skip to main content
10.1145/3586183.3606737acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesuistConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Graphologue: Exploring Large Language Model Responses with Interactive Diagrams

Authors Info & Claims
Published:29 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Large language models (LLMs) have recently soared in popularity due to their ease of access and the unprecedented ability to synthesize text responses to diverse user questions. However, LLMs like ChatGPT present significant limitations in supporting complex information tasks due to the insufficient affordances of the text-based medium and linear conversational structure. Through a formative study with ten participants, we found that LLM interfaces often present long-winded responses, making it difficult for people to quickly comprehend and interact flexibly with various pieces of information, particularly during more complex tasks. We present Graphologue, an interactive system that converts text-based responses from LLMs into graphical diagrams to facilitate information-seeking and question-answering tasks. Graphologue employs novel prompting strategies and interface designs to extract entities and relationships from LLM responses and constructs node-link diagrams in real-time. Further, users can interact with the diagrams to flexibly adjust the graphical presentation and to submit context-specific prompts to obtain more information. Utilizing diagrams, Graphologue enables graphical, non-linear dialogues between humans and LLMs, facilitating information exploration, organization, and comprehension.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Maneesh Agrawala, Wilmot Li, and Floraine Berthouzoz. 2011. Design principles for visual communication. Commun. ACM 54, 4 (2011), 60–69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Shaaron Ainsworth. 2006. DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction 16, 3 (2006), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Shaaron Ainsworth and Andrea Th Loizou. 2003. The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive science 27, 4 (2003), 669–681.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Tareq Al-Moslmi, Marc Gallofré Ocaña, Andreas L. Opdahl, and Csaba Veres. 2020. Named Entity Extraction for Knowledge Graphs: A Literature Overview. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 32862–32881. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2973928Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Razvan Azamfirei, Sapna R Kudchadkar, and James Fackler. 2023. Large language models and the perils of their hallucinations. Critical Care 27, 1 (2023), 1–2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Sriram Karthik Badam, Zhicheng Liu, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2018. Elastic documents: Coupling text and tables through contextual visualizations for enhanced document reading. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 25, 1 (2018), 661–671.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. David Baidoo-Anu and Leticia Owusu Ansah. 2023. Education in the era of generative artificial intelligence (AI): Understanding the potential benefits of ChatGPT in promoting teaching and learning. Available at SSRN 4337484 (2023). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4337484Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Jeff Baker, Donald Jones, and Jim Burkman. 2009. Using visual representations of data to enhance sensemaking in data exploration tasks. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10, 7 (2009), 2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Benjamin B. Bederson and James D. Hollan. 1994. Pad++: A Zooming Graphical Interface for Exploring Alternate Interface Physics. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Marina del Rey, California, USA) (UIST ’94). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/192426.192435Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Richard A. Bolt. 1980. “Put-That-There”: Voice and Gesture at the Graphics Interface. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (Seattle, Washington, USA) (SIGGRAPH ’80). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1145/800250.807503Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Zalán Borsos, Raphaël Marinier, Damien Vincent, Eugene Kharitonov, Olivier Pietquin, Matt Sharifi, Olivier Teboul, David Grangier, Marco Tagliasacchi, and Neil Zeghidour. 2022. AudioLM: a Language Modeling Approach to Audio Generation. arxiv:2209.03143 [cs.SD]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis.American Psychological Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Peter Brusilovsky. 2001. Adaptive hypermedia. User modeling and user-adapted interaction 11 (2001), 87–110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, Harsha Nori, Hamid Palangi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Yi Zhang. 2023. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. arxiv:2303.12712 [cs.CL]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Alberto J. Cañas, Roger Carff, Greg Hill, Marco Carvalho, Marco Arguedas, Thomas C. Eskridge, James Lott, and Rodrigo Carvajal. 2005. Concept Maps: Integrating Knowledge and Information Visualization. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/11510154_11Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Stuart K. Card, Jock D. Mackinlay, and Ben Shneiderman (Eds.). 1999. Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Angel Chang, Will Monroe, Manolis Savva, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. Text to 3D Scene Generation with Rich Lexical Grounding. arxiv:1505.06289 [cs.CL]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Huiwen Chang, Han Zhang, Jarred Barber, AJ Maschinot, Jose Lezama, Lu Jiang, Ming-Hsuan Yang, Kevin Murphy, William T. Freeman, Michael Rubinstein, Yuanzhen Li, and Dilip Krishnan. 2023. Muse: Text-To-Image Generation via Masked Generative Transformers. arxiv:2301.00704 [cs.CV]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuo-En Chang, Yao-Ting Sung, and Ine-Dai Chen. 2002. The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education 71, 1 (2002), 5–23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Chaomei Chen. 2010. Information visualization. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 2, 4 (2010), 387–403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code. arxiv:2107.03374 [cs.LG]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Zhutian Chen and Haijun Xia. 2022. CrossData: Leveraging Text-Data Connections for Authoring Data Documents. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 95, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517485Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Peter C.-H. Cheng, Ric K. Lowe, and Mike Scaife. 2001. Cognitive Science Approaches To Understanding Diagrammatic Representations. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3524-7_5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Peggy Chi, Nathan Frey, Katrina Panovich, and Irfan Essa. 2021. Automatic Instructional Video Creation from a Markdown-Formatted Tutorial. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Virtual Event, USA) (UIST ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 677–690. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472749.3474778Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. John Joon Young Chung, Wooseok Kim, Kang Min Yoo, Hwaran Lee, Eytan Adar, and Minsuk Chang. 2022. TaleBrush: Visual Sketching of Story Generation with Pretrained Language Models. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI EA ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 172, 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519873Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Antoine Clarinval, Isabelle Linden, Anne Wallemacq, and Bruno Dumas. 2018. Evoq: A Visualization Tool to Support Structural Analysis of Text Documents. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Document Engineering 2018 (Halifax, NS, Canada) (DocEng ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 27, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209280.3209533Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. James M Clark and Allan Paivio. 1991. Dual coding theory and education. Educational psychology review 3 (1991), 149–210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Philip R. Cohen, Michael Johnston, David McGee, Sharon Oviatt, Jay Pittman, Ira Smith, Liang Chen, and Josh Clow. 1997. QuickSet: Multimodal Interaction for Distributed Applications. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Seattle, Washington, USA) (MULTIMEDIA ’97). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/266180.266328Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Weiwei Cui, Xiaoyu Zhang, Yun Wang, He Huang, Bei Chen, Lei Fang, Haidong Zhang, Jian-Guan Lou, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019. Text-to-viz: Automatic generation of infographics from proportion-related natural language statements. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 26, 1 (2019), 906–916.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Giulia Di Fede, Davide Rocchesso, Steven P. Dow, and Salvatore Andolina. 2022. The Idea Machine: LLM-Based Expansion, Rewriting, Combination, and Suggestion of Ideas. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Venice, Italy) (C&C ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 623–627. https://doi.org/10.1145/3527927.3535197Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Patrick Esser, Johnathan Chiu, Parmida Atighehchian, Jonathan Granskog, and Anastasis Germanidis. 2023. Structure and Content-Guided Video Synthesis with Diffusion Models. arxiv:2302.03011 [cs.CV]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Ethan Fast, Binbin Chen, Julia Mendelsohn, Jonathan Bassen, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2018. Iris: A Conversational Agent for Complex Tasks. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174047Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Hendijanifard Fatemeh, Kardan Ahmad, and Dibay Moghadam Mohammad. 2011. ICMAP: An interactive tool for concept map generation to facilitate learning process. Procedia Computer Science 3 (2011), 524–529.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Tong Gao, Mira Dontcheva, Eytan Adar, Zhicheng Liu, and Karrie G. Karahalios. 2015. DataTone: Managing Ambiguity in Natural Language Interfaces for Data Visualization. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology (Charlotte, NC, USA) (UIST ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 489–500. https://doi.org/10.1145/2807442.2807478Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Katy Ilonka Gero, Vivian Liu, and Lydia Chilton. 2022. Sparks: Inspiration for Science Writing Using Language Models. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual Event, Australia) (DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1002–1019. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533533Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Charles Goodwin. 2015. Professional Vision. