Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Representing Visualization Insights as a Dense Insight Network

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a dense insight network with five link categories that rank and select dashboard insights before a large language model writes the summary.

desk verdict A genuinely useful taxonomy of insight relationships with an honest case study, but the utility claim rests on an anecdote, not a demonstration. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13309 v1 pith:JCDFUTNO submitted 2025-01-23 cs.HC

Jane Hoffswell , Victor Soares Bursztyn , Shunan Guo , Jesse Martinez , Eunyee Koh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords insightnetworkdashboardsummarizationvisualanalyticslargelanguagemodelsrankingvisualizationdatastorytellingautomatedgeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Dashboards produce many natural-language insights, one per chart, and reading them linearly makes it hard to see which takeaways matter most. This paper proposes treating those insights as nodes in a dense network, with five kinds of links encoding their shared characteristics: insight type, topic, referenced values, dashboard layout metadata, and computed scores. The framework is meant as a foundation for new ways of interpreting and exploring insights, and the paper demonstrates one such use: ranking and selecting the highest-priority insights before a large language model (LLM) compresses them into a short dashboard summary. By exposing how insights are related, the network is intended to make the selection process controllable and explainable, in contrast to asking a model to summarize an unstructured collection of captions. The contribution is the representation itself, along with a visualization playground and a case study that show how it can support future insight selection and evaluation tools.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the dense insight network itself: a graph with insight nodes and typed edges. The five link categories are type-based links (insight type, comparison type, chart type), topic-based links (shared metrics or dimensions), value-based links (shared dates, percentages, or other values mentioned in the insights), metadata-based links (panel row, panel column, table column, and sort attribute from the dashboard layout), and score-based links that combine these into compound scores. The case study's selection uses the weighted priority formula $$\text{priority} = 0.3 \cdot \text{layoutScore} + 0.7 \cdot \text{valueScore},$$ with $\text{layoutScore} = 0.25 \cdot \text{panelRow} + 0.25 \cdot \text{panelCol} + 0.5 \cdot \text{tableCol}$, where each layout component is a normalized reverse index and $\text{valueScore}$ is a min-max normalized average occurrence count of the dimension values mentioned in the insight. This scoring connects the graph to selection: the top-scoring insights are reordered by layout-based links and become the input to the language model.

What would settle it

An experiment would settle it: have a group of readers independently rank the salience of the forty-nine insights for the example dashboard, then compare their top choices with the priority score's top selections; if the overlap is no better than overlap with randomly chosen insights, the selection claim fails, and a second check would test the LLM stage by prompting the model both with network-selected insights and with the raw dashboard text, measuring how often each output omits or fabricates a named value, date, or percentage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the relationships among automatically generated dashboard insights can be made explicit and useful by encoding them into five link categories: type, topic, value, metadata, and score. This turns a flat list of captions into a graph whose nodes are insights and whose edges mark shared characteristics such as the same statistical pattern, the same dimension or metric, the same date or percentage, the same panel row or column, or an aggregate priority score. The paper further argues that this structure can carry a concrete application: selecting and ordering the top insights by a weighted score, then prompting a large language model to compress them, yields a concise summary that is more controllable and explainable than asking the model to summarize the dashboard from raw text. The paper does not claim the model never errs; it includes its own example where the summary contains a hallucination that traces to a chart title given in the prompt.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a hand-tuned weighted sum of layout position and value prevalence captures which insights deserve priority for a dashboard summary, since the weights were refined by expert feedback and were not validated against independent human judgments or alternative scoring schemes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dashboard tools can move from presenting a flat list of captions to offering network-based exploration, letting users filter or cluster insights by type, topic, value, or layout.
  • Score-based selection gives an inspectable, explainable path from dashboard to LLM summary, because the chosen insights and their ordering are visible before the model rewrites them.
  • The same link structure can support user-guided narrative construction, since the edges supply a principled way to order and connect insights into a story.
  • Because the link categories are independent of the particular template-based insight generator used in the paper, the framework can be applied to other insight types or generation approaches by adjusting which characteristics become links.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: the priority score's weights could be treated as parameters learned from human priority judgments per dashboard type, making the selection claim testable across domains.
  • Editorial extension: the value-based links suggest a summary-quality metric, checking whether the summary preserves the dates, values, and percentages attached to high-degree nodes in the network.
  • Editorial extension: the hallucination example implies the network could serve as a verification layer, comparing every number in an LLM output against the values carried by the selected insights.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dense insight network framework for representing relationships between automatically generated insights from a dashboard. It defines five high-level link categories: type-, topic-, value-, metadata-, and score-based links, and describes a visualization playground for exploring the resulting network. The paper then presents a case study application that uses the framework to rank and select insights, which are fed to GPT-3.5 to generate a concise natural-language dashboard summary. The authors claim the framework provides a foundation for insight interpretation and exploration, and that the case study demonstrates its utility for LLM-based summarization.

