Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 56 references

A Design Space for Quantum Circuit Visualizations

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes a design space for quantum circuit visualizations, organizing the diverse encoding choices found across 194 existing examples into five levels: view, component, management, narrative, and interaction.

desk verdict A genuinely new, well-organized design space for quantum circuit visualizations; the categories are credible and useful, though single-coder open coding leaves completeness unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24042 v1 pith:65W5GUFH submitted 2026-07-27 cs.HC

Hyeok Kim , Leilani Battle This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords quantumcircuitvisualizationdesignspacecomputinggrammaropencodinginteractionnarrativespatiotemporal
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

Quantum circuits — the programs run on gate-based quantum computers — are drawn in many different ways, from traditional circuit diagrams to on-chip heatmaps to animated layouts, and each quantum computing platform tends to produce its own idiosyncratic rendering. This paper attempts to bring order to that variety: by analyzing 182 static and 12 interactive circuit visualizations, the authors derive a design space that describes every observed visualization as a combination of choices at five levels (view, component, management, narrative, interaction). The payoff of a correct design space is a shared vocabulary and a foundation for a platform-agnostic visualization grammar, so that techniques developed for one toolkit can be reused across all of them. A sympathetic reader would see this as a necessary first step toward treating quantum circuit visualization as a first-class, cross-platform concern rather than an afterthought of hardware-specific tools.

What carries the argument

The central object is the design space itself: a five-level taxonomy — view, component, management, narrative, interaction — of the choices a creator faces when making a quantum circuit visualization. It is built from open-coding of 194 examples and includes cross-cutting dimensions such as layout (traditional vs. on-machine) and format (circuit vs. heatmap). The design space does not prescribe good designs; it organizes observed ones, with the aim of giving practitioners a vocabulary and a target for future grammar-based tools.

What would settle it

Survey a fresh set of 50 quantum circuit visualizations from sources outside the original corpus (for example, recent research papers from different venues and documentation from other hardware providers) and open-code them using the paper's taxonomy; if new codes emerge that do not fit any of the five levels, the design space is incomplete. A single clear counterexample — a mainstream quantum circuit visualization whose essential encoding choices cannot be expressed within the design space — would also refute the claim of a comprehensive characterization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the range of existing quantum circuit visualizations can be characterized by a structured design space, derived from open-coding a corpus of 182 static and 12 interactive examples collected from tutorials, documentation, research publications, and prior systems. The design space organizes design choices into five groups: view-level decisions (abstraction, composition, layout, format), component-level representations (qubits, gates, measurement, connectivity), management techniques (selection, encoding, data transformation, space management), narrative elements (titles, annotations, emphasis, attachments), and interactions (exploration and composition). The authors a

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 194 visualizations the authors collected are representative of the full range of quantum circuit visualizations — and that the two authors' open-coding, without inter-rater reliability checks, correctly captured the choices in them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the design space is accurate, quantum computing practitioners gain a shared vocabulary for describing and comparing circuit visualizations across tools and papers.
  • It provides a concrete foundation for building a platform-agnostic visualization grammar, so that encodings and interactions developed in one system can be specified and reused in another.
  • The taxonomy highlights underexplored areas — especially interactive and narrative features — that most current toolkits omit, signalling where future systems could add value.
  • The analysis connects quantum circuit visualization to established visualization principles (overview+detail, multi-view consistency, collaborative visualization), making research on other spatiotemporal domains transferable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This design space could be operationalized as a declarative specification language: a user would describe a quantum circuit visualization as a combination of the five choice levels, and a renderer would generate the view independently of the underlying quantum platform.
  • The five-level structure may generalize to other program-visualization domains with strict spatial and temporal constraints, such as classical circuit layout or dataflow debugging.
  • A concrete test of comprehensiveness would be to have independent coders apply the taxonomy to a fresh set of circuit visualizations and measure inter-rater reliability; the current analysis did not include such a check.
  • Because the corpus is static-heavy and interaction cases were drawn from a small set of tools, the interaction level is likely the least mature part of the design space and may need expansion as more interactive systems appear.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a design space for quantum circuit visualizations by curating and open-coding 182 static and 12 interactive cases drawn from vendor tutorials/documentation, conferences, research publications, and prior systems. The resulting design space is organized into view-, component-, management-, narrative-, and interaction-level choices, and the authors illustrate how the scheme captures representative examples, relate it to established visualization principles (overview+detail, view consistency, collaborative visualization), and propose future directions toward a platform-agnostic grammar. The paper explicitly frames the corpus as a curated snapshot and restricts scope to gate-based quantum computing.

