Concept-Driven Visual Analytics: an Exploratory Study of Model- and Hypothesis-Based Reasoning with Visualizations
Authors
Visualization tools facilitate exploratory data analysis, but fall short at supporting hypothesis-based reasoning. We conducted an exploratory study to investigate how visualizations might support a concept-driven analysis style, where users can optionally share their hypotheses and conceptual models in natural language, and receive customized plots depicting the fit of their models to the data. We report on how participants leveraged these unique affordances for visual analysis. We found that a majority of participants articulated meaningful models and predictions, utilizing them as entry points to sensemaking. We contribute an abstract typology representing the types of models participants held and externalized as data expectations. Our findings suggest ways for rearchitecting visual analytics tools to better support hypothesis- and model-based reasoning, in addition to their traditional role in exploratory analysis. We discuss the design implications and reflect on the potential benefits and challenges involved.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
- 71%
Can Anthropographics Promote Prosociality? A Review and Large-Sample Study
CHI '21· Interactive Data Visualization +2
- 67%
Datamations: Animated Explanations of Data Analysis Pipelines
CHI '21· Interactive Data Visualization +1
- 67%
Milliways: Taming Multiverses through Principled Evaluation of Data Analysis Paths
CHI '24· Interactive Data Visualization +1
- 67%
"Piecing Data Connections Together Like a Puzzle": Effects of Increasing Task Complexity on the Effectiveness of Data Storytelling Enhanced Visualisations
CHI '25· Data Storytelling +1
- 67%
Uncovering How Scatterplot Features Skew Visual Class Separation
CHI '25· Interactive Data Visualization +1
- 67%
Avoiding Drill-down Fallacies with VisPilot: Assisted Exploration of Data Subsets
IUI '19· Interactive Data Visualization +1
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)