Significance. If the framework is taken as a design contribution, it is a useful conceptual organization of the many relationships among automatically generated dashboard insights, and it extends prior insight-network ideas with a more comprehensive link taxonomy. The paper is clearly written and the framework is internally consistent, with concrete examples and a running dashboard scenario. The main weakness is that the utility claim is supported only by an anecdotal case study with no baseline comparison, no validation of the hand-tuned priority score, and no user evaluation; the paper itself lists such evaluations as future work. As a result, the contribution is best regarded at this stage as a well-specified design artifact rather than an empirically demonstrated method for improving insight selection or summarization.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5 (especially 5.2 and 5.3)] The case study does not include any baseline comparison. The central utility claim from Section 1 ('demonstrate the utility of our insight network framework') and the claim in Section 5 that ranking and ordering selected insights 'aim[s] to reduce the risk of the LLM missing the most important information' are unsupported without comparing the proposed network-based selection against alternatives such as random selection of the same number of insights, a simpler frequency-based selection rule, or direct LLM summarization of all 49 insights. As written, the example output is an anecdote rather than a demonstration that the network structure contributes to summary quality.
  2. [Section 3.6 and Section 5.1] The priority score weights (0.3 * layoutScore + 0.7 * valueScore, with layoutScore = 0.25 * panelRow + 0.25 * panelCol + 0.5 * tableCol) are hand-tuned through iterative expert feedback, but they are never validated against independent human judgments, inter-rater agreement, or alternative scoring schemes. No sensitivity analysis or ablation of link categories is reported. Because these weights determine which insights are selected for the LLM summary, their validity is load-bearing for the case study's conclusion about the usefulness of the framework for summarization.
  3. [Section 6.1] The reported hallucination example shows that even when the network-based selection is in control, the LLM can produce a factually incorrect summary sentence. The paper acknowledges this limitation, but it does not explain how the framework mitigates the risk beyond the initial selection stage. This observation qualifies the claim that the approach 'reduce[s] the unpredictability of the LLM-generated summary by providing more guidance', and it should be addressed either by additional safeguards or by a more careful framing of the framework's role in ensuring factual correctness.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'which was creating using a "Real World Fake Data" dataset' contains a typo: 'creating' should be 'created'.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'subest' should be 'subset'.
  3. [Section 4.3] The sentence 'Figure 5A shows the matrix visualization for the subset of seven insights selected in Figure 1)' has an extra closing parenthesis after 'Figure 1'.
  4. [Section 5.2] The target number of insights is stated as 'between four and fifteen', but the paper does not explain how this range was chosen or whether the final output is sensitive to that choice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper contributes a design framework and an illustrative case study, with no fitted quantity being relabeled as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper does not derive a quantitative result from its framework; it proposes a representational scheme (type-, topic-, value-, metadata-, and score-based links) and demonstrates it through a visualization playground and an LLM-based summarization case study. The priority score in Section 3.6 is an explicitly stated heuristic whose weights were iteratively refined with expert stakeholders (Section 5.1), and it is used to select insights for an example summary rather than to predict an outcome that was used to fit those weights. Thus there is no equation-level reduction of a claimed prediction to an input. The paper's own Section 6.1 hallucination example is an acknowledged limitation of the downstream LLM stage and does not present the selection step as validated; this weakens the utility claim but is not circularity. Citations to prior work by overlapping authors (e.g., WGH23, ZMG22a, ZMG22b) appear only in related-work discussion and do not carry the framework's central premises. Concerns about missing baselines or unvalidated weighting are evaluation gaps, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The framework is a design proposal that depends on several domain assumptions about insight generation, dashboard metadata, and the usefulness of shared characteristics. It introduces two conceptual entities (the network and gatekeeping nodes) with no independent falsifiable handles. The priority score contains four hand-set parameters that directly affect the summarization output.