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 387–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19381-6_20Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Stephen J Guastello, Mary Traut, and Gene Korienek. 1989. Verbal versus pictorial representations of objects in a human-computer interface. International journal of man-machine studies 31, 1 (1989), 99–120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Jungpil Hahn and Jinwoo Kim. 1999. Why Are Some Diagrams Easier to Work with? Effects of Diagrammatic Representation on the Cognitive Intergration Process of Systems Analysis and Design. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 6, 3 (sep 1999), 181–213. https://doi.org/10.1145/329693.329694Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Tessai Hayama and Shuma Sato. 2020. Supporting Online Video e-Learning with Semi-automatic Concept-Map Generation. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Designing, Developing and Deploying Learning Experiences. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 64–76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Devamardeep Hayatpur, Daniel Wigdor, and Haijun Xia. 2023. CrossCode: Multi-Level Visualization of Program Execution. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 593, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581390Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Marti Hearst and Melanie Tory. 2019. Would You Like A Chart With That? Incorporating Visualizations into Conversational Interfaces. In 2019 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS). IEEE, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/VISUAL.2019.8933766Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Fangzhou Hong, Mingyuan Zhang, Liang Pan, Zhongang Cai, Lei Yang, and Ziwei Liu. 2022. AvatarCLIP: Zero-Shot Text-Driven Generation and Animation of 3D Avatars. arxiv:2205.08535 [cs.CV]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Mengdie Hu, Krist Wongsuphasawat, and John Stasko. 2017. Visualizing Social Media Content with SentenTree. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (2017), 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598590Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Gwo-Jen Hwang, Po-Han Wu, and Hui-Ru Ke. 2011. An interactive concept map approach to supporting mobile learning activities for natural science courses. Computers & education 57, 4 (2011), 2272–2280.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Gwo-Jen Hwang, Li-Hsueh Yang, and Sheng-Yuan Wang. 2013. A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students’ learning performance in natural science courses. Computers & Education 69 (2013), 121–130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Yu-Cin Jian and Chao-Jung Wu. 2015. Using eye tracking to investigate semantic and spatial representations of scientific diagrams during text-diagram integration. Journal of Science Education and Technology 24 (2015), 43–55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Peiling Jiang, Fuling Sun, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Log-It: Supporting Programming with Interactive, Contextual, Structured, and Visual Logs. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 594, 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581403Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Dae Hyun Kim, Enamul Hoque, Juho Kim, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2018. Facilitating Document Reading by Linking Text and Tables. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Berlin, Germany) (UIST ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242587.3242617Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Yea-Seul Kim, Mira Dontcheva, Eytan Adar, and Jessica Hullman. 2019. Vocal Shortcuts for Creative Experts. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300562Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Tiffany H Kung, Morgan Cheatham, Arielle Medenilla, Czarina Sillos, Lorie De Leon, Camille Elepaño, Maria Madriaga, Rimel Aggabao, Giezel Diaz-Candido, James Maningo, 2023. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLoS digital health 2, 2 (2023), e0000198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul Bennett, and Marti A. Hearst. 2021. Keep it Simple: Unsupervised Simplification of Multi-Paragraph Text. arxiv:2107.03444 [cs.CL]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Jill H Larkin and Herbert A Simon. 1987. Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive science 11, 1 (1987), 65–100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Ching Liu, Juho Kim, and Hao-Chuan Wang. 2018. ConceptScape: Collaborative Concept Mapping for Video Learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173961Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Michael Xieyang Liu, Andrew Kuznetsov, Yongsung Kim, Joseph Chee Chang, Aniket Kittur, and Brad A. Myers. 2022. Wigglite: Low-Cost Information Collection and Triage. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Bend, OR, USA) (UIST ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 32, 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3526113.3545661Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Vivian Liu and Lydia B Chilton. 2022. Design Guidelines for Prompt Engineering Text-to-Image Generative Models. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 384, 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501825Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Stephen MacNeil, Andrew Tran, Juho Leinonen, Paul Denny, Joanne Kim, Arto Hellas, Seth Bernstein, and Sami Sarsa. 