Sneha Gathani

dblp:264/7385 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
5as first author
5since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0002-0706-7166ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 3 · 3 first-author · 2 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Visualization and visual analytics · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Usability and user experience research · 77% User interface design and tools · 23%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Query processing and optimization · 44% Data integration and cleaning · 44% Database system architecture and tuning · 13%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Visualization and visual analytics
data exploration
0.812024
Groot: A System for Editing and Configuring Automated Data Insights · IEEE VIS 2024
Data integration and cleaning › data quality
query-based error diagnosis
0.412020
Debugging Database Queries: A Survey of Tools, Techniques, and Users · CHI 2020
Query processing and optimization
query debugging
0.412020
Debugging Database Queries: A Survey of Tools, Techniques, and Users · CHI 2020
Database system architecture and tuning
database usability
0.112020
Debugging Database Queries: A Survey of Tools, Techniques, and Users · CHI 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

manual editing interface · 1.5direct manipulation · 1.5user interviews · 0.4systematic literature review · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 What-if Analysis for Business Professionals: Current Practices and Future Opportunities
abstract
CHI ’25, Yokohama, Japan
Sneha Gathani, Peter J. Haas, Çagatay Demiralp
CHI1
2024 Groot: A System for Editing and Configuring Automated Data Insights
abstract
Visualization tools now commonly present automated insights highlighting salient data patterns, including correlations, distributions, outliers, and differences, among others. While these insights are valuable for data exploration and chart interpretation, users currently only have a binary choice of accepting or rejecting them, lacking the flexibility to refine the system logic or customize the insight generation process. To address this limitation, we present Groot, a prototype system that allows users to proactively specify and refine automated data insights. The system allows users to directly manipulate chart elements to receive insight recommendations based on their selections. Additionally, Groot provides users with a manual editing interface to customize, reconfigure, or add new insights to individual charts and propagate them to future explorations. We describe a usage scenario to illustrate how these features collectively support insight editing and configuration and discuss opportunities for future work, including incorporating Large Language Models (LLMs), improving semantic data and visualization search, and supporting insight management.
Sneha Gathani, Anamaria Crisan, Vidya Setlur, Arjun Srinivasan
IEEE VIS1
2022 Augmenting Decision Making via Interactive What-If Analysis
Sneha Gathani, Madelon Hulsebos, James Gale, Peter J. Haas, Çagatay Demiralp
CIDR1
2022 Making Table Understanding Work in Practice
Madelon Hulsebos, Sneha Gathani, James Gale, Isil Dillig, Paul Groth, Çagatay Demiralp
CIDR2
2022 A Grammar-Based Approach for Applying Visualization Taxonomies to Interaction Logs
abstract
Abstract Researchers collect large amounts of user interaction data with the goal of mapping user's workflows and behaviors to their high‐level motivations, intuitions, and goals. Although the visual analytics community has proposed numerous taxonomies to facilitate this mapping process, no formal methods exist for systematically applying these existing theories to user interaction logs. This paper seeks to bridge the gap between visualization task taxonomies and interaction log data by making the taxonomies more actionable for interaction log analysis. To achieve this, we leverage structural parallels between how people express themselves through interactions and language by reformulating existing theories as regular grammars. We represent interactions as terminals within a regular grammar, similar to the role of individual words in a language, and patterns of interactions or non‐terminals as regular expressions over these terminals to capture common language patterns. To demonstrate our approach, we generate regular grammars for seven existing visualization taxonomies and develop code to apply them to three public interaction log datasets. In analyzing these regular grammars, we find that the taxonomies at the low‐level (i.e., terminals) show mixed results in expressing multiple interaction log datasets, and taxonomies at the high‐level (i.e., regular expressions) have limited expressiveness, due to primarily two challenges: inconsistencies in interaction log dataset granularity and structure, and under‐expressiveness of certain terminals. Based on our findings, we suggest new research directions for the visualization community to augment existing taxonomies, develop new ones, and build better interaction log recording processes to facilitate the data‐driven development of user behavior taxonomies.
Sneha Gathani, Shayan Monadjemi, Alvitta Ottley, Leilani Battle
Comput. Graph. Forum1
2020 Debugging Database Queries: A Survey of Tools, Techniques, and Users
abstract
Database management systems (or DBMSs) have been around for decades, and yet are still difficult to use, particularly when trying to identify and fix errors in user programs (or queries). We seek to understand what methods have been proposed to help people debug database queries, and whether these techniques have ultimately been adopted by DBMSs (and users). We conducted an interdisciplinary review of 112 papers and tools from the database, visualisation and HCI communities. To better understand whether academic and industry approaches are meeting the needs of users, we interviewed 20 database users (and some designers), and found surprising results. In particular, there seems to be a wide gulf between users' debugging strategies and the functionality implemented in existing DBMSs, as well as proposed in the literature. In response, we propose new design guidelines to help system designers to build features that more closely match users debugging strategies.
Sneha Gathani, Peter Lim, Leilani Battle
CHI1