Beyond Static Charts: Can Language and Vision Language Models Generate Interactive Data Visualization Interfaces?
Organizations: York University
Abstract
Data visualization is central to analytical reasoning, but real-world analysis increasingly requires language-driven interactive interfaces rather than static charts. Although recent large language and vision language models (LLMs/VLMs) have shown promise in generating static charts from natural language, their ability to generate interactive data visualization interfaces remains largely unexplored due to the lack of benchmarks. We introduce VIS-GEN, a benchmark for evaluating how well LLMs/VLMs can generate interactive visualization interfaces from natural language queries. VIS-GEN comprises 3,042 samples covering diverse analytical intents, including data filtering, temporal analysis, and visualization editing, each paired with dataset metadata and natural language queries that are designed to reflect realistic, goal driven data exploration scenarios. We benchmark 14 state-of-the-art open-source and closed-source LLMs/VLMs, revealing large performance gaps and frequent failures on queries involving implicit intent, multiple interaction alternatives, and complex editing operations, highlighting interactive interface generation as a key open challenge beyond static chart synthesis. To address this, we propose a structured multi stage interface generation framework that decomposes the task into visualization design representation, generation of multiple interface candidates, constraint-aware critique, and self-refinement. This approach improves the best models pass rate by 15.9 percentage points, demonstrating a practical path toward more reliable language-driven interactive visualization systems. We release VIS-GEN at https://github.com/vis-nlp/VIS-GEN.
Figures & tables
| Model | Code Executability | Widget Match | Data Validity | Readability | Visual Quality | Chart Correctness | Final Pass |
| Closed-Source Models | |||||||
| GPT-4o | 100 | 24.70 | 46.86 | 2.72 | 2.57 | 2.12 | 12.30 |
| GPT-5-mini | 100 | 61.40 | 36.10 | 3.53 | 3.16 | 2.62 | 28.30 |
| O4-mini | 99 | 36.50 | 26.89 | 2.97 | 2.81 | 1.95 | 14.10 |
| Gemini-2.5-Pro | 100 | 28.42 | 25.00 | 3.02 | 2.93 | 1.85 | 11.90 |
| Claude-4-Sonnet | 99 | 53.40 | 59.10 | 3.62 | 3.48 | 3.05 | 36.20 |
| Model | Code Executability | Widget Match | Data Validity | Readability | Visual Quality | Chart Correctness | Final Pass |
| GPT-4o (Direct) | 100 | 24.70 | 46.86 | 2.72 | 2.57 | 2.12 | 12.30 |
| GPT-4o (Multi-Stage) | 100 | 64.96 | 54.83 | 2.91 | 2.70 | 2.82 | 37.38 |
| Claude-4.5-Opus (Direct) | 100 | 59.30 | 64.40 | 3.78 | 3.68 | 3.30 | 41.50 |
| Claude-4.5-Opus (Multi-Stage) | 100 | 67.52 | 77.15 | 3.89 | 3.86 | 3.66 | 57.40 |
| Ablation Study (GPT-4o) | |||||||
| w/o Intent Extraction | 100 | 42.48 | 54.50 | 2.78 | 2.62 | 2.55 | 22.78 |
| Setting | Code Executability | Widget Match | Data Validity | Readability | Visual Quality | Chart Correctness | Final Pass | Preferred (%) |
| Direct | 98.5 | 40.10 | 56.20 | 3.26 | 3.17 | 2.76 | 29.90 | 24.4 |
| Multi-Stage | 99.3 | 71.30 | 69.10 | 3.62 | 3.42 | 3.39 | 50.20 | 75.6 |
| Category | Widget Match | Data Validity | Chart Correctness | Final Pass Rate | ||||
| Direct | Multi | Direct | Multi | Direct | Multi | Direct | Multi | |
| GPT-4o | ||||||||
| Query intent | ||||||||
| Exploration | 15.00 | 61.81 | 48.65 | 51.94 | 2.09 | 2.94 | 10.17 | 35.26 |
| Editing | 32.60 | 67.52 | 45.37 | 57.19 | 2.14 | 2.72 | 14.03 | 39.10 |
| Query complexity | ||||||||
| Method | Input | Output | Eval./Benchmark Size | Supports Widgets | Multi-Widget Coord. | Editing Tasks | Implicit Queries | Executable UI |
| PI2 chen2022pi2 | SQL / example queries | Interactive interface | N/A | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ||
| DynaVis vaithilingam2024dynavis | NL edit / widget commands | Widget-augmented visualization | 24-user study | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ||
| VisEval chen2024viseval | NL + data | Static chart | 2,524 queries | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | |
| Text2Vis rahman2025text2vis | NL + data | Static chart + answer | 1,985 samples | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ |
| VIS-GEN (Ours) | NL + data | Full interactive interface | 3,042 samples | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Source | Count (%) |
| Our World in Data (OWID) | 710 (73.50%) |
| Tableau Public | 107 (11.08%) |
| OECD | 94 (9.73%) |
| Synthetic | 55 (5.69%) |
| Total | 966 (100.00%) |
| Model | Count (%) |
| GPT-4o | 900 (33.33%) |
| GPT-5.2 | 600 (22.22%) |
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | 600 (22.22%) |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 600 (22.22%) |
| Total | 2,700 (100.00%) |
| Setting | Widget | Intent | VizFit | Feas. | Final Pass |
| Default | 0.30 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 37.6 |
| Widget-heavy | 0.40 | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.15 | 39.6 |
| Intent-heavy | 0.25 | 0.40 | 0.20 | 0.15 | 36.4 |
| Viz-heavy | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.35 | 0.15 | 35.2 |
| Feasibility-heavy | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.15 | 0.35 | 35.6 |
| Uniform | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 37.2 |
| Metric | Pearson ( ) | Spearman ( ) |
| Executability | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Widget Match | 0.92 | 0.93 |
| Data Validity | 0.95 | 0.94 |
| Readability | 0.86 | 0.88 |
| Visual Quality | 0.91 | 0.91 |
| Chart Correctness | 0.85 | 0.87 |
Data Visualization
Data visualization studies how visual representations help people explore, interpret, communicate, and reason about data.
See all 121 papersRealChart2Code: Advancing Chart-to-Code Generation with Real Data and Multi-Task Evaluation
RealChart2Code, a new large-scale benchmark with over 2,800 instances grounded in authentic datasets and featuring tasks with clear analytical intent. Crucially, it is the first benchmark to systematically evaluate chart generation from large-scale raw data and assess iterative code refinement in a multi-turn conversational setting. Our comprehensive evaluation of 14 leading VLMs on RealChart2Code reveals significant performance degradation compared to simpler benchmarks, highlighting their struggles with complex plot structures and authentic data. Our analysis uncovers a substantial performance gap between proprietary and open-weight models and confirms that even state-of-the-art VLMs often fail to accurately replicate intricate, multi-panel charts. These findings provide valuable insights into the current limitations of VLMs and guide future research directions. We release the benchmark and code at https://github.com/Speakn0w/RealChart2Code.