2023. Automatically Generating CS Learning Materials with Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2 (Toronto ON, Canada) (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1176. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545947.3569630Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. J.H. McClellan, L.D. Harvel, R. Velmurugan, M. Borkar, and C. Scheibe. 2004. CNT: concept-map based navigation and discovery in a repository of learning content. In 34th Annual Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004.IEEE, F1F–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2004.1408581Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Ronald Metoyer, Qiyu Zhi, Bart Janczuk, and Walter Scheirer. 2018. Coupling Story to Visualization: Using Textual Analysis as a Bridge Between Data and Interpretation. In 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Tokyo, Japan) (IUI ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 503–507. https://doi.org/10.1145/3172944.3173007Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Priyanka More and Rashmi Phalnikar. 2012. Generating UML diagrams from natural language specifications. International Journal of Applied Information Systems 1, 8 (2012), 19–23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Raphael Moura, Michael Beer, Edoardo Patelli, and John Lewis. 2017. Learning from major accidents: Graphical representation and analysis of multi-attribute events to enhance risk communication. Safety science 99 (2017), 58–70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Lluís Màrquez, Xavier Carreras, Kenneth C. Litkowski, and Suzanne Stevenson. 2008. Semantic Role Labeling: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Computational Linguistics 34, 2 (06 2008), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2008.34.2.145 arXiv:https://direct.mit.edu/coli/article-pdf/34/2/145/1798596/coli.2008.34.2.145.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Arpit Narechania, Arjun Srinivasan, and John Stasko. 2020. NL4DV: A toolkit for generating analytic specifications for data visualization from natural language queries. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2020), 369–379.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper. 1986. User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report. arxiv:2303.08774 [cs.CL]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Srishti Palani, Yingyi Zhou, Sheldon Zhu, and Steven P. Dow. 2022. InterWeave: Presenting Search Suggestions in Context Scaffolds Information Search and Synthesis. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Bend, OR, USA) (UIST ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 93, 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3526113.3545696Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. M. Palmer, D. Gildea, and N. Xue. 2011. Semantic Role Labeling. Morgan & Claypool Publishers. https://books.google.com/books?id=saBdAQAAQBAJGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Hammond Pearce, Benjamin Tan, Baleegh Ahmad, Ramesh Karri, and Brendan Dolan-Gavitt. 2022. Examining Zero-Shot Vulnerability Repair with Large Language Models. arxiv:2112.02125 [cs.CR]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Jakub Piskorski and Roman Yangarber. 2013. Information Extraction: Past, Present and Future. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28569-1_2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Chengwei Qin, Aston Zhang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Jiaao Chen, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Diyi Yang. 2023. Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver?arxiv:2302.06476 [cs.CL]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Laria Reynolds and Kyle McDonell. 2021. Prompt Programming for Large Language Models: Beyond the Few-Shot Paradigm. arxiv:2102.07350 [cs.CL]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Michail Schwab, Hendrik Strobelt, James Tompkin, Colin Fredericks, Connor Huff, Dana Higgins, Anton Strezhnev, Mayya Komisarchik, Gary King, and Hanspeter Pfister. 2017. booc.io: An Education System with Hierarchical Concept Maps and Dynamic Non-linear Learning Plans. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 23, 1 (2017), 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2016.2598518Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Noah Shinn, Beck Labash, and Ashwin Gopinath. 2023. Reflexion: an autonomous agent with dynamic memory and self-reflection. arxiv:2303.11366 [cs.AI]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Uriel Singer, Adam Polyak, Thomas Hayes, Xi Yin, Jie An, Songyang Zhang, Qiyuan Hu, Harry Yang, Oron Ashual, Oran Gafni, Devi Parikh, Sonal Gupta, and Yaniv Taigman. 2022. Make-A-Video: Text-to-Video Generation without Text-Video Data. arxiv:2209.14792 [cs.CV]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Ishika Singh, Valts Blukis, Arsalan Mousavian, Ankit Goyal, Danfei Xu, Jonathan Tremblay, Dieter Fox, Jesse Thomason, and Animesh Garg. 2022. ProgPrompt: Generating Situated Robot Task Plans using Large Language Models. arxiv:2209.11302 [cs.RO]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Anselm Spoerri. 1993. InfoCrystal: A Visual Tool for Information Retrieval & Management. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (Washington, D.C., USA) (CIKM ’93). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/170088.170095Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Chase Stokes and Marti Hearst. 