free parameters (4)
  • priority score weights = 0.3 and 0.7
    priority = 0.3*layoutScore + 0.7*valueScore; chosen by expert feedback, not derived or validated.
  • layoutScore weights = 0.25, 0.25, 0.5
    layoutScore = 0.25*panelRow + 0.25*panelCol + 0.5*tableCol; hand-tuned to reflect layout priority.
  • target summary size = 4 to 15 insights
    The paper states 'we aim for between four and fifteen insights as the target number for summarization' without justification.
  • LLM temperature = 0.5
    Selected as a midpoint between 0.7 and 0.0; affects summary generation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Insights are generated from a fixed set of template-based types (Section 3.1).
    The framework assumes a particular insight generation approach (based on Voder) with 12 types; the authors claim generalizability but do not prove it.
  • domain assumption Dashboard layout metadata (panel row, column, table column, sort) is available and meaningful.
    Section 3.5 assumes that positions in the dashboard convey priority, which is plausible but not empirically established.
  • domain assumption Shared characteristics (type, topic, value, metadata) imply relationships useful for analysis and summarization.
    This is the central premise of the framework; the paper provides no independent validation that these links improve selection or summary quality.
  • domain assumption An LLM prompted with selected insights can produce a concise, sufficiently faithful summary.
    Section 5.3 uses GPT-3.5 for this purpose, but Section 6.1 documents a hallucination, showing the assumption is fragile.
invented entities (2)
  • Dense insight network
    purpose: A conceptual structure encoding relationships between insights as nodes and links of five categories.
    It is the paper's main contribution, but it is an abstraction with no falsifiable prediction; its utility is demonstrated only through an illustrative case study.
  • Gatekeeping nodes
    purpose: Aggregated nodes in the network visualization that represent link categories to simplify exploration.
    A design artifact introduced in Section 4.1; there is no empirical evidence that it aids understanding.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Representing Visualization Insights as a Dense Insight Network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JCDFUTNO

