Trust Your Gut: Comparing Human and Machine Inference from Noisy Visualizations
Ratanond Koonchanok, Michael E. Papka, Khairi Reda

TL;DR
This study compares human and machine inference from noisy visualizations, revealing that humans often outperform Bayesian models in extreme cases due to reliance on internal heuristics, despite overconfidence and higher variance.
Contribution
It demonstrates that human intuition can surpass ideal Bayesian inference in noisy visualization scenarios, highlighting the value of heuristics in visual analytics.
Findings
Humans outperform Bayesian agents on extreme samples.
Participants rely on internal models to filter noise.
Humans show overconfidence and higher variance.
Abstract
People commonly utilize visualizations not only to examine a given dataset, but also to draw generalizable conclusions about the underlying models or phenomena. Prior research has compared human visual inference to that of an optimal Bayesian agent, with deviations from rational analysis viewed as problematic. However, human reliance on non-normative heuristics may prove advantageous in certain circumstances. We investigate scenarios where human intuition might surpass idealized statistical rationality. In two experiments, we examine individuals' accuracy in characterizing the parameters of known data-generating models from bivariate visualizations. Our findings indicate that, although participants generally exhibited lower accuracy compared to statistical models, they frequently outperformed Bayesian agents, particularly when faced with extreme samples. Participants appeared to rely on…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
MethodsVisual Analytics
