidly-evolving scientific workflows. InProvenance and Annotation of Data: International Provenance and Annotation Workshop, IPAW 2006, Chicago, IL, USA, May 3-5, 2006, Revised Selected Papers. Springer, 10–18

    work page 2006

  30. [30]

    Sneha Gathani, Madelon Hulsebos, James Gale, Peter J Haas, and Ça˘gatay Demiralp. 2021. Augmenting decision making via interactive what-if analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.06160(2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Sneha Gathani, Zhicheng Liu, Peter J Haas, and Ça˘gatay Demiralp. 2025. What-if Analysis for Business Professionals: Current Practices and Future Opportunities. (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Sneha Gathani, Zhicheng Liu, Peter J Haas, and Ça ˘gatay Demiralp. 2025. What-if Analysis for Business Users: Current Practices and Future Opportunities.2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(2025), arXiv–2212

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Navid Ghaffarzadegan. 2021. Simulation-based what-if analysis for controlling the spread of Covid-19 in universities.PloS one16, 2 (2021), e0246323

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Reza Ghaiumy Anaraky, Kaileigh Angela Byrne, Pamela J Wisniewski, Xinru Page, and Bart Knijnenburg. 2021. To disclose or not to disclose: Examining the privacy decision-making processes of older vs. younger adults. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–14

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Oscar Gomez, Steffen Holter, Jun Yuan, and Enrico Bertini. 2020. Vice: Visual counterfactual explanations for machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. 531–535

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Oscar Gomez, Steffen Holter, Jun Yuan, and Enrico Bertini. 2021. Advice: Aggregated visual counterfactual explanations for machine learning model validation. In2021 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS). IEEE, 31–35

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Jochen Görtler, Thilo Spinner, Dirk Streeb, Daniel Weiskopf, and Oliver Deussen. 2019. Uncertainty-aware principal component analysis.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics26, 1 (2019), 822–831. Manuscript submitted to ACM 28 Gathani et al

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    David Hägele, Tim Krake, and Daniel Weiskopf. 2022. Uncertainty-aware multidimensional scaling.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics29, 1 (2022), 23–32

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Sagad Hamid, Adrian Derstroff, Sören Klemm, Quynh Quang Ngo, Xiaoyi Jiang, and Lars Linsen. 2019. Visual Ensemble Analysis to Study the Influence of Hyper-parameters on Training Deep Neural Networks.. InMLVis@ EuroVis. 19–23

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Jianing Hao, Qing Shi, Yilin Ye, and Wei Zeng. 2023. TimeTuner: diagnosing time representations for time-series forecasting with counterfactual explanations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics30, 1 (2023), 1183–1193

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Subhashis Hazarika, Haruki Hirasawa, Sookyung Kim, Kalai Ramea, Salva R Cachay, Peetak Mitra, Dipti Hingmire, Hansi Singh, and Phil J Rasch. 2023. HAiV A: Hybrid AI-assisted Visual Analysis Framework to Study the Effects of Cloud Properties on Climate Patterns. In2023 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS). IEEE, 226–230

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Fred Hohman, Andrew Head, Rich Caruana, Robert DeLine, and Steven M Drucker. 2019. Gamut: A design probe to understand how data scientists understand machine learning models. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    Mack, Wei Chen, and Ross Maciejewski

    Zhaosong Huang, Yafeng Lu, Elizabeth A. Mack, Wei Chen, and Ross Maciejewski. 2020. Exploring the Sensitivity of Choropleths under Attribute Uncertainty.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics26, 8 (2020), 2576–2590. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2019.2892483

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2892483 2020

  44. [44]

    Alex Kale, Yifan Wu, and Jessica Hullman. 2021. Causal support: Modeling causal inferences with visualizations.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics28, 1 (2021), 1150–1160

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Smiti Kaul, David Borland, Nan Cao, and David Gotz. 2021. Improving visualization interpretation using counterfactuals.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics28, 1 (2021), 998–1008

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Cheong Kim, Francis Joseph Costello, Kun Chang Lee, Yuan Li, and Chenyao Li. 2019. Predicting factors affecting adolescent obesity using general bayesian network and what-if analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health16, 23 (2019), 4684

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Yuki Koyama, Daisuke Sakamoto, and Takeo Igarashi. 2014. Crowd-powered parameter analysis for visual design exploration. InProceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. 65–74

    work page 2014

  48. [48]

