We investigate the potential of leveraging the code-generating capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to support exploratory visual analysis (EVA) via conversational user interfaces (CUIs). We developed a technology probe that was deployed through two studies with a total of 50 data workers to explore the structure and flow of visual analytic conversations during EVA. We analyzed conversations from both studies using thematic analysis and derived a state transition diagram summarizing the conversational flow between four states of participant utterances ( Analytic Tasks , Editing Operations , Elaborations and Enrichments , and Directive Commands ) and two states of Generative AI (GenAI) agent responses (visualization, text). We describe the capabilities and limitations of GenAI agents according to each state and transitions between states as three co-occurring loops: analysis elaboration, refinement, and explanation. We discuss our findings as future research trajectories to improve the experiences of data workers using GenAI. The code and data are available at https://osf.io/6wxpa .

Quality colormaps can help communicate important data patterns. However, finding an aesthetically pleasing colormap that looks “just right” for a given scenario requires significant design and technical expertise. We introduce Cieran, a tool that allows any data analyst to rapidly find quality colormaps while designing charts within Jupyter Notebooks. Our system employs an active preference learning paradigm to rank expert-designed colormaps and create new ones from pairwise comparisons, allowing analysts who are novices in color design to tailor colormaps to their data context. We accomplish this by treating colormap design as a path planning problem through the CIELAB colorspace with a context-specific reward model. In an evaluation with twelve scientists, we found that Cieran effectively modeled user preferences to rank colormaps and leveraged this model to create new quality designs. Our work shows the potential of active preference learning for supporting efficient visualization design optimization.

Interpretive scholars generate knowledge from text corpora by manually sampling documents, applying codes, and refining and collating codes into categories until meaningful themes emerge. Given a large corpus, machine learning could help scale this data sampling and analysis, but prior research shows that experts are generally concerned about algorithms potentially disrupting or driving interpretive scholarship. We take a human-centered design approach to addressing concerns around machine-assisted interpretive research to build Scholastic, which incorporates a machine-in-the-loop clustering algorithm to scaffold interpretive text analysis. As a scholar applies codes to documents and refines them, the resulting coding schema serves as structured metadata which constrains hierarchical document and word clusters inferred from the corpus. Interactive visualizations of these clusters can help scholars strategically sample documents further toward insights. Scholastic demonstrates how human-centered algorithm design and visualizations employing familiar metaphors can support inductive and interpretive research methodologies through interactive topic modeling and document clustering.

Scatterplots can encode a third dimension by using additional channels like size or color (e.g. bubble charts). We explore a potential misinterpretation of trivariate scatterplots, which we call the weighted average illusion, where locations of larger and darker points are given more weight toward x- and y-mean estimates. This systematic bias is sensitive to a designer's choice of size or lightness ranges mapped onto the data. In this paper, we quantify this bias against varying size/lightness ranges and data correlations. We discuss possible explanations for its cause by measuring attention given to individual data points using a vision science technique called the centroid method. Our work illustrates how ensemble processing mechanisms and mental shortcuts can significantly distort visual summaries of data, and can lead to misjudgments like the demonstrated weighted average illusion.