2.4 KiB
2.4 KiB
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:
- What claim is the reader supposed to take away?
- Does the reader need pattern perception or exact value lookup?
- Are the groups ordered, categorical, repeated, hierarchical, or overlapping?
- Is the result single-panel or likely part of a multi-panel figure?
- Would a figure-only answer hide important exact values that should live in a table?