Significance. If the taxonomy is stable, this would be one of the first systematic, cross-tool design spaces for quantum circuit visualization, with clear utility for future grammar-based systems and for communication between visualization and quantum-computing communities. The paper is transparent about its scope, provides a public design gallery, and the taxonomy is grounded in an external corpus rather than derived from a fitted model, so the circularity concern raised in the stress-test note does not materially apply. The primary risk is methodological: the design space is the central contribution, and its reliability rests on a single-coder open-coding procedure with a self-defined saturation criterion.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2] Coding reliability is load-bearing for the central claim, but the manuscript reports only the authors' three internal review rounds. No inter-rater reliability statistic, independent second coder, or audit of the final codebook is provided. Several categories are interpretive judgments—e.g., 'Abstraction' (programming/presentation/illustration) in §4.2, bit-line 'Dynamicity' in §4.3, and 'Progression' in §4.2—so a second coder applying the same codebook could plausibly draw different boundaries. Since the design space is the paper's contribution, the absence of any reliability evidence leaves the taxonomy potentially reflecting one analyst's lens. The paper should either report an independent coding pass (even on a subset) with agreement measures, or be revised to present the result as an author-curated design vocabulary rather than a validated design space.
  2. [§3.1] The saturation criterion as stated is internally circular and therefore does not establish completeness. The authors stopped collecting cases 'as we reached a point where we were not adding any new open-coding tags,' but the same people who generated the tags also judged when no new tags appeared. Combined with the acknowledged convenience sampling (vendor tutorials, specific conferences, and Nature journals after January 2025), this stopping rule conflates coder convergence with theoretical saturation. The §7 limitation ('a snapshot based on the corpus curated by us') is welcome, but the abstract and RQ1/RQ2 frame the contribution as 'a design space' without that qualifier. A concrete remedy would be to validate saturation with a held-out set coded blind, or to explicitly downgrade the claim to 'a design vocabulary derived from a convenience sample' throughout the title/abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1 contributions] The third bullet says the design space encompasses 'four aspects (view, information, narrative, and interaction),' but Figure 6 and Section 4 describe five levels: view, component, management, narrative, and interaction. Please align the wording.
  2. [§7] Typo: 'proivde' should be 'provide.'
  3. [§4.4] Typo: 'techinques' should be 'techniques.'
  4. [Figure 2] The labels contain the literal text 'uni27E9' instead of rendered angle brackets (⟩). This is likely a rendering/encoding artifact and should be fixed in the camera-ready version.
  5. [§3.2] The statement that the full codebook is in the Supplementary Material is helpful, but the main text would benefit from a short example of the code consolidation process (e.g., the 'Format' key split described) to make the methodology more self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the design space is an inductively derived taxonomy from an external corpus, not a prediction fitted to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central artifact is a design space of quantum circuit visualizations, produced by open-coding 182 static and 12 interactive cases collected from tutorials, documentation, publications, presentations, and prior systems (Section 3.1). This is an inductive, qualitative taxonomy rather than a derived prediction: no equation is fitted, no parameter is later 'predicted' from the data that generated it, and no formal uniqueness claim is imported. The categories (view, component, management, narrative, interaction) are consolidated from over 400 open codes and are illustrated with corpus examples (Figures 6-13), so the design space is by construction a summary of the external corpus, not a restatement of any single input. The main self-referential element is the first author's prior Patoka system [22], which is one of 12 interactive cases and is used in Section 5.3 and Figure 1-F as an illustrative example; removing it would not collapse any category. The structure is also informed by earlier surveys including the first author's responsive-visualization paper [23], but that borrowing is acknowledged in Section 3.2 and does not determine the empirical content. The paper itself flags scope limitations in Section 7: the design strategies are 'a snapshot based on the corpus curated by us' and are not claimed to be comprehensive or 'good' designs. Single-coder open-coding and self-defined saturation are validity and robustness concerns, not circularity: they do not make the resulting taxonomy equivalent to any input premise. No load-bearing reduction to the paper's own outputs exists, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's design space rests on qualitative judgments about corpus representativeness and category structure rather than on mathematical derivations or fitted models. The main load-bearing inputs are the corpus composition and the authors' coding decisions.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The collected 182 static + 12 interactive cases are sufficiently representative of quantum circuit visualizations to reach theoretical saturation.
    Section 3.1 states sampling stopped at theoretical saturation; if the corpus is biased or incomplete, the design space may miss important design choices.
  • domain assumption Open-coding and three review rounds yield reliable, consistent categories; no inter-rater reliability was measured.
    Section 3.2 describes iterative coding but no quantitative reliability check; the taxonomy depends on the authors' subjective judgments.
  • domain assumption Quantum circuit visualizations can be treated as spatiotemporal data, with qubit locations as space and operation order as time.
    Section 2.3 frames quantum circuits as spatiotemporal data; this analogy underpins the layout categories (traditional, on-machine, hybrid).
  • ad hoc to paper A grammar-based approach is the right future direction for quantum circuit visualization systems.
    Section 6.2 assumes a grammar-based approach ('we assume a grammar-based approach'); this is a design choice, not empirically established.
  • ad hoc to paper The five-level structure (view, component, management, narrative, interaction) is a faithful organizational scheme for the design space.
    The paper derives this structure from prior surveys but the exact partition into five levels is a judgment call.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Design Space for Quantum Circuit Visualizations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/65W5GUFH

