arXiv subjects

Yea-Seul Kim

Publications and source records attributed to Yea-Seul Kim.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Ludi${}_{\scriptscriptstyle 0.1}$: An Agentic System for Socially Intelligent Robots

Robot foundation models have substantially advanced perception and control, but natural human-robot collaboration requires more than executing isolated commands. A robot must recognize ambiguity, maintain context across turns, communicate its intentions, and revise ongoing behavior as the user's intent changes. We present $\scriptstyle\mathsf{Ludi}_{\scriptscriptstyle 0.1}$, an agentic system for socially intelligent robots that integrates interactive speech, multimodal reasoning, memory, navigation, and learned manipulation. Its decision-making core is a fine-tuned vision-language model trained on multi-turn interaction traces spanning ambiguous requests, clarifications, corrections, interruptions, mixed social and task dialogue, and multi-step tasks. A purpose-built harness manages the model-tool interaction loop, while specialized navigation and manipulation policies execute physical skills. Ludi${}_{\scriptscriptstyle 0.1}$ demonstrates a practical path toward fluid human-robot collaboration today while producing the multimodal interaction traces needed to develop a more deeply integrated foundation model for robots and people.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2024

Perceptions of the Fairness Impacts of Multiplicity in Machine Learning

Machine learning (ML) is increasingly used in high-stakes settings, yet multiplicity - the existence of multiple good models - means that some predictions are essentially arbitrary. ML researchers and philosophers posit that multiplicity poses a fairness risk, but no studies have investigated whether stakeholders agree. In this work, we conduct a survey to see how multiplicity impacts lay stakeholders' - i.e., decision subjects' - perceptions of ML fairness, and which approaches to address multiplicity they prefer. We investigate how these perceptions are modulated by task characteristics (e.g., stakes and uncertainty). Survey respondents think that multiplicity threatens the fairness of model outcomes, but not the appropriateness of using the model, even though existing work suggests the opposite. Participants are strongly against resolving multiplicity by using a single model (effectively ignoring multiplicity) or by randomizing the outcomes. Our results indicate that model developers should be intentional about dealing with multiplicity in order to maintain fairness.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Erie: A Declarative Grammar for Data Sonification

Data sonification-mapping data variables to auditory variables, such as pitch or volume-is used for data accessibility, scientific exploration, and data-driven art (e.g., museum exhibitions) among others. While a substantial amount of research has been made on effective and intuitive sonification design, software support is not commensurate, limiting researchers from fully exploring its capabilities. We contribute Erie, a declarative grammar for data sonification, that enables abstractly expressing auditory mappings. Erie supports specifying extensible tone designs (e.g., periodic wave, sampling, frequency/amplitude modulation synthesizers), various encoding channels, auditory legends, and composition options like sequencing and overlaying. Using standard Web Audio and Web Speech APIs, we provide an Erie compiler for web environments. We demonstrate the expressiveness and feasibility of Erie by replicating research prototypes presented by prior work and provide a sonification design gallery. We discuss future steps to extend Erie toward other audio computing environments and support interactive data sonification.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Understanding the Research-Practice Gap in Visualization Design Guidelines

Although empirical research often underpins practical visualization guidelines, it remains unclear how well these research-driven insights are reflected in the guidelines practitioners actually use. In this paper, we investigate the research-practice gap in visualization design guidelines through a mixed-methods approach. We collected 390 design guidelines from practitioner-facing sources and 235 empirical studies to quantitatively assess their alignment. To complement this analysis, we conducted surveys with 69 participants (33 practitioners, 36 researchers) and in-depth interviews with 20 experts to examine their experiences, perceptions, and challenges. Our findings reveal discrepancies: empirical evidence often contradicts or only partially supports widely used guidelines, and the two communities prioritize different attributes of design. Based on these insights, we derive a holistic guideline template (integrating Context, Approach, Problem, and Purpose) and discuss actionable strategies, such as a triadic knowledge model.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

How Do We Measure Trust in Visual Data Communication?

Trust is fundamental to effective visual data communication between the visualization designer and the reader. Although personal experience and preference influence readers' trust in visualizations, visualization designers can leverage design techniques to create visualizations that evoke a "calibrated trust," at which readers arrive after critically evaluating the information presented. To systematically understand what drives readers to engage in "calibrated trust," we must first equip ourselves with reliable and valid methods for measuring trust. Computer science and data visualization researchers have not yet reached a consensus on a trust definition or metric, which are essential to building a comprehensive trust model in human-data interaction. On the other hand, social scientists and behavioral economists have developed and perfected metrics that can measure generalized and interpersonal trust, which the visualization community can reference, modify, and adapt for our needs. In this paper, we gather existing methods for evaluating trust from other disciplines and discuss how we might use them to measure, define, and model trust in data visualization research. Specifically, we discuss quantitative surveys from social sciences, trust games from behavioral economics, measuring trust through measuring belief updating, and measuring trust through perceptual methods. We assess the potential issues with these methods and consider how we can systematically apply them to visualization research.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Seeing What You Believe or Believing What You See? Belief Biases Correlation Estimation

