Accounting for individual differences can improve the effectiveness of visualization design. While the role of visual attention in visualization interpretation is well recognized, existing work often overlooks how this behavior varies based on visual literacy levels. Based on data from a 235-participant user study covering three visualization tests (mini-VLAT, CALVI, and SGL), we show that distinct attention patterns in visual data exploration can correlate with participants' literacy levels: While experts (high-scorers) generally show a strong attentional focus, novices (low-scorers) focus less and explore more. We then propose two computational models leveraging these insights: Lit2Sal - a novel visual saliency model that predicts observer attention given their visualization literacy level, and Sal2Lit - a model to predict visual literacy from human visual attention data. Our quantitative and qualitative evaluation demonstrates that Lit2Sal outperforms state-of-the-art saliency models with literacy-aware considerations. Sal2Lit predicts literacy with 86% accuracy using a single attention map, providing a time-efficient supplement to literacy assessment that only takes less than a minute. Taken together, our unique approach to consider individual differences in salience models and visual attention in literacy assessments paves the way for new directions in personalized visual data communication to enhance understanding.

Trust plays a critical role in visual data communication and decision-making, yet existing visualization research employs varied trust measures, making it challenging to compare and synthesize findings across studies. In this work, we first took a bottom-up, data-driven approach to understand what visualization readers mean when they say they "trust" a visualization. We compiled and adapted a broad set of trust-related statements from existing inventories and collected responses to visualizations with varying degrees of trustworthiness. Through exploratory factor analysis, we derived an operational definition of trust in visualizations. Our findings indicate that people perceive a trustworthy visualization as one that presents credible information and is comprehensible and usable. Building on this insight, we developed an eight-item inventory: four core items measuring trust in visualizations and four optional items controlling for individual differences in baseline trust tendency. We established the inventory's internal consistency reliability using McDonald's omega, confirmed its content validity by demonstrating alignment with theoretically-grounded trust dimensions, and validated its criterion validity through two trust games with real-world stakes. Finally, we illustrate how this standardized inventory can be applied across diverse visualization research contexts. Utilizing our inventory, future research can examine how design choices, tasks, and domains influence trust, and how to foster appropriate trusting behavior in human-data interactions.

Mining and conveying actionable insights from complex data is a key challenge of exploratory data analysis (EDA) and storytelling.To address this challenge, we present a design space for actionable EDA and storytelling.Synthesizing theory and expert interviews, we highlight how semantic precision, rhetorical persuasion, and pragmatic relevance underpin effective EDA and storytelling.We also show how this design space subsumes common challenges in actionable EDA and storytelling, such as identifying appropriate analytical strategies and leveraging relevant domain knowledge.Building on the potential of LLMs to generate coherent narratives with commonsense reasoning, we contribute Jupybara, an AI-enabled assistant for actionable EDA and storytelling implemented as a Jupyter Notebook extension.Jupybara employs two strategiesdesign-space-aware prompting and multi-agent architectures-to operationalize our design space.An expert evaluation confirms Jupybara's usability, steerability, explainability, and reparability, as well as the effectiveness of our strategies in operationalizing the design space framework with LLMs.

The ability to organically reason over and with both text and images is a pillar of human intelligence, yet the ability of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to perform such multimodal reasoning remains under-explored. Existing benchmarks often emphasize text-dominant reasoning or rely on shallow visual cues, failing to adequately assess integrated visual and textual reasoning. We introduce EMMA (Enhanced MultiModal reAsoning), a benchmark targeting organic multimodal reasoning across mathematics, physics, chemistry, and coding. EMMA tasks demand advanced cross-modal reasoning that cannot be addressed by reasoning independently in each modality, offering an enhanced test suite for MLLMs' reasoning capabilities. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art MLLMs on EMMA reveals significant limitations in handling complex multimodal and multi-step reasoning tasks, even with advanced techniques like Chain-of-Thought prompting and test-time compute scaling underperforming. These findings underscore the need for improved multimodal architectures and training paradigms to close the gap between human and model reasoning in multimodality.

Trained on vast corpora, Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to encode visualization design knowledge and best practices. However, if they fail to do so, they might provide unreliable visualization recommendations. What visualization design preferences, then, have LLMs learned? We contribute DracoGPT, a method for extracting, modeling, and assessing visualization design preferences from LLMs. To assess varied tasks, we develop two pipelines-DracoGPT-Rank and DracoGPT-Recommend-to model LLMs prompted to either rank or recommend visual encoding specifications. We use Draco as a shared knowledge base in which to represent LLM design preferences and compare them to best practices from empirical research. We demonstrate that DracoGPT can accurately model the preferences expressed by LLMs, enabling analysis in terms of Draco design constraints. Across a suite of backing LLMs, we find that DracoGPT-Rank and DracoGPT-Recommend moderately agree with each other, but both substantially diverge from guidelines drawn from human subjects experiments. Future work can build on our approach to expand Draco's knowledge base to model a richer set of preferences and to provide a robust and cost-effective stand-in for LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been adopted for a variety of visualizations tasks, but how far are we from perceptually aware LLMs that can predict human takeaways? Graphical perception literature has shown that human chart takeaways are sensitive to visualization design choices, such as spatial layouts. In this work, we examine the extent to which LLMs exhibit such sensitivity when generating takeaways, using bar charts with varying spatial layouts as a case study. We conducted three experiments and tested four common bar chart layouts: vertically juxtaposed, horizontally juxtaposed, overlaid, and stacked. In Experiment 1, we identified the optimal configurations to generate meaningful chart takeaways by testing four LLMs, two temperature settings, nine chart specifications, and two prompting strategies. We found that even state-of-the-art LLMs struggled to generate semantically diverse and factually accurate takeaways. In Experiment 2, we used the optimal configurations to generate 30 chart takeaways each for eight visualizations across four layouts and two datasets in both zero-shot and one-shot settings. Compared to human takeaways, we found that the takeaways LLMs generated often did not match the types of comparisons made by humans. In Experiment 3, we examined the effect of chart context and data on LLM takeaways. We found that LLMs, unlike humans, exhibited variation in takeaway comparison types for different bar charts using the same bar layout. Overall, our case study evaluates the ability of LLMs to emulate human interpretations of data and points to challenges and opportunities in using LLMs to predict human chart takeaways.