Beware of Validation by Eye: Visual Validation of Linear Trends in Scatterplots

Visual validation of regression models in scatterplots is a common practice for assessing model quality, yet its efficacy remains unquantified. We conducted two empirical experiments to investigate individuals' ability to visually validate linear regression models (linear trends) and to examine the impact of common visualization designs on validation quality. The first experiment showed that the level of accuracy for visual estimation of slope (i.e., fitting a line to data) is higher than for visual validation of slope (i.e., accepting a shown line). Notably, we found bias toward slopes that are "too steep" in both cases. This lead to novel insights that participants naturally assessed regression with orthogonal distances between the points and the line (i.e., ODR regression) rather than the common vertical distances (OLS regression). In the second experiment, we investigated whether incorporating common designs for regression visualization (error lines, bounding boxes, and confidence intervals) would improve visual validation. Even though error lines reduced validation bias, results failed to show the desired improvements in accuracy for any design. Overall, our findings suggest caution in using visual model validation for linear trends in scatterplots.

Reclaiming the Horizon: Novel Visualization Designs for Time-Series Data with Large Value Ranges

We introduce two novel visualization designs to support practitioners in performing identification and discrimination tasks on large value ranges (i.e., several orders of magnitude) in time-series data: (1) The order of magnitude horizon graph, which extends the classic horizon graph; and (2) the order of magnitude line chart, which adapts the log-line chart. These new visualization designs visualize large value ranges by explicitly splitting the mantissa m and exponent e of a value v = m * 10e . We evaluate our novel designs against the most relevant state-of-the-art visualizations in an empirical user study. It focuses on four main tasks commonly employed in the analysis of time-series and large value ranges visualization: identification, discrimination, estimation, and trend detection. For each task we analyse error, confidence, and response time. The new order of magnitude horizon graph performs better or equal to all other designs in identification, discrimination, and estimation tasks. Only for trend detection tasks, the more traditional horizon graphs reported better performance. Our results are domain-independent, only requiring time-series data with large value ranges.

Visual Validation versus Visual Estimation: A Study on the Average Value in Scatterplots

We investigate the ability of individuals to visually validate statistical models in terms of their fit to the data. While visual model estimation has been studied extensively, visual model validation remains under-investigated. It is unknown how well people are able to visually validate models, and how their performance compares to visual and computational estimation. As a starting point, we conducted a study across two populations (crowdsourced and volunteers). Participants had to both visually estimate (i.e, draw) and visually validate (i.e., accept or reject) the frequently studied model of averages. Across both populations, the level of accuracy of the models that were considered valid was lower than the accuracy of the estimated models. We find that participants' validation and estimation were unbiased. Moreover, their natural critical point between accepting and rejecting a given mean value is close to the boundary of its 95% confidence interval, indicating that the visually perceived confidence interval corresponds to a common statistical standard. Our work contributes to the understanding of visual model validation and opens new research opportunities.