    Alexander Kumpf, Josef Stumpfegger, Patrick Fabian Härtl, and Rüdiger Westermann. 2020. Visual Analysis of Multi-Parameter Distributions across Ensembles.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.15446(2020)

    work page arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Ripan Kumar Kundu, Osama Yahia Elsaid, Prasad Calyam, and Khaza Anuarul Hoque. 2023. Vr-lens: Super learning-based cybersickness detection and explainable ai-guided deployment in virtual reality. InProceedings of the 28th international conference on intelligent user interfaces. 819–834

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Biagio La Rosa, Graziano Blasilli, Romain Bourqui, David Auber, Giuseppe Santucci, Roberto Capobianco, Enrico Bertini, Romain Giot, and Marco Angelini. 2023. State of the art of visual analytics for explainable deep learning. InComputer Graphics Forum, V ol. 42. Wiley Online Library, 319–355

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Sonia Laguna, Julian N Heidenreich, Jiugeng Sun, Nilüfer Cetin, Ibrahim Al-Hazwani, Udo Schlegel, Furui Cheng, and Mennatallah El-Assady. 2023. ExpLIMEable: A Visual Analytics Approach for Exploring LIME. In2023 Workshop on Visual Analytics in Healthcare (VAHC). IEEE, 27–33

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    Jungeun Lee, Sungnam Kim, Minki Cheon, Hyojin Ju, JaeEun Lee, and Inseok Hwang. 2022. SleepGuru: Personalized Sleep Planning System for Real-life Actionability and Negotiability. InProceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–16

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    François Lévesque, Louis Beaumier, and Thomas Hurtut. 2024. Pathways Explorer: Interactive Visualization of Climate Transition Scenarios. In 2024 IEEE Workshop on Energy Data Visualization (EnergyVis). IEEE, 29–33

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Guan Li, Junpeng Wang, Han-Wei Shen, Kaixin Chen, Guihua Shan, and Zhonghua Lu. 2020. Cnnpruner: Pruning convolutional neural networks with visual analytics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics27, 2 (2020), 1364–1373

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Shusen Liu, Zhimin Li, Tao Li, Vivek Srikumar, Valerio Pascucci, and Peer-Timo Bremer. 2018. Nlize: A perturbation-driven visual interrogation tool for analyzing and interpreting natural language inference models.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics25, 1 (2018), 651–660

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    Wei Liu, Chris North, and Rebecca Faust. 2024. Visualizing Spatial Semantics of Dimensionally Reduced Text Embeddings.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03949(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Yun-En Liu, Travis Mandel, Emma Brunskill, and Zoran Popovi ´c. 2014. Towards automatic experimentation of educational knowledge. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 3349–3358

    work page 2014

  58. [58]

    Martin Luboschik, Martin Röhlig, Arne T Bittig, Natalia Andrienko, Heidrun Schumann, and Christian Tominski. 2015. Feature-driven visual analytics of chaotic parameter-dependent movement. InComputer Graphics Forum, V ol. 34. Wiley Online Library, 421–430

    work page 2015

  59. [59]

    Bertram Ludäscher, Ilkay Altintas, Chad Berkley, Dan Higgins, Efrat Jaeger, Matthew Jones, Edward A Lee, Jing Tao, and Yang Zhao. 2006. Scientific workflow management and the Kepler system.Concurrency and computation: Practice and experience18, 10 (2006), 1039–1065

    work page 2006

  60. [60]

    Wei Luo, Michael Steptoe, Zheng Chang, Robert Link, Leon Clarke, and Ross Maciejewski. 2017. Impact of spatial scales on the intercomparison of climate scenarios.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications37, 5 (2017), 40–49

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    Yannick Metz, Dennis Ackermann, Daniel A Keim, and Maximilian T Fischer. 2024. Interactive Public Transport Infrastructure Analysis through Mobility Profiles: Making the Mobility Transition Transparent. In2024 IEEE Visualization in Data Science (VDS). IEEE, 6–14

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    Vladimir Molchanov and Lars Linsen. 2014. Interactive design of multidimensional data projection layout. (2014)

    work page 2014

  63. [63]

    Hee-Seung Moon, Antti Oulasvirta, and Byungjoo Lee. 2023. Amortized inference with user simulations. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Dinmukhammed Mukashev, Nimesha Ranasinghe, and Aditya Shekhar Nittala. 2023. Tacttongue: Prototyping electrotactile stimulations on the tongue. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–14. Manuscript submitted to ACM PRAXA: A Framework for What-If Analysis 29

    work page 2023

  65. [65]

