Yongsu Ahn

Data visualization creators often lack formal training, resulting in a knowledge gap in design practice. Large-language models such as ChatGPT , with their vast internet-scale training data, offer transformative potential to address this gap. In this study, we used both qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate how well ChatGPT can address visualization design questions. First, we quantitatively compared the ChatGPT -generated responses with anonymous online Human replies to data visualization questions on the VisGuides user forum. Next, we conducted a qualitative user study examining the reactions and attitudes of practitioners toward ChatGPT as a visualization design assistant. Participants were asked to bring their visualizations and design questions and received feedback from both Human experts and ChatGPT in randomized order. Our findings from both studies underscore ChatGPT’s strengths—particularly its ability to rapidly generate diverse design options—while also highlighting areas for improvement, such as nuanced contextual understanding and fluid interaction dynamics beyond the chat interface. Drawing on these insights, we discuss design considerations for future LLM-based design feedback systems.

Recommender systems have become integral to digital experiences, shaping user interactions and preferences across various platforms. Despite their widespread use, these systems often suffer from algorithmic biases that can lead to unfair and unsatisfactory user experiences. This study introduces an interactive tool designed to help users comprehend and explore the impacts of algorithmic harms in recommender systems. By leveraging visualizations, counterfactual explanations, and interactive modules, the tool allows users to investigate how biases such as miscalibration, stereotypes, and filter bubbles affect their recommendations. Informed by in-depth user interviews, this tool benefits both general users and researchers by increasing transparency and offering personalized impact assessments, ultimately fostering a better understanding of algorithmic biases and contributing to more equitable recommendation outcomes. This work provides valuable insights for future research and practical applications in mitigating bias and enhancing fairness in machine learning algorithms.

Despite the benefits of personalizing items and information tailored to users’ needs, it has been found that recommender systems tend to introduce biases that favor popular items or certain categories of items and dominant user groups. In this study, we aim to characterize the systematic errors of a recommendation system and how they manifest in various accountability issues, such as stereotypes, biases, and miscalibration. We propose a unified framework that distinguishes the sources of prediction errors into a set of key measures that quantify the various types of system-induced effects, at both the individual and collective levels. Based on our measuring framework, we examine the most widely adopted algorithms in the context of movie recommendation. Our research reveals three important findings: (1) Differences between algorithms: recommendations generated by simpler algorithms tend to be more stereotypical but less biased than those generated by more complex algorithms. (2) Disparate impact on groups and individuals: system-induced biases and stereotypes have a disproportionate effect on atypical users and minority groups (e.g., women and older users). (3) Mitigation opportunity: using structural equation modeling, we identify the interactions between user characteristics (typicality and diversity), system-induced effects, and miscalibration. We further investigate the possibility of mitigating system-induced effects by oversampling underrepresented groups and individuals, which was found to be effective in reducing stereotypes and improving recommendation quality. Our research is the first systematic examination of not only system-induced effects and miscalibration but also the stereotyping issue in recommender systems.

In schools, teachers play a multitude of roles, serving as educators, counselors, decision-makers, and members of the school community. With recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), there is increasing discussion about how AI can assist, complement, and collaborate with teachers. To pave the way for better teacher-AI complementary relationships in schools, our study aims to expand the discourse on teacher-AI complementarity by seeking educators' perspectives on the potential strengths and limitations of AI across a spectrum of responsibilities. Through a mixed method using a survey with 100 elementary school teachers in South Korea and in-depth interviews with 12 teachers, our findings indicate that teachers anticipate AI's potential to complement human teachers by automating administrative tasks and enhancing personalized learning through advanced intelligence. Interestingly, the deficit of AI's socio-emotional capabilities has been perceived as both challenges and opportunities. Overall, our study demonstrates the nuanced perception of teachers and different levels of expectations over their roles, challenging the need for decisions about AI adoption tailored to educators' preferences and concerns.