@misc{pith2026250113309,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Representing Visualization Insights as a Dense Insight Network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JCDFUTNO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13309}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a dense insight network framework to encode the relationships between automatically generated insights from a complex dashboard based on their shared characteristics. Our insight network framework includes five high-level categories of relationships (e.g., type, topic, value, metadata, and compound scores). The goal of this insight network framework is to provide a foundation for implementing new insight interpretation and exploration strategies, including both user-driven and automated approaches. To illustrate the complexity and flexibility of our framework, we first describe a visualization playground to directly visualize key network characteristics; this playground also demonstrates potential interactive capabilities for decomposing the dense insight network. Then, we discuss a case study application for ranking insights based on the underlying network characteristics captured by our framework, before prompting a large language model to generate a concise, natural language summary. Finally, we reflect on next steps for leveraging our insight network framework to design and evaluate new systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13309 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of the insight generation pipeline for our insight network framework. (A) Starting with a visualization from the source dashboard, (B) we represent the data internally as a table and (C) generate a set of template-based insights ( DCS-MX , DCS-ME , DCS-MI ). Along with the three insights generated for the donut chart, we also show four related insights ( TDX0MX , TDX1MX , TDX0ME , TDX0MI ) generated base… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example dashboard titled “Call Center Overview” (left) and the same dashboard with the underlying data tables shown for all sub-panels instead of the visualizations (right). The dashboard has five sub-panels showing the average duration and number of calls to a call center, broken down by the sentiment and reason for the call: A a line chart showing the total number of Calls per Date; B a bar chart of the total n… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sample insight clusters produced in our visualization playground based on different types of links in our insight network framework. Each cluster is a clique, with links connecting every pair of nodes in the cluster. Each sub-figure only includes one node per insight unless otherwise indicated; the clustering for “Dimensions” (G) is the notable exception, as some insights correspond to multiple dimensions. 3.2. Type… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Our visualization prototype has two components: (A) the interactive visualization panel supports exploration of linked in￾sights using different visual representations (such as the node-link network view shown here); (B) the story exploration panel includes (c) a conca…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (A) The matrix visualization and (B) cluster visualization of the priority score for the subest of seven insights in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry.original add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 i...

  2. [2]

    Brown T., Mann B., Ryder N., Subbiah M., Kaplan J. D., Dhariwal P., Neelakantan A., Shyam P., Sastry G., Askell A., Agarwal S., Herbert-Voss A., Krueger G., Henighan T., Child R., Ramesh A., Ziegler D., Wu J., Winter C., Hesse C., Chen M., Sigler E., Litwin M., Gray S., Chess B., Clark J., Berner C., McCandlish S., Radford A., Sutskever I., Amodei D. : La...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    : What do we mean when we say “insight”? a formal synthesis of existing theory

    Battle L., Ottley A. : What do we mean when we say “insight”? a formal synthesis of existing theory. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    : Call center

    Bradbourne M. : Call center. URL: https://data.world/markbradbourne/rwfd-real-world-fake-data

    work page

  5. [5]

    Chopra B., Singha A., Fariha A., Gulwani S., Parnin C., Tiwari A., Henley A. Z. : Conversational challenges in ai-powered data science: Obstacles, needs, and design opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16164 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    : Toward effective insight management in visual analytics systems

    Chen Y., Yang J., Ribarsky W. : Toward effective insight management in visual analytics systems. In IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium (2009), IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2009.4906837 doi:10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2009.4906837

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    : Quickinsights: Quick and automatic discovery of insights from multi-dimensional data

    Ding R., Han S., Xu Y., Zhang H., Zhang D. : Quickinsights: Quick and automatic discovery of insights from multi-dimensional data. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data (2019), pp. 317--332

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Falke T., Ribeiro L. F. R., Utama P. A., Dagan I., Gurevych I. : Ranking generated summaries by correctness: An interesting but challenging application for natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Florence, Italy, July 2019), Korhonen A., Traum D., M \`a rquez L., (Eds.), Assoc...

    doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1213 2019

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    : How do data analysts respond to ai assistance? a wizard-of-oz study

    Gu K., Grunde-McLaughlin M., McNutt A., Heer J., Althoff T. : How do data analysts respond to ai assistance? a wizard-of-oz study. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2024), pp. 1--22

    2024

  2. [10]

    J., Durrett G

    Goyal T., Li J. J., Durrett G. : News summarization and evaluation in the era of gpt-3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12356 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    X., Aggarwal V

    Gotz D., Zhou M. X., Aggarwal V. : Interactive visual synthesis of analytic knowledge. In IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST) (2006), IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/VAST.2006.261430 doi:10.1109/VAST.2006.261430

    2006

  4. [12]

    : Characterizing the quality of insight by interactions: A case study

    He C., Micallef L., He L., Peddinti G., Aittokallio T., Jacucci G. : Characterizing the quality of insight by interactions: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (TVCG) (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.2977634 doi:10.1109/TVCG.2020.2977634