    Daniel Orban, Daniel F Keefe, Ayan Biswas, James Ahrens, and David Rogers. 2018. Drag and track: A direct manipulation interface for contextualizing data instances within a continuous parameter space.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics25, 1 (2018), 256–266

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    Stephan Pajer, Marc Streit, Thomas Torsney-Weir, Florian Spechtenhauser, Torsten Möller, and Harald Piringer. 2016. Weightlifter: Visual weight space exploration for multi-criteria decision making.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics23, 1 (2016), 611–620

    work page 2016

  67. [67]

    Cheonbok Park, Soyoung Yang, Inyoup Na, Sunghyo Chung, Sungbok Shin, Bum Chul Kwon, Deokgun Park, and Jaegul Choo. 2021. V ATUN: Visual Analytics for Testing and Understanding Convolutional Neural Networks.. InEuroVis (Short Papers). 7–11

    work page 2021

  68. [68]

    Bernstein

    Joon Sung Park, Lindsay Popowski, Carrie Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2022. Social Simulacra: Creating Populated Prototypes for Social Computing Systems. InProceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Bend, OR, USA)(UIST ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, N...

    work page doi:10.1145/3526113.3545616 2022

  69. [69]

    Nikolaus Piccolotto, Markus Bögl, and Silvia Miksch. 2023. Visual parameter space exploration in time and space. InComputer Graphics Forum, V ol. 42. Wiley Online Library, e14785

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    Renata Georgia Raidou, Oscar Casares-Magaz, Ludvig P Muren, Uulke A Van der Heide, Jarle Rørvik, Marcel Breeuwer, and Anna Vilanova. 2016. Visual analysis of tumor control models for prediction of radiotherapy response. InComputer Graphics Forum, V ol. 35. Wiley Online Library, 231–240

    work page 2016

  71. [71]

    Jay Roberts and Theodoros Tsiligkaridis. 2021. Controllably Sparse Perturbations of Robust Classifiers for Explaining Predictions and Probing Learned Concepts. InMLVis@ EuroVis

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    Diego Rojo, Nyi Nyi Htun, Denis Parra, Robin De Croon, and Katrien Verbert. 2021. AHMoSe: A knowledge-based visual support system for selecting regression machine learning models.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture187 (2021), 106183

    work page 2021

  73. [73]

    Erik Rydow, Rita Borgo, Hui Fang, Thomas Torsney-Weir, Ben Swallow, Thibaud Porphyre, Cagatay Turkay, and Min Chen. 2022. Development and evaluation of two approaches of visual sensitivity analysis to support epidemiological modeling.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics29, 1 (2022), 1255–1265

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    Alper Sarikaya, Michael Correll, Lyn Bartram, Melanie Tory, and Danyel Fisher. 2019. What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Dashboards? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics25, 1 (2019), 682–692. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864903

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2864903 2019

  75. [75]

    Michael Sedlmair, Christoph Heinzl, Stefan Bruckner, Harald Piringer, and Torsten Möller. 2014. Visual parameter space analysis: A conceptual framework.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics20, 12 (2014), 2161–2170

    work page 2014

  76. [76]

    Daniel Seebacher, Tom Polk, Halldor Janetzko, Daniel A Keim, Tobias Schreck, and Manuel Stein. 2021. Investigating the Sketchplan: A novel way of identifying tactical behavior in massive soccer datasets.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics29, 4 (2021), 1920–1936

    work page 2021

  77. [77]

    Omar Shaikh, Valentino Emil Chai, Michele Gelfand, Diyi Yang, and Michael S Bernstein. 2024. Rehearsal: Simulating conflict to teach conflict resolution. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    David A Shamma, Matthew L Lee, Alexandre LS Filipowicz, Laurent Denoue, Kate Glazko, Kalani Murakami, and Kent Lyons. 2022. EV Life: A Counterfactual Dashboard Towards Reducing Carbon Emissions of Automotive Behaviors. InCompanion Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 46–49

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    Jingyi Shen, Yuhan Duan, and Han-Wei Shen. 2024. Surroflow: A flow-based surrogate model for parameter space exploration and uncertainty quantification.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics(2024)

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    Neng Shi, Jiayi Xu, Skylar W Wurster, Hanqi Guo, Jonathan Woodring, Luke P Van Roekel, and Han-Wei Shen. 2022. Gnn-surrogate: A hierarchical and adaptive graph neural network for parameter space exploration of unstructured-mesh ocean simulations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics28, 6 (2022), 2301–2313

    work page 2022

Showing first 80 references.