Making Absence Visible: The Roles of Reference and Prompting in Recognizing Missing Information

Experiences of absence are common, such as noticing that a car is missing from its usual place. Yet, the neural and cognitive mechanisms underlying how the mind “perceives nothing” remain debated (Mumford, 2021; Barnett and Fleming, 2024). Some theories argue that absence can be directly perceived, while others maintain it is inferred from contextual cues (Cavedon-Taylor, 2017; Mumford, 2021). The distinction between perceiving and inferring absence is subtle but fundamental: it determines whether absence is experienced as a percept or as a cognitive reconstruction.

Recognizing absence requires prior expectations. Without anticipating a particular feature, one cannot register its lack. Human perception continually compares incoming sensory input against internal predictive models; absence is detected when expected signals fail to appear. Thus, the perception of absence arises from a mismatch between prediction and observation. As Mazor (Mazor, 2025) notes, such inference depends on a self-model capable of transforming the “absence of evidence” into “evidence of absence”.

Research using the violation-of-expectation (VOE) paradigm supports this model: when expected objects or events are missing, infants exhibit surprise, prompting learning and model revision (Margoni et al., 2024). This demonstrates that absence detection is not a passive process but an active one: triggering attention, expectation adjustment, and cognitive updating.

Detecting absence involves comparing current input with internalized expectations and reconciling discrepancies between them. When the observed and the expected diverge, attention shifts and higher-order inference processes engage to explain the gap. Recognition of absence thus depends on the same predictive mechanisms that support surprise and learning. Empirical work confirms that judgments of absence differ systematically from those of presence: people are slower and less confident when deciding that a stimulus is absent, even when correct (Meuwese et al., 2014; Mazor et al., 2020). Absence detection is therefore a dynamic and cognitively demanding process—less fluent, slower, and less confident than presence detection, yet essential for adaptive learning and reasoning about what is missing.

E1 appeared alongside two or three specific entities, providing visible samples from the broader population and enabling reasoning by analogy to observed variation. Example comparisons included Asia, North America, and Europe in the Regime Type dataset; China, Indonesia, and Ireland in the Wealth dataset; and Costa Rica, Cuba, and France in the Energy dataset.

Figure 2 illustrates this condition, where the focal entity (E1) is compared with several concrete instances representing distinct distributions.

E1 was displayed alongside a single entity labeled World, representing the aggregated population distribution for the same variable. This reference provided an overall statistical norm rather than individual examples. For instance, in the Regime dataset, the World bar showed the global percentage of populations under each regime type (approximately 45% electoral autocracy, 35% democracy, 20% other). In the Wealth dataset, the global income distribution was centered on the $4.20–$8.30 range, and in the Energy dataset, the global energy mix was dominated by coal and gas, with hydro, oil, and renewables.

Figure 3 shows this condition, in which E1 is evaluated against a unified global baseline that encapsulates the population-wide expectation.

All responses were exported from Google Sheets, lowercased, and tokenized using the tidytext and stringr packages in R. Stopwords, punctuation, and HTML artefacts were removed prior to model input. Each cleaned response was then passed to the Gemini-2.5-flash engine using a standardized API call (temperature = 0.2, top-$p$ = 0.9) to ensure stable, deterministic behavior across runs. The model was prompted with the following fixed instruction:

“You are an expert in literary and linguistic analysis, specializing in identifying themes of absence, loss, and omission. Analyze the given text and determine whether it conveys the idea of ‘missing’ or ‘absence’. Respond only with a JSON object containing a Boolean field ("absence": true/false) and a brief justification string.”

Each response returned a structured JSON object containing: (i) a binary indicator of whether absence was expressed, and (ii) a short textual explanation of the model’s reasoning. For example, the input “E1 has no closed autocracy” was classified as "absence": true with the justification “explicit negation of a category indicates missingness”. All outputs were logged and version-controlled to ensure full reproducibility.

This approach provided a reproducible and linguistically grounded method for classifying nuanced semantic expressions of absence in participants’ narratives, aligning closely with human expert judgments (Tang et al., 2024).

To verify reliability, a random $20\%$ subset of responses ($n{=}120$) was independently coded by a trained linguist specializing in English semantics. Inter-annotator agreement between the human coder and the LLM output reached $\kappa=0.84$ (substantial agreement). Based on this validation, the model achieved an overall accuracy of 0.92, precision of 0.94, recall of 0.89, and $F_{1}$ score of 0.92. Discrepancies were reviewed manually to identify systematic errors, which primarily involved ambiguous cases (e.g., implied absence without explicit negation).

All source code, prompts, and validation procedures are archived in the project’s open repository which will be provided upon acceptance.

Because the dependent measures are binary (detection vs. no detection), categorical comparisons between conditions were analyzed using Pearson’s $\chi^{2}$ tests with Yates’ continuity correction. Separate tests evaluated (a) the effect of reference frame within each prompting mode, and (b) the effect of prompting mode within each reference frame. This approach aligns with the factorial design, where both manipulations are nominal variables with two levels each. $\chi^{2}$ tests were chosen because they assess differences in proportions without assuming normality, making them suitable for frequency-based comparisons with discrete outcomes.