2022. Why More Text is (Often) Better: Themes from Reader Preferences for Integration of Charts and Text. arxiv:2209.10789 [cs.HC]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Chase Stokes, Vidya Setlur, Bridget Cogley, Arvind Satyanarayan, and Marti A. Hearst. 2023. Striking a Balance: Reader Takeaways and Preferences when Integrating Text and Charts. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 1 (2023), 1233–1243. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209383Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Tamara Sumner, Faisal Ahmad, Sonal Bhushan, Qianyi Gu, Francis Molina, Stedman Willard, Michael Wright, Lynne Davis, and Greg Janée. 2005. Linking learning goals and educational resources through interactive concept map visualizations. International Journal on Digital Libraries 5 (2005), 18–24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Ivan E. Sutherland. 1964. Sketch Pad a Man-Machine Graphical Communication System. In Proceedings of the SHARE Design Automation Workshop(DAC ’64). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6.329–6.346. https://doi.org/10.1145/800265.810742Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Chien-Lin Tang, Jingxian Liao, Hao-Chuan Wang, Ching-Ying Sung, and Wen-Chieh Lin. 2021. ConceptGuide: Supporting Online Video Learning with Concept Map-Based Recommendation of Learning Path. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (WWW ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2757–2768. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442381.3449808Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Barbara Tversky, Julie Bauer Morrison, and Mireille Betrancourt. 2002. Animation: can it facilitate?International journal of human-computer studies 57, 4 (2002), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Priyan Vaithilingam, Tianyi Zhang, and Elena L. Glassman. 2022. Expectation vs. Experience: Evaluating the Usability of Code Generation Tools Powered by Large Language Models. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI EA ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 332, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519665Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Bret Victor. 2011. Up and Down the Ladder of Abstraction: A Systematic Approach to Interactive Visualization. http://worrydream.com/LadderOfAbstraction/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Johannes Wheeldon. 2011. Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Using Mind Maps to Facilitate Participant Recall in Qualitative Research.Qualitative Report 16, 2 (2011), 509–522.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Terry Winograd 1972. Shrdlu: A system for dialog.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Po-Han Wu, Gwo-Jen Hwang, Marcelo Milrad, Hui-Ru Ke, and Yueh-Min Huang. 2012. An innovative concept map approach for improving students’ learning performance with an instant feedback mechanism. British Journal of Educational Technology 43, 2 (2012), 217–232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. Tongshuang Wu, Ellen Jiang, Aaron Donsbach, Jeff Gray, Alejandra Molina, Michael Terry, and Carrie J Cai. 2022. PromptChainer: Chaining Large Language Model Prompts through Visual Programming. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI EA ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 359, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519729Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Tongshuang Wu, Michael Terry, and Carrie Jun Cai. 2022. AI Chains: Transparent and Controllable Human-AI Interaction by Chaining Large Language Model Prompts. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 385, 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517582Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. Haijun Xia. 2020. Crosspower: Bridging Graphics and Linguistics. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Virtual Event, USA) (UIST ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 722–734. https://doi.org/10.1145/3379337.3415845Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. Haijun Xia, Ken Hinckley, Michel Pahud, Xiao Tu, and Bill Buxton. 2017. WritLarge: Ink Unleashed by Unified Scope, Action, & Zoom. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3227–3240. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025664Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. Haijun Xia, Jennifer Jacobs, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2020. Crosscast: Adding Visuals to Audio Travel Podcasts. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Virtual Event, USA) (UIST ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 735–746. https://doi.org/10.1145/3379337.3415882Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Emily Reif, and Daphne Ippolito. 2022. Wordcraft: Story Writing With Large Language Models. In 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Helsinki, Finland) (IUI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 841–852. https://doi.org/10.1145/3490099.3511105Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. Muru Zhang, Ofir Press, William Merrill, Alisa Liu, and Noah A. Smith. 2023. How Language Model Hallucinations Can Snowball. arxiv:2305.13534 [cs.CL]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Kaiyang Zhou, Jingkang Yang, Chen Change Loy, and Ziwei Liu. 2022. Learning to prompt for vision-language models. International Journal of Computer Vision 130, 9 (2022), 2337–2348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Graphologue: Exploring Large Language Model Responses with Interactive Diagrams

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format