Sehi L'Yi

Astrid van den Brandt, Kiroong Choe, Sehi L'Yi et al.

Diverse genomics data, scientific questions, and analysis tasks typically demand highly specialized visualizations. Therefore, users often must customize or author new ones tailored to their data. Existing tools are usually either limited in customization or require substantial learning or programming, and even expressive tools assume visualization expertise many users lack. Agentic and large language model (LLM) approaches are increasingly applied to complex scientific tasks, including visualization. Natural-language conversational interfaces offer a promising path to democratizing the authoring of complex visualizations. In the context of genomics, these approaches face additional challenges: genomics visualizations typically integrate heterogeneous data types and are composed of multiple linked interactive views. These challenges motivate more structured LLM-based schemes. We first characterize where vanilla LLM generation succeeds and fails for genomics visualization, identifying eight quality dimensions. We then compare six schemes--direct generation, a fixed pipeline, and four agentic configurations varying in the number of specialist agents and the presence of a reviewer--across 159 cases spanning three levels of query ambiguity and specification complexity. All schemes use the Gosling visualization grammar as structured output. Agentic iteration substantially improves perceived quality over both baselines, while more complex agent architectures yield no additional benefit. We discuss implications for designing agentic systems for domain-specific visualization authoring. All supplemental materials are available at https://osf.io/uqe83.

Skylar Sargent Walters, Arthea Valderrama, Thomas C. Smits et al.

Data visualization is a fundamental tool in genomics research, enabling the exploration, interpretation, and communication of complex genomic features. While machine learning models show promise for transforming data into insightful visualizations, current models lack the training foundation for domain-specific tasks. In an effort to provide a foundational resource for genomics-focused model training, we present a framework for generating a dataset that pairs abstract, low-level questions about genomics data with corresponding visualizations. Building on prior work with statistical plots, our approach adapts to the complexity of genomics data and the specialized representations used to depict them. We further incorporate multiple linked queries and visualizations, along with justifications for design choices, figure captions, and image alt-texts for each item in the dataset. We use genomics data retrieved from three distinct genomics data repositories (4DN, ENCODE, Chromoscope) to produce GQVis: a dataset consisting of 1.14 million single-query data points, 628k query pairs, and 589k query chains. The GQVis dataset and generation code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/HIDIVE/GQVis and https://github.com/hms-dbmi/GQVis-Generation.

Sehi L'Yi, Jaemin Jo, Jinwook Seo

We present a systematic review on three comparative layouts (i.e., juxtaposition, superposition, and explicit-encoding) which are information visualization (InfoVis) layouts designed to support comparison tasks. For the last decade, these layouts have served as fundamental idioms in designing many visualization systems. However, we found that the layouts have been used with inconsistent terms and confusion, and the lessons from previous studies are fragmented. The goal of our research is to distill the results from previous studies into a consistent and reusable framework. We review 127 research papers, including 15 papers with quantitative user studies, which employed comparative layouts. We first alleviate the ambiguous boundaries in the design space of comparative layouts by suggesting lucid terminology (e.g., chart-wise and item-wise juxtaposition). We then identify the diverse aspects of comparative layouts, such as the advantages and concerns of using each layout in the real-world scenarios and researchers' approaches to overcome the concerns. Building our knowledge on top of the initial insights gained from the Gleicher et al.'s survey, we elaborate on relevant empirical evidence that we distilled from our survey (e.g., the actual effectiveness of the layouts in different study settings) and identify novel facets that the original work did not cover (e.g., the familiarity of the layouts to people). Finally, we show the consistent and contradictory results on the performance of comparative layouts and offer practical implications for using the layouts by suggesting trade-offs and seven actionable guidelines.