    2020

  5. [13]

    Ho M., Sharma A., Chang J., Saxon M., Levy S., Lu Y., Wang W. Y. : Wikiwhy: Answering and explaining cause-and-effect questions. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (2023). URL: https://openreview.net/forum?id=vaxnu-Utr4l

    2023

  6. [14]

    J., Madotto A., Fung P

    Ji Z., Lee N., Frieske R., Yu T., Su D., Xu Y., Ishii E., Bang Y. J., Madotto A., Fung P. : Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Comput. Surv. (mar 2023). URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730, https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730 doi:10.1145/3571730

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    T., Lin X., Masry A., Thakkar M., Hoque E., Joty S

    Kantharaj S., Leong R. T., Lin X., Masry A., Thakkar M., Hoque E., Joty S. : Chart-to-text: A large-scale benchmark for chart summarization. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2022). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.277 do...

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    : Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization

    Kryscinski W., McCann B., Xiong C., Socher R. : Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (Online, Nov. 2020), Webber B., Cohn T., He Y., Liu Y., (Eds....

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    H., Isenberg P., Carpendale S

    Lee B., Riche N. H., Isenberg P., Carpendale S. : More than telling a story: Transforming data into visually shared stories. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (2015). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2015.99 doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2015.99

    2015 doi

  10. [18]

    : Notable: On-the-fly assistant for data storytelling in computational notebooks

    Li H., Ying L., Zhang H., Wu Y., Qu H., Wang Y. : Notable: On-the-fly assistant for data storytelling in computational notebooks. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2023), pp. 1--16

    2023

  11. [19]

    : InsightPilot : An llm-empowered automated data exploration system

    Ma P., Ding R., Wang S., Han S., Zhang D. : InsightPilot : An llm-empowered automated data exploration system. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-demo.31 doi:ht...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    : On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization

    Maynez J., Narayan S., Bohnet B., McDonald R. : On faithfulness and factuality in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Online, July 2020), Jurafsky D., Chai J., Schluter N., Tetreault J., (Eds.),...

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    : Understanding factuality in abstractive summarization with FRANK : A benchmark for factuality metrics

    Pagnoni A., Balachandran V., Tsvetkov Y. : Understanding factuality in abstractive summarization with FRANK : A benchmark for factuality metrics. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Languag...

    2021

  14. [22]

    : What do we talk about when we talk about dashboards? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2018)

    Sarikaya A., Correll M., Bartram L., Tory M., Fisher D. : What do we talk about when we talk about dashboards? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2018). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864903 doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2864903

    2018

  15. [23]

    : Erato: Cooperative data story editing via fact interpolation

    Sun M., Cai L., Cui W., Wu Y., Shi Y., Cao N. : Erato: Cooperative data story editing via fact interpolation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2022). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209428 doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209428

    2022

  16. [24]

    M., Endert A., Stasko J

    Srinivasan A., Drucker S. M., Endert A., Stasko J. : Augmenting visualizations with interactive data facts to facilitate interpretation and communication. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2018). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2018.2865145...

    2018

  17. [25]

    : To score or not to score? tripling insights for participatory design

    Smuc M., Mayr E., Lammarsch T., Aigner W., Miksch S., G \"a rtner J. : To score or not to score? tripling insights for participatory design. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2009.53 doi:10.1109/MCG.2009.53

    2009 doi

  18. [26]

    : Vega-lite: A grammar of interactive graphics

    Satyanarayan A., Moritz D., Wongsuphasawat K., Heer J. : Vega-lite: A grammar of interactive graphics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2016). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2599030 doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2599030

    2016

  19. [27]

    : DataTales : Investigating the use of large language models for authoring data-driven articles

    Sultanum N., Srinivasan A. : DataTales : Investigating the use of large language models for authoring data-driven articles. In IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (2023), IEEE. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/VIS54172.2023.00055 doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/VIS54172...

