Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly expected to automate visualization development by generating code directly from visual designs. However, existing evaluations mainly focus on single-chart generation and overlook coordinated multi-view interface construction, which requires joint reasoning about data semantics, view coordination, and interaction logic. Consequently, MLLM capabilities in this setting remain underexplored, and the field lacks a dedicated benchmark for systematic assessment. We introduce MV-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating MLLMs on coordinated multi-view interface construction. Instead of relying on incomplete or inconsistent open-source implementations, we use Tableau workbook files as ground truth because they explicitly encode data bindings, visual mappings, and interactions. We develop a multi-stage pipeline that converts these specifications into executable web interfaces through structured intermediate representations. The benchmark contains 92 base interfaces and 1,048 verified instances created by recombining chart types, datasets, and interaction patterns. Each instance includes executable code, a rendered interface, a dataset, and interaction annotations. We evaluate five state-of-the-art MLLMs in a single-pass setting using metrics for visual fidelity, data binding correctness, and interaction completeness. The strongest model achieves 75.45 percent accuracy in visual layout reproduction, but only 21.71 percent in data binding and 11.68 percent in interaction completeness. These results show that current MLLMs can reproduce visual appearance but remain limited in generating the data semantics and interactive logic required by coordinated multi-view interfaces. Iterative refinement improves code executability but does not substantially reduce the gap in data binding and interaction generation.
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) demonstrate strong performance on standard visual question answering benchmarks, yet their scalability under controlled structural complexity remains poorly understood. We introduce TriViewBench, a controlled three-view visual reasoning benchmark constructed from synthetic 3D scenes with explicitly parameterized object count and occlusion. The benchmark contains 1,923 scenes and over 14K Question-Answer (QA) pairs organized into four complexity levels and three reasoning categories: Local Decision, Object Counting, and Global Recovery. We evaluate 18 open- and closed-source MLLMs under a unified prompting protocol. All 18 models exhibit an identical capability hierarchy without exception (Local Decision > Object Counting > Global Recovery), and performance degrades monotonically with complexity: Local Decision tasks decline modestly (12.11% relative drop), while Object Counting degrades substantially (59.14%) and Global Recovery collapses severely (80.02%). Error analysis on Object Counting reveals two mechanistically independent failure modes: single-view tasks are dominated by undercounting due to occlusion blindness, whereas the multi-view task reverses to overcounting due to cross-view identity confusion. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting yields near-zero overall benefit (Δ=−0.16%) and its effect on Global Recovery is strongly capability-gated, suggesting that the bottleneck lies in cross-view spatial representation rather than reasoning strategy. These findings reveal fundamental scalability limitations in current MLLMs and position TriViewBench as a controlled diagnostic framework for analyzing structural reasoning failures.
User experience (UX) centered on usability, perceived consistency, and functional clarity is fundamental to real-world user interfaces (UI). The application of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in the field of user interfaces is evolving rapidly, such as visual element grounding, graphical user interface (GUI) agents, and design-to-code generation. However, research efforts on evaluating UX based on UI screenshots are still immature. To address this, we propose UXBench, a novel multimodal benchmark consisting of 2,000 VQA data samples designed to assess MLLMs' ability to perform UI-based reasoning. UXBench includes 8 tasks based on real-world UI screenshots that require fine-grained diagnosis of UX issues across layout relationships, visual hierarchy, and content consistency. Our extensive evaluation of mainstream MLLMs shows that they remain fundamentally limited in their capacity for UI-based reasoning. The results underscore the need for further advancements in this area. To bridge this gap, we propose UI-UX, an MLLM based on Qwen3-VL-4B-Thinking foundation model and enhanced via reinforcement learning with two key innovations: a reward routing mechanism that dynamically balances perceptual understanding and logical reasoning during inference, and an asymmetric transition reward that suppresses redundant or insufficient reasoning steps. Experiments demonstrate that UI-UX achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on UXBench, attaining an accuracy of 0.7963 -- surpassing Claude-4.5-Sonnet's 0.6550 -- while exhibiting strong generalization across diverse UI tasks and maintaining low inference latency.
Automatic data visualization generation has advanced rapidly with multi-modal large language models, yet existing efforts largely focus on static charts and overlook the interactive dashboards commonly used for real-world data exploration. We introduce Dashboard2Code, a novel task that requires a model to proactively explore an interactive dashboard, acquire and integrate feedback from its own interactions (e.g., clicking and filtering), and generate code that reproduces the target dashboard. To support comprehensive evaluation, we present DashboardMimic, the first Plotly+Dash benchmark for Dashboard2Code, comprising 180 carefully designed and manually verified dashboard-code pairs spanning three difficulty levels and covering eight common real-world interaction patterns. We further propose an automated evaluation framework tailored to dashboards that combines code semantic analysis with dynamic interaction-based testing to assess visual and interaction consistency, showing strong agreement with human judgments. Experiments across a range of open- and closed-source multi-modal models reveal that even the strongest systems struggle on high-complexity dashboards and that a substantial performance gap remains between open-source and closed-source models on the Dashboard2Code task.