Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.08393

Living Dashboards: Automatically Self-Updating Visualization Dashboards

Mingyu An·Heyon Jeon·Sungbok Shin·Jinwook Seo·Eduard Gröller·Niklas Elmqvist·Vaishali Dhanoa
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Visualization dashboards are widely used interactive tools, but a disconnect exists between the dynamic data they display and their static structure. End-users cannot modify the dashboard to answer new questions. We introduce Living Dashboards, whose views are born, wither, revive, and die in response to how they are used. Rather than requiring manual reconfiguration, a living dashboard observes interaction and natural-language queries to autonomously wither neglected views and revive those used again. More consequential decisions, such as adding or retiring views, are deferred to the user. We formalize the concept as a four-dimensional design space and implement it in Living Dashboard, a web-based prototype. We evaluate it in an exploratory between-subjects study (N = 12) against an AI-supported baseline on analytical tasks. Living Dashboard participants answered more tasks correctly, reported lower workload, and rated the system higher on usability, though the two conditions differed in more than adaptive behavior alone.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mingyu An, Heyon Jeon, Sungbok Shin, Jinwook Seo, Eduard Gröller, Niklas Elmqvist, Vaishali Dhanoa. 2026-10-06. Living Dashboards: Automatically Self-Updating Visualization Dashboards. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.08393

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Harnessing the Power of AI in Qualitative Research: Role Assignment, Engagement, and User Perceptions of AI-Generated Follow-Up Questions in Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews highly rely on the quality of follow-up questions, yet interviewers' knowledge and skills may limit their depth and potentially affect outcomes. While many studies have shown the usefulness of large language models (LLMs) for qualitative analysis, their possibility in the data collection process remains underexplored. We adopt an AI-driven "Wizard-of-Oz" setup to investigate how real-time LLM support in generating follow-up questions shapes semi-structured interviews. Through a study with 17 participants, we examine the value of LLM-generated follow-up questions, the evolving division of roles, relationships, collaborative behaviors, and responsibilities between interviewers and AI. Our findings (1) provide empirical evidence of the strengths and limitations of AI-generated follow-up questions (AGQs); (2) introduce a Human-AI collaboration framework in this interview context; and (3) propose human-centered design guidelines for AI-assisted interviewing. We position LLMs as complements, not replacements, to human judgment, and highlight pathways for integrating AI into qualitative data collection.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Linking Behaviour and Perception to Evaluate Meaningful Human Control over Partially Automated Driving

Partial driving automation creates a tension: drivers remain legally responsible while being less active in control. Meaningful human control (MHC), a normative framework that can potentially address this tension, proposes that automated systems are designed to track relevant human reasons and that humans should at all times remain in control and be responsible. However, empirical methods for evaluating whether systems are under MHC remain underdeveloped. In this driving simulator study, we investigated the extent to which 24 drivers experienced MHC when interacting with partially automated driving systems under two modes - haptic shared control and traded control. During overtaking manoeuvres on a two-lane, two-way road with fully automated longitudinal control and partially automated lateral control, drivers' actions were necessary to prevent crashes due to silent automation failures. Starting from hypotheses derived from the properties of systems under MHC, we used a mixed-methods approach that links behavioural metrics, subjective post-trial ratings, and qualitative feedback to assess drivers' perception of responsibility and control. A confirmatory analysis indicated a negative correlation between the perception of the automated vehicle understanding the driver and conflict in steering torques. Qualitative feedback revealed that mismatches in intentions between the driver and automation, lack of safety, and resistance to driver inputs reduced perceived MHC, while subtle haptic guidance aligned with driver intent had a positive effect. Thus, future designs should prioritise effortless driver interventions, transparent communication of automation intent through haptic, visual or auditory cues, and clear authority allocation to strengthen meaningful human control in partially automated driving.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

An LLM-Native Psychometric Instrument Reveals a Self-Report--Behavior Gap Across 25 Models

Do large language models' (LLMs') answers to self-report questionnaires predict how they behave? Prior work finds they do not, but it uses human personality inventories, so the gap could reflect borrowed human constructs rather than LLM self-report itself. We test this with a self-report instrument built from LLM-specific behaviors (e.g., over-refusal, unsolicited disclaimers) whose structure is derived bottom-up. Administering 300 items 30 times to 25 LLMs from 17 developers yields five replicable, reliable factors (Tucker $ϕ\geq .957$, $α\geq .930$). We compare these self-reports with 2,500 open-ended behavioral samples rated by 151 humans and an LLM-judge ensemble. Humans and judges agree about model behavior ($\bar{r} = .51$), but self-report barely tracks human ratings ($\bar{r} = .09$, 95% CI $[-.07, .18]$) or rater-free text measures, and correcting for criterion unreliability leaves four of five factors near zero. Verbosity is the partial exception ($r = .40$, 71% of its reliability ceiling). On Responsiveness, self-report tracks LLM judges more than humans ($r = .53$ vs. $.18$; Steiger $p = .04$), and controlling for length and formatting does not remove this: agreement between LLM judges and LLM self-report is weak evidence that either tracks human judgment.

cs.HC↗