Effect sizes were computed using Cramer’s $V$ (Cramér, 1999), which provides a normalized measure of association strength for contingency tables ($0$–$1$). Condition-wise means and standard deviations of detection proportions were calculated using the group_by() and summarise() functions in dplyr. All quantitative analyses were conducted in R (version 4.2.0) using the dplyr, tidyr, and ggplot2 packages (Wickham et al., 2019).

Table 3 summarizes how reference framing (Global vs. Partial) influenced absence detection under both spontaneous and guided conditions. Across domains, reference framing produced a clear pattern in the spontaneous condition but not in the guided one (Table 3). When participants were not explicitly prompted to look for what was missing, absence detection was substantially higher under the Partial Reference framing (mean = 50.0%) than under the Global Reference framing (mean = 30.7%), $\chi^{2}(1)=11.65$, $p<.001$, $V=.20$. Results were strongest in the Energy dataset and consistent across the other domains. When attention was guided toward absences, detection rates converged across framings.

Across all domains and reference conditions, prompting produced a large and highly significant increase in absence detection (Table 4). When participants were explicitly asked to look for what might be missing, detection rates rose sharply—from roughly one-third of participants in the spontaneous phase to nearly nine in ten under guided prompting. Across both reference types, explicit guidance produced large, highly significant gains ($\approx+40–60$ pp, $V\approx.5–.6$), confirming a robust prompting effect. Large Cramer’s $V$ values ($.43$–$.61$) across all tests indicate a strong effect size.

We conducted four planned comparisons (Partial vs Global, Spontaneous vs Guided), all defined a priori, so no multiple-testing correction was applied (Perneger, 1998).

Chi-square tests revealed large, highly significant prompting effects for both reference types (Global: $\chi^{2}(1)=102.17$, $p<.001$, $V=0.58$; Partial: $\chi^{2}(1)=61.81$, $p<.001$, $V=0.45$). Reference frame effects were smaller: a modest but reliable difference in the spontaneous phase ($\chi^{2}(1)=11.65$, $p=.0006$, $V=0.20$) and a non-significant difference in the guided phase ($\chi^{2}(1)=0.90$, $p=.343$, $V=0.06$). Applying a conservative Bonferroni correction ($\alpha=.0125$) does not alter these conclusions: both prompting effects remain highly significant, and only the spontaneous framing effect meets the adjusted threshold. Fisher’s exact tests yielded equivalent results, confirming robustness to small expected cell sizes.

The results show that the kind of reference frame provided influences the way people form expectations: a global frame supplies an explicit baseline, while a partial frame prompts them to infer it from examples. This distinction seems to differentiate between two cognitive pathways for comparison. In the global condition, expectation is externally provided. The viewer’s task is to align observations with a ready-made standard. In the partial condition, expectation must be internally constructed from limited cues, requiring participants to abstract a pattern that generalizes beyond the given examples. These internally generated expectations are effortful but more cognitively engaging: they invite hypothesis formation and promote active comparison between what is observed and what is missing. Our results indicate that the participants noticed absence more in the partial condition, confirming that encouraging participants to construct their expectations enhances the awareness of absence.

This confirms that reference framing is not a neutral visualization choice but an active determinant of cognitive access to expectation.

Thus, visual framing determines whether expectation is supplied by the system or built by the user.

Guidance amplified absence detection across all conditions: when participants were asked to consider “what should be there but isn’t”, detection rates rose sharply. This contrast shows that recognition of absence depends less on the visibility of the data and more on whether viewers are encouraged to think about what should be present and notice when it is missing.

This result aligns with the long-documented feature-positive effect (Newman et al., 1980; Allan, 1993): organisms and humans detect and learn from presences more readily than from absences. Neuroscientific evidence further suggests that perceiving “nothing” recruits distinct neural systems from those encoding positive features (Nieder, 2016). In our task, this asymmetry manifested behaviorally: participants naturally described what they saw rather than what they failed to see. Yet, the rapid shift following an explicit absence-oriented prompt indicates that absence reasoning is cognitively available but typically dormant, requiring attentional reframing to surface. Notably, even when directly prompted, a few claimed that nothing is missing, or looked for missing details in the graph, e.g., “E1 has no country name”.