@misc{pith2026260724042,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Design Space for Quantum Circuit Visualizations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/65W5GUFH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24042}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum circuit visualizations play an essential role in supporting sense-making and communication of quantum programs. While several tools exist for rendering quantum circuits, they vary widely in encoding options due to idiosyncrasies among machine and platform providers. We observe an opportunity to coalesce these disparate rendering approaches under a single, unified grammar to enable consistent, cross-platform enhancement of quantum circuit visualizations. However, it is unclear how to design such a grammar to best support the quantum computing community. Towards this end, we contribute a design space of quantum circuit visualizations by analyzing 182 static and 12 interactive cases collected from online tutorials and documentations, research publications, public presentations, and prior systems. Based on our analysis, we discuss how our design space relates to existing visualization principles yet exhibits unique aspects. We conclude with opportunities for future systems regarding data structure, cognition, and integrability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24042 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example quantum circuit visualizations (# indicates the identifier in our corpus). (A & B) Traditional visualizations with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (A) The structure of a Bloch sphere. (B) Common states ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparing quantum circuit visualizations to classical circuit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparing quantum circuit diagrams to spatiotemporal map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The distribution of our 182 static visualization sample in terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We characterize our design space in terms of view (A), component (B), management (C), narrative (D), and interaction (E). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Given an initial design with a traditional layout and a circuit format (1), a user can make alternative view-level choices (on-machine layout) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Composition and progression (view-level) examples. (1) A grid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dynamicity in bit lines (component-level): (1) Movement of bit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Narrative-level examples. (1) Concatenated views with their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Interaction choice examples. (1) Cross-highlighting for explo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. Amar, J. Eagan, and J. Stasko. Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization. InIEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, InfoVis ’05, pp. 111–117. IEEE Computer Society, 2005. doi: 10.1109/INFVIS.2005.1532136 9

    arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Andrienko, G

    N. Andrienko, G. Andrienko, and P. Gatalsky. Exploratory spatio-temporal visualization: an analytical review.Journal of Visual Languages & Com- puting, 14(6):503–541, 2003. doi: 10.1016/S1045-926X(03)00046-6 3

    work page doi:10.1016/s1045-926x(03)00046-6 2003

  3. [3]

    Ashktorab, J

    Z. Ashktorab, J. D. Weisz, and M. Ashoori. Thinking too classically: Research topics in human-quantum computer interaction. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 9 CHI ’19, pp. 1–12. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2019. doi: 10.1145/3290605.3300486 1, 9

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    B. Bach, E. Freeman, A. Abdul-Rahman, C. Turkay, S. Khan, Y . Fan et al. Dashboard design patterns.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):342–352, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022. 3209448 4, 8

    doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022 2023

  5. [5]

    E. W. Bethel, M. G. Amankwah, J. Balewski, R. Van Beeumen, D. Camps, D. Huang et al. Quantum computing and visualization: A disruptive technological change ahead.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 43(6):101–111, 2023. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2023.3316932 1

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Bova and R

    F. Bova and R. G. Melko. An open-source initiative would benefit quantum computing.Nature Reviews Physics, 7(8):406–407, Aug 2025. doi: 10. 1038/s42254-025-00854-0 3

    2025

  7. [7]

    Brehmer and T

    M. Brehmer and T. Munzner. A multi-level typology of abstract visualiza- tion tasks.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 19(12):2376–2385, 2013. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2013.124 9

    doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.124 2013

  8. [8]

    Corritore and S

    C. Corritore and S. Wiedenbeck. Mental representations of expert proce- dural and object-oriented programmers in a software maintenance task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50(1):61–83, 1999. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.1998.0236 9

    arXiv 1999

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    A. W. Cross, L. S. Bishop, J. A. Smolin, and J. M. Gambetta. Open Quantum Assembly Language, 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707. 03429. 9

    2017

  2. [10]