The escalating food insecurity in Africa, caused by factors such as war, climate change, and poverty, demonstrates the critical need for advanced early warning systems. Traditional methodologies, relying on expert-curated data encompassing climate, geography, and social disturbances, often fall short due to data limitations, hindering comprehensive analysis and potential discovery of new predictive factors. To address this, this paper introduces "HungerGist", a multi-task deep learning model utilizing news texts and NLP techniques. Using a corpus of over 53,000 news articles from nine African countries over four years, we demonstrate that our model, trained solely on news data, outperforms the baseline method trained on both traditional risk factors and human-curated keywords. In addition, our method has the ability to detect critical texts that contain interpretable signals known as "gists." Moreover, our examination of these gists indicates that this approach has the potential to reveal latent factors that would otherwise remain concealed in unstructured texts.

Big data and machine learning tools have jointly empowered humans in making data-driven decisions. However, many of them capture empirical associations that might be spurious due to confounding factors and subgroup heterogeneity. The famous Simpson's paradox is such a phenomenon where aggregated and subgroup-level associations contradict with each other, causing cognitive confusions and difficulty in making adequate interpretations and decisions. Existing tools provide little insights for humans to locate, reason about, and prevent pitfalls of spurious association in practice. We propose VISPUR, a visual analytic system that provides a causal analysis framework and a human-centric workflow for tackling spurious associations. These include a CONFOUNDER DASHBOARD, which can automatically identify possible confounding factors, and a SUBGROUP VIEWER, which allows for the visualization and comparison of diverse subgroup patterns that likely or potentially result in a misinterpretation of causality. Additionally, weproposea REASONING STORYBOARD, which uses a flow-based approach to illustrate paradoxical phenomena, as well as an interactive DECISION DIAGNOSIS panel that helps ensure accountable decision-making. Through an expert interview and a controlled user experiment, our qualitative and quantitative results demonstrate that the proposed “de-paradox” workflow and the designed visual analytic system are effective in helping human users to identify and understand spurious associations, as well as to make accountable causal decisions

Big data and machine learning tools have jointly empowered humans in making data-driven decisions. However, many of them capture empirical associations that might be spurious due to confounding factors and subgroup heterogeneity. The famous Simpson's paradox is such a phenomenon where aggregated and subgroup-level associations contradict with each other, causing cognitive confusions and difficulty in making adequate interpretations and decisions. Existing tools provide little insights for humans to locate, reason about, and prevent pitfalls of spurious association in practice. We propose VISPUR, a visual analytic system that provides a causal analysis framework and a human-centric workflow for tackling spurious associations. These include a CONFOUNDER DASHBOARD, which can automatically identify possible confounding factors, and a SUBGROUP VIEWER, which allows for the visualization and comparison of diverse subgroup patterns that likely or potentially result in a misinterpretation of causality. Additionally, we propose a REASONING STORYBOARD, which uses a flow-based approach to illustrate paradoxical phenomena, as well as an interactive DECISION DIAGNOSIS panel that helps ensure accountable decision-making. Through an expert interview and a controlled user experiment, our qualitative and quantitative results demonstrate that the proposed "de-paradox" workflow and the designed visual analytic system are effective in helping human users to identify and understand spurious associations, as well as to make accountable causal decisions.

Classification models learn to generalize the associations between data samples and their target classes. However, researchers have increasingly observed that machine learning practice easily leads to systematic errors in AI applications, a phenomenon referred to as “AI blindspots.” Such blindspots arise when a model is trained with training samples (e.g., cat/dog classification) where important patterns (e.g., black cats) are missing or periphery/undesirable patterns (e.g., dogs with grass background) are misleading towards a certain class. Even more sophisticated techniques cannot guarantee to capture, reason about, and prevent the spurious associations. In this work, we propose ESCAPE, a visual analytic system that promotes a human-in-the-loop workflow for countering systematic errors. By allowing human users to easily inspect spurious associations, the system facilitates users to spontaneously recognize concepts associated misclassifications and evaluate mitigation strategies that can reduce biased associations. We also propose two statistical approaches, relative concept association to better quantify the associations between a concept and instances, and debias method to mitigate spurious associations. We demonstrate the utility of our proposed ESCAPE system and statistical measures through extensive evaluation including quantitative experiments, usage scenarios, expert interviews, and controlled user experiments.