When an analyst or scientist has a belief about how the world works, their thinking can be biased in favor of that belief. Therefore, one bedrock principle of science is to minimize that bias by testing the predictions of one's belief against objective data. But interpreting visualized data is a complex perceptual and cognitive process. Through two crowdsourced experiments, we demonstrate that supposedly objective assessments of the strength of a correlational relationship can be influenced by how strongly a viewer believes in the existence of that relationship. Participants viewed scatterplots depicting a relationship between meaningful variable pairs (e.g., number of environmental regulations and air quality) and estimated their correlations. They also estimated the correlation of the same scatterplots labeled instead with generic 'X' and 'Y' axes. In a separate section, they also reported how strongly they believed there to be a correlation between the meaningful variable pairs. Participants estimated correlations more accurately when they viewed scatterplots labeled with generic axes compared to scatterplots labeled with meaningful variable pairs. Furthermore, when viewers believed that two variables should have a strong relationship, they overestimated correlations between those variables by an r-value of about 0.1. When they believed that the variables should be unrelated, they underestimated the correlations by an r-value of about 0.1. While data visualizations are typically thought to present objective truths to the viewer, these results suggest that existing personal beliefs can bias even objective statistical values people extract from data.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Thirty-Two Years of IEEE VIS: Authors, Fields of Study and Citations

The IEEE VIS Conference (VIS) recently rebranded itself as a unified conference and officially positioned itself within the discipline of Data Science. Driven by this movement, we investigated (1) who contributed to VIS, and (2) where VIS stands in the scientific world. We examined the authors and fields of study of 3,240 VIS publications in the past 32 years based on data collected from OpenAlex and IEEE Xplore, among other sources. We also examined the citation flows from referenced papers (i.e., those referenced in VIS) to VIS, and from VIS to citing papers (i.e., those citing VIS). We found that VIS has been becoming increasingly popular and collaborative. The number of publications, of unique authors, and of participating countries have been steadily growing. Both cross-country collaborations, and collaborations between educational and non-educational affiliations, namely "cross-type collaborations", are increasing. The dominance of the US is decreasing, and authors from China are now an important part of VIS. In terms of author affiliation types, VIS is increasingly dominated by authors from universities. We found that the topics, inspirations, and influences of VIS research is limited such that (1) VIS, and their referenced and citing papers largely fall into the Computer Science domain, and (2) citations flow mostly between the same set of subfields within Computer Science. Our citation analyses showed that award-winning VIS papers had higher citations. Interactive visualizations, replication data, source code and supplementary material are available at https://32vis.hongtaoh.com and https://osf.io/zkvjm.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2021

Communicating Visualizations without Visuals: Investigation of Visualization Alternative Text for People with Visual Impairments

Alternative text is critical in communicating graphics to people who are blind or have low vision. Especially for graphics that contain rich information, such as visualizations, poorly written or an absence of alternative texts can worsen the information access inequality for people with visual impairments. In this work, we consolidate existing guidelines and survey current practices to inspect to what extent current practices and recommendations are aligned. Then, to gain more insight into what people want in visualization alternative texts, we interviewed 22 people with visual impairments regarding their experience with visualizations and their information needs in alternative texts. The study findings suggest that participants actively try to construct an image of visualizations in their head while listening to alternative texts and wish to carry out visualization tasks (e.g., retrieve specific values) as sighted viewers would. The study also provides ample support for the need to reference the underlying data instead of visual elements to reduce users' cognitive burden. Informed by the study, we provide a set of recommendations to compose an informative alternative text.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2020

Bayesian-Assisted Inference from Visualized Data

A Bayesian view of data interpretation suggests that a visualization user should update their existing beliefs about a parameter's value in accordance with the amount of information about the parameter value captured by the new observations. Extending recent work applying Bayesian models to understand and evaluate belief updating from visualizations, we show how the predictions of Bayesian inference can be used to guide more rational belief updating. We design a Bayesian inference-assisted uncertainty analogy that numerically relates uncertainty in observed data to the user's subjective uncertainty, and a posterior visualization that prescribes how a user should update their beliefs given their prior beliefs and the observed data. In a pre-registered experiment on 4,800 people, we find that when a newly observed data sample is relatively small (N=158), both techniques reliably improve people's Bayesian updating on average compared to the current best practice of visualizing uncertainty in the observed data. For large data samples (N=5208), where people's updated beliefs tend to deviate more strongly from the prescriptions of a Bayesian model, we find evidence that the effectiveness of the two forms of Bayesian assistance may depend on people's proclivity toward trusting the source of the data. We discuss how our results provide insight into individual processes of belief updating and subjective uncertainty, and how understanding these aspects of interpretation paves the way for more sophisticated interactive visualizations for analysis and communication.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2019

A Bayesian Cognition Approach to Improve Data Visualization

People naturally bring their prior beliefs to bear on how they interpret the new information, yet few formal models exist for accounting for the influence of users' prior beliefs in interactions with data presentations like visualizations. We demonstrate a Bayesian cognitive model for understanding how people interpret visualizations in light of prior beliefs and show how this model provides a guide for improving visualization evaluation. In a first study, we show how applying a Bayesian cognition model to a simple visualization scenario indicates that people's judgments are consistent with a hypothesis that they are doing approximate Bayesian inference. In a second study, we evaluate how sensitive our observations of Bayesian behavior are to different techniques for eliciting people subjective distributions, and to different datasets. We find that people don't behave consistently with Bayesian predictions for large sample size datasets, and this difference cannot be explained by elicitation technique. In a final study, we show how normative Bayesian inference can be used as an evaluation framework for visualizations, including of uncertainty.

cs.HC↗