    Ellis and A

    G. Ellis and A. Dix. A taxonomy of clutter reduction for information visualisation.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13(6):1216–1223, 2007. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2007.70535 8

    2007

  3. [11]

    Gelernter and K

    J. Gelernter and K. M. Carley. Spatiotemporal network analysis and visualization. InGeospatial Research: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, pp. 373–395. IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 2016. 3

    2016

  4. [12]

    C. Gidney. Quirk, 2016.https://algassert.com/quirk. 2, 3, 4, 8

    2016

  5. [13]

    C. Gidney. Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator.Quantum, 5:497, July

  6. [14]

    Cirq, 2018.https://quantumai.google/cirq

    Google. Cirq, 2018.https://quantumai.google/cirq. 1, 2

    2018

  7. [15]

    Crumble, 2022

    Google Quantum AI. Crumble, 2022. https://github.com/ quantumlib/Stim/tree/main/glue/crumble. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

    2022

  8. [16]

    Hagberg, D

    A. Hagberg, D. Schult, and S. Pieter. NetowrkX, 2004. https: //networkx.org/. 9

    2004

  9. [17]

    J. Heer, F. B. Viégas, and M. Wattenberg. V oyagers and voyeurs: Supporting asynchronous collaborative visualization.Commun. ACM, 52(1):87–97, Jan. 2009. doi: 10.1145/1435417.1435439 9

    2009

  10. [18]

    IBM Quantum Composer, 2016

    IBM. IBM Quantum Composer, 2016. https://quantum.ibm.com/ composer/. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8

    2016

  11. [19]

    Qiskit, 2017.https://www.ibm.com/quantum/qiskit

    IBM. Qiskit, 2017.https://www.ibm.com/quantum/qiskit. 1, 2

    2017

  12. [20]

    Isenberg, N

    P. Isenberg, N. Elmqvist, J. Scholtz, D. Cernea, K.-L. Ma, and H. Ha- gen. Collaborative visualization: Definition, challenges, and research agenda.Information Visualization, 10(4):310–326, 2011. doi: 10.1177/ 1473871611412817 2, 9

    2011

  13. [21]

    Javed and N

    W. Javed and N. Elmqvist. Exploring the design space of composite visualization. In2012 IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium, pp. 1–8,

  14. [22]

    H. Kim, M. J. Jeng, and K. N. Smith. Toward human-quantum computer interaction: Interface techniques for usable quantum computing. InPro- ceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’25. ACM, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3713370 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

    2025

  15. [23]

    H. Kim, D. Mortiz, and J. Hullman. Design patterns and trade-offs in au- thoring communication-oriented responsive visualization.Comput. Graph- ics Forum (Proc. EuroVis), 40(3):459–470, 2021. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14321 4

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Kjellin, L

    A. Kjellin, L. W. Pettersson, S. Seipel, and M. Lind. Evaluating 2d and 3d visualizations of spatiotemporal information.ACM Trans. Appl. Percept., 7(3), art. no. 19, 2008. doi: 10.1145/1773965.1773970 3, 8

    2008

  17. [25]

    J.-B. Lamy. Dynamic software visualization of quantum algorithms with rainbow boxes. InProceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Appli- cations. Prague, Czech Republic, 2019. doi: 10.5220/0007247801550163 2, 4

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    S. Lin, J. Hao, and L. Sun. QuFlow: Visualizing parameter flow in quantum circuits for understanding quantum computation. In2018 IEEE Scientific Visualization Conference (SciVis), pp. 37–41, 2018. doi: 10. 1109/SciVis.2018.8823602 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8

    2018

  19. [27]

    L. Y .-H. Lo, A. Gupta, K. Shigyo, A. Wu, E. Bertini, and H. Qu. Misin- formed by visualization: What do we learn from misinformative visualiza- tions?Computer Graphics Forum, 41(3):515–525, 2022. doi: 10.1111/cgf .14559 8

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    S. LYi, Q. Wang, F. Lekschas, and N. Gehlenborg. Gosling: A grammar- based toolkit for scalable and interactive genomics data visualization.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):140–150,

  21. [29]

    McGuffin and J.-M

    M. McGuffin and J.-M. Robert. Visualizing quantum circuits: State vector difference highlighting and the half-matrix.ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing, 2026. doi: 10.1145/3786463 2, 4

    2026 doi

  22. [30]

    R. Mota, N. Ferreira, J. D. Silva, M. Horga, M. Lage, L. Ceferino et al. A comparison of spatiotemporal visualizations for 3d urban analytics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):1277–1287,

  23. [31]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2010. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511976667 2