    2023

  20. [28]

    : AutoClips : An automatic approach to video generation from data facts

    Shi D., Sun F., Xu X., Lan X., Gotz D., Cao N. : AutoClips : An automatic approach to video generation from data facts. In Computer Graphics Forum (2021), Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14324 doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14324

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    : Calliope: Automatic visual data story generation from a spreadsheet

    Shi D., Xu X., Sun F., Shi Y., Cao N. : Calliope: Automatic visual data story generation from a spreadsheet. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2020). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030403 doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030403

    2020

  22. [30]

    J., Boggust A., Satyanarayan A

    Tang B. J., Boggust A., Satyanarayan A. : Vistext: A benchmark for semantically rich chart captioning. In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.401 doi:https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl...

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    L., Ding R., Zhang D

    Tang B., Han S., Yiu M. L., Ding R., Zhang D. : Extracting top-k insights from multi-dimensional data. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data (2017), pp. 1509--1524

    2017

  24. [32]

    G., Soroush A., Elias P

    Tang L., Sun Z., Idnay B., Nestor J. G., Soroush A., Elias P. A., Xu Z., Ding Y., Durrett G., Rousseau J. F., et al. : Evaluating large language models on medical evidence summarization. npj Digital Medicine (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Y.-Y., Rossi R

    Wu G., Guo S., Hoffswell J., Chan G. Y.-Y., Rossi R. A., Koh E. : Socrates: Data story generation via adaptive machine-guided elicitation of user feedback. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.332736...

    2023

  26. [34]

    : Commentspace: structured support for collaborative visual analysis

    Willett W., Heer J., Hellerstein J., Agrawala M. : Commentspace: structured support for collaborative visual analysis. In ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979407 doi:10.1145/1978942.1979407

    2011

  27. [35]

    : DataShot : Automatic generation of fact sheets from tabular data

    Wang Y., Sun Z., Zhang H., Cui W., Xu K., Ma X., Zhang D. : DataShot : Automatic generation of fact sheets from tabular data. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 26, 1 (2019), 895--905. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934398 doi:https://...

    2019

  28. [36]

    : Insightlens: Discovering and exploring insights from conversational contexts in large-language-model-powered data analysis

    Weng L., Wang X., Lu J., Feng Y., Liu Y., Chen W. : Insightlens: Discovering and exploring insights from conversational contexts in large-language-model-powered data analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01644 (2024). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.01644 doi...

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Zhang T., Ladhak F., Durmus E., Liang P., McKeown K., Hashimoto T. B. : Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (01 2024). URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl\_a\_00632, http://arxiv.org/abs/https:...

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    : Codas: Integrating business analytics and report authoring

    Zhang Z., Malik S., Guo S., Hoffswell J., Rossi R., Du F., Koh E. : Codas: Integrating business analytics and report authoring. EuroVA, J. Bernard and M. Angelini, Eds (2022). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2312/eurova.20221082 doi:https://doi.org/10.2312/eurova.20221082

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    : Understanding business analysts' needs for data report authoring

    Zhang Z., Malik S., Guo S., Hoffswell J., Rossi R., Du F., Koh E. : Understanding business analysts' needs for data report authoring. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2312/eurova.20221076 doi:https://doi.org/10.2312/eurova.20221076

    doi

  32. [40]

    Y., Ma X

    Zheng C., Wang D., Wang A. Y., Ma X. : Telling stories from computational notebooks: Ai-assisted presentation slides creation for presenting data science work. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2022), pp. 1--20

    2022

  33. [41]

    : Chartstory: Automated partitioning, layout, and captioning of charts into comic-style narratives

    Zhao J., Xu S., Chandrasegaran S., Bryan C., Du F., Mishra A., Qian X., Li Y., Ma K.-L. : Chartstory: Automated partitioning, layout, and captioning of charts into comic-style narratives. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 29, 2 (2021), 1384--1399

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.