Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Data-to-Dashboard: Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Insightful Visualization in Enterprise Analytics

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a multi-agent LLM pipeline that detects the business domain before generating analysis produces more insightful, novel, and deep business insights from raw tables than a single GPT-4o prompt, even one that already…

desk verdict A plausible agent pipeline for domain-grounded dashboard generation, but the headline comparison rests on circular, single-run LLM-judge scores with internally inconsistent numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23695 v1 pith:EL54OW3G submitted 2025-05-29 cs.AI

Ran Zhang , Mohannad Elhamod This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords multi-agentLLMframeworkdata-to-dashboarddomainknowledgegroundinginsightgenerationbusinessanalyticsself-reflectiondatavisualizationenterprise
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that the path from a raw business table to a useful dashboard is better travelled by a team of specialised LLM agents than by one big prompt. Its pipeline first profiles the data, names the business domain and its key concepts, generates descriptive, predictive, and domain-grounded insights, and then loops through an evaluator and self-reflector until every criterion scores 4/4. Against a non-agentic GPT-4o baseline that already knows the domain, the system reports higher insightfulness, novelty, and depth (roughly +12%, +28%, and +31% by a tailored G-Eval rubric). If the claim holds, enterprise analysts could automate open-ended exploration of unfamiliar data without question templates or closed ontologies, because the domain label itself supplies the analytical frame.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the modular agent pipeline with its two-stage separation. Stage 1 runs a Data Profiler (a tree-of-thought statistical synopsis of the table), a Domain Detector (a flexible domain label plus a one-sentence definition inferred against external reference knowledge), a Concept Extractor (domain-relevant noun phrases such as monthly active users), an Analysis Generator that analyses through descriptive, predictive, and domain-related lenses, an Evaluator that scores outputs from 1 to 4 on five criteria, and a Self-Reflector that revises until all scores reach 4/4 or the iteration cap. Stage 2 uses a Tree-of-Thought, three-expert consensus step to choose charts and annotations that carry the domain insight. The domain label is deliberately not drawn from a closed ontology; it is a relational, hierarchical abstraction inferred per dataset, and it is what lets the same pipeline adapt to new domains.

What would settle it

Have business analysts blind-rate the baseline and the agent outputs on the same three datasets; if the agent's advantage shrinks or reverses under human rating, the reported G-Eval gains do not establish the claim. A cheaper check is to swap the G-Eval judge for a different model family than the one that produced and self-reflected the insights, and to reconcile the depth and novelty numbers in Table 1 with those in the prose.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is stated in Section 6, Result 2: the agentic system significantly outperforms a non-agentic GPT-4o baseline with domain awareness in insightfulness, novelty, and depth. On the paper's G-Eval metrics the pipeline scores 0.88 versus 0.78 for insightfulness, 0.83 versus 0.65 for novelty, and 0.99 versus 0.75 for depth, with the prose reporting somewhat different intermediate figures for novelty and depth. The paper also claims that adding a single domain-detection instruction to a prompt substantially improves coverage, structure, and business relevance, and that the system captures the core analytical direction of InsightBench's ground truth while surfacing additional forward-looking concepts. These results are measured by a tailored G-Eval rubic and qualitative human assessment on three datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The empirical case rests on the assumption that G-Eval scores produced by an LLM judge measure genuine analytical quality rather than fluent, domain-sounding language; this matters because the Self-Reflector revises the output until the same style of LLM evaluator gives perfect scores.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Open-ended analytics becomes automatable: the system starts from a raw table with zero supplementary context and decides for itself what the data is about.
  • Domain grounding becomes a cheap