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    J. F. Norman, J. T. Todd, V . J. Perotti, and J. S. Tittle. The visual perception of three-dimensional length.J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 22(1):173–186, 1996. 3, 8

    1996

  25. [33]

    Nusrat, T

    S. Nusrat, T. Harbig, and N. Gehlenborg. Tasks, techniques, and tools for genomic data visualization.Computer Graphics Forum, 38(3):781–805,

  26. [34]

    Pandey, S

    A. Pandey, S. L’Yi, Q. Wang, M. A. Borkin, and N. Gehlenborg. GenoREC: A recommendation system for interactive genomics data visualization. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., 29(1):570–580, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ TVCG.2022.3209407 8

    2023

  27. [35]

    Qu and J

    Z. Qu and J. Hullman. Keeping multiple views consistent: Constraints, validations, and exceptions in visualization authoring.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):468–477, 2018. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2017.2744198 2, 8

    2018

  28. [36]

    S. Ruan, Q. Guan, P. Griffin, Y . Mao, and Y . Wang. QuantumEyes: Towards better interpretability of quantum circuits.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(9):6321–6333, 2024. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2023.3332999 2, 4, 7

    2024

  29. [37]

    S. Ruan, Z. Liang, Q. Guan, P. Griffin, X. Wen, Y . Lin et al. VIOLET: Visual analytics for explainable quantum neural networks.IEEE Transac- tions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(6):2862–2874, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3388557 1, 2, 4, 7

    2024

  30. [38]

    Satyanarayan, R

    A. Satyanarayan, R. Russell, J. Hoffswell, and J. Heer. Reactive Vega: A streaming dataflow architecture for declarative interactive visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1):659– 668, 2016. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467091 9

    2016

  31. [39]

    Schöttler, Y

    S. Schöttler, Y . Yang, H. Pfister, and B. Bach. Visualizing and interacting with geospatial networks: A survey and design space.Computer Graphics Forum, 40(6):5–33, 2021. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14198 4

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Segel and J

    E. Segel and J. Heer. Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6):1139– 1148, 2010. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2010.179 4

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Setlur, M

    V . Setlur, M. Correll, and S. Battersby. Oscar: A semantic-based data binning approach. In2022 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS), pp. 100–104, 2022. doi: 10.1109/VIS54862.2022.00029 9

    2022

  34. [42]

    Shneiderman

    B. Shneiderman. The eyes have it: A task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. InThe Craft of Information Visualization, Interactive Technologies, pp. 364–371. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco,

  35. [43]

    Srinivasan, J

    A. Srinivasan, J. Purich, M. Correll, L. Battle, V . Setlur, and A. Crisan. From dashboard zoo to census: A case study with Tableau public.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(9):6085–6099,

  36. [44]

    J. S. Tittle, J. T. Todd, V . J. Perotti, and J. F. Norman. Systematic distor- tion of perceived three-dimensional structure from motion and binocular stereopsis.J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 21(3):663–678, 1995. 3, 8

    1995

  37. [45]

    J. T. Todd. The visual perception of 3d shape.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3):115–121, 2026/03/18 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.006 3, 8

    2026 doi

  38. [46]

    F. B. Viegas, M. Wattenberg, F. van Ham, J. Kriss, and M. McKeon. ManyEyes: a site for visualization at internet scale.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13(6):1121–1128, 2007. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2007.70577 9

    2007

  39. [47]

    Z. Wen, Y . Liu, S. Tan, J. Chen, M. Zhu, D. Han et al. Quantivine: A visualization approach for large-scale quantum circuit representation and analysis.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(1):573–583, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3327148 1, 2, 3, 4, 7,...

    2024

  40. [48]

    H. Wickham. A layered grammar of graphics.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 19(1):3–28, 2010. doi: 10.1198/jcgs.2009.07098 9

    2010 arXiv

  41. [49]

    PennyLane, 2021.https://pennylane.ai/

    Xanadu. PennyLane, 2021.https://pennylane.ai/. 2

    2021

  42. [50]

    L. Yang, Z. Ma, L. Zhu, and L. Liu. Research on the visualization of spatio-temporal data.IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 234(1), 2019. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/234/1/012013 3 11

    2019 doi

  43. [2003]

    doi: 10.1016/B978-155860915-0/50046-9 2, 8

    doi

  44. [2012]

    doi: 10.1109/PacificVis.2012.6183556 4

    2012

  45. [2019]

    doi: 10.1111/cgf.13727 4, 8

    doi

  46. [2021]

    doi: 10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497 3

    2021 doi

  47. [2022]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114876 8

    2021

  48. [2025]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3490259 4

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.