Absence detection is shaped by heuristics beyond the feature-positive effect and is highly sensitive to cognitive load. Under higher load, viewers are more likely to rely on fast, memory-driven strategies rather than systematically validating which categories should appear. The availability heuristic may bias attention toward categories most salient in memory (or visually prominent), making less familiar or less salient absences harder to notice. Similarly, representativeness may lead viewers to treat distributions that resemble familiar prototypes as “complete,” prematurely terminating search even when semantically important categories are missing. In addition, partial references require viewers to synthesize expectations from a small set of exemplars. When users possess relevant domain knowledge, such a synthesis enables them to infer what “should” be present and to identify when it is not. However, when domain familiarity is low, this inferential process may be more fragile (Gigerenzer et al., 1988). This highlights an important design trade-off: partial framing promotes active expectation construction, yet it may place greater cognitive demands on novice users. These heuristics help explain variability in spontaneous absence detection and illustrate why targeted prompting can be so effective. Such a synthesis enables them to infer what “should” be present and to identify when it is not. However, when domain familiarity is low, this inferential process may be more fragile (Gigerenzer et al., 1988). This highlights an important design trade-off: partial framing promotes active expectation construction, yet it may place greater cognitive demands on novice users. These heuristics help explain variability in spontaneous absence detection and illustrate why targeted prompting can be so effective. Extending Neisser’s perceptual-cycle account to the domain of absence detection, we propose that partial input can strengthen schema construction by initiating an anticipatory model while still requiring exploratory sampling to “fill in” what is expected. In this view, the additional effort induced by partial references is not merely a cost: it can deepen the internal reference structure that makes absences meaningful and detectable (Neisser, 1976)

Partial and global frames may impose different cognitive loads. Partial framing increases intrinsic load by requiring users to abstract across exemplars, yet this effort appears to deepen expectation formation and sharpen sensitivity to absences. Global framing reduces cognitive load by providing an explicit baseline, but may encourage more surface-level comparisons. Guided prompting introduces an attentional shift that can reduce the cognitive burden of searching for relevant absences. These results suggest that visualization systems should balance cognitive demands with the benefits of expectation construction, adjusting framing strategies to the user’s expertise and task context.

Taken together, the data support a layered cognitive account. While spontaneous viewing is largely guided by presence-oriented attention, some absence recognition still emerges when a reference frame provides enough context to evoke implicit expectations. Guided viewing, in turn, amplifies this latent sensitivity by explicitly directing attention toward what should be present but is not. Reference framing modulates this interplay: a global reference supplies a clear external model for comparison, whereas a partial reference invites participants to construct one internally—both enabling recognition, though through different routes. The ability to “see what is not there” therefore depends not only on explicit guidance, but also on how strongly the visualization itself supports the activation of expectations that make absence perceptible.

A global frame, which makes the reference explicit and comprehensive, provides users with a clear normative context for rapid evaluation. Such framing is effective in domains where consistency and efficiency are needed, such as monitoring dashboards in healthcare or finance, where users must quickly detect deviations from established baselines. By showing overall distributions, averages, or benchmark indicators alongside individual cases, global framing helps users spot large-scale gaps or anomalies with minimal effort. However, it may also encourage surface-level verification, e.g., checking whether something conforms, rather than reflective questioning about what might be absent. In contrast, a partial frame encourages the construction of expectations from a limited set of examples. This design strategy engages users more actively: they must infer “what should be there” based on partial cues, leading to deeper cognitive processing and increased sensitivity to omissions. Partial framing may therefore be advantageous in exploratory or educational contexts, such as scientific data analysis, public dashboards explaining social indicators, or learning environments, where engagement and hypothesis formation are more important than speed. In such cases, withholding some reference information (for instance, showing representative samples instead of complete aggregates) can prompt users to actively reconstruct the missing structure, which our data show enhances absence detection even without explicit guidance.

Because global and partial references serve different cognitive purposes, visualization systems can treat framing as an interactive design parameter, rather than a static choice. Interactive interfaces can allow users to shift dynamically between global and partial references, adjusting the level of explicitness as their understanding evolves. For example, a climate-change dashboard could begin with region-level global baselines for temperature and emissions, then allow users to explore smaller subsets (partial frames) to infer where data are sparse or missing. Similarly, a hospital analytics interface might start with global performance benchmarks across departments, then switch to partial contextual views that encourage clinicians to identify overlooked risk factors or unrecorded conditions.

Although our empirical stimuli are data visualizations, the core idea we present is detecting absent expected categories relative to a reference frame. This feature is generalized to AI-mediated sense-making. LLM-based systems often produce selective summaries or analyses that omit semantically expected elements (e.g., key topics, entities, or subgroups), and users may fail to notice these omissions without an explicit reference. Our results motivate expectation-aware IUI strategies, such as making the underlying reference frame explicit (global or partial) and integrating guided prompting as an explanation mechanism to steer attention toward what should be checked.

Through the lenses of framing and expectations, absence detection can inform the design of intelligent interfaces that promote awareness, accountability, and critical engagement with data. By embedding mechanisms that surface missing categories, silent model features, or unreported metrics, designers can turn absences into signals for reflection rather than blind spots. Partial references, as shown in our study, may serve as a useful design strategy to stimulate cognitive attention, inviting users to actively reconstruct what might be missing instead of passively accepting what is shown. Such expectation-oriented framing can help users recognize incompleteness in algorithmic explanations, dashboards, or public data displays, supporting more cautious and equitable interpretations. In this way, interfaces that make absences perceptible do not merely fill information gaps. They help cultivate a mindset of mindful inquiry, strengthening trust and accountability in human–AI collaboration.