first commit

文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/publication-chart-skill/references/chart-selection.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Chart Selection
+
+## Task-to-chart mapping
+
+| Communication task | Preferred forms | Notes |
+|---|---|---|
+| Benchmark comparison | grouped scatter, bar, companion table | use table when exact values matter most |
+| Ablation | grouped comparison, dumbbell, compact table | keep the dimension count small |
+| Calibration / evaluation | calibration, ROC, PR, Bland–Altman | choose what matches the evaluation claim |
+| Distribution | box, violin, raincloud, histogram, density, ECDF, QQ | choose by whether shape or exact quantiles matter |
+| Relationship | scatter, bubble, contour2d, hexbin | use hexbin/contour2d when overplotting is severe |
+| Trend | line, area | line is usually the safer default |
+| Diagnostic effect size | forest plot, volcano | match domain and inference style |
+| Set/composition | UpSet, stacked ratio, donut, radial hierarchy | avoid decorative complexity unless it helps interpretation |
+| Exact benchmark appendix | publication table | default to `pubtab` |
+
+## Use X instead of Y
+
+- Use **grouped scatter** or a **table** instead of a dense grouped bar when exact per-group values matter.
+- Use **line** instead of bar for ordered progression over time or scale.
+- Use **UpSet** instead of Venn-style thinking once the set count grows.
+- Use **forest plot** instead of overloaded textual effect summaries.
+- Use **table** instead of radar when precision and comparability matter more than shape.
+- Use **hexbin** or **contour2d** instead of raw scatter when point overlap hides structure.
+- Use **ECDF** when comparing cumulative distributions clearly is more important than showing a smoothed KDE.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+Avoid:
+
+- pie/donut for exact quantitative comparison unless the composition story is primary and category count is small,
+- radar for many categories or when axes are not semantically comparable,
+- 3D effects,
+- decorative color ramps without semantic purpose,
+- overly dense legends that repeat axis information,
+- mixed chart types that make the evidence harder to read,
+- turning every result into a figure when a publication table would be cleaner.
+
+## Selection heuristic
+
+Ask in order:
+
+1. What claim is the reader supposed to take away?
+2. Does the reader need pattern perception or exact value lookup?
+3. Are the groups ordered, categorical, repeated, hierarchical, or overlapping?
+4. Is the result single-panel or likely part of a multi-panel figure?
+5. Would a figure-only answer hide important exact values that should live in a table?