人类图表的启示与 LLM 预测的一致性如何?不同布局条形图案例研究

Huichen Will Wang;Jane Hoffswell;Sao Myat Thazin Thane;Victor S. Bursztyn;Cindy Xiong Bearfield
{"title":"人类图表的启示与 LLM 预测的一致性如何?不同布局条形图案例研究","authors":"Huichen Will Wang;Jane Hoffswell;Sao Myat Thazin Thane;Victor S. Bursztyn;Cindy Xiong Bearfield","doi":"10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":94035,"journal":{"name":"IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics","volume":"31 1","pages":"536-546"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Aligned are Human Chart Takeaways and LLM Predictions? A Case Study on Bar Charts with Varying Layouts\",\"authors\":\"Huichen Will Wang;Jane Hoffswell;Sao Myat Thazin Thane;Victor S. Bursztyn;Cindy Xiong Bearfield\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94035,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"536-546\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10681139/\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10681139/","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大型语言模型(LLMs)已被用于各种可视化任务,但我们离能够预测人类收获的感知型 LLMs 还有多远?图形感知方面的文献表明,人类对图表的理解对可视化设计选择(如空间布局)很敏感。在这项工作中,我们以具有不同空间布局的条形图为例,研究了 LLM 在生成提示时在多大程度上表现出了这种敏感性。我们进行了三次实验,测试了四种常见的条形图布局:垂直并列、水平并列、叠加和堆叠。在实验 1 中,我们通过测试四种 LLM、两种温度设置、九种图表规格和两种提示策略,确定了生成有意义图表的最佳配置。我们发现,即使是最先进的 LLM 也很难生成语义多样、事实准确的提要。在实验 2 中,我们使用最优配置为四种布局和两个数据集中的八种可视化内容分别生成了 30 条图表提要,并同时采用了零点击和单点击两种设置。我们发现,与人类的示意图相比,LLM 生成的示意图往往与人类的比较类型不一致。在实验 3 中,我们研究了图表上下文和数据对 LLM 推断的影响。我们发现,与人类不同的是,对于使用相同条形图布局的不同条形图,LLM 在得出的比较类型方面表现出差异。总之,我们的案例研究评估了 LLM 模仿人类解释数据的能力,并指出了使用 LLM 预测人类图表结论所面临的挑战和机遇。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Aligned are Human Chart Takeaways and LLM Predictions? A Case Study on Bar Charts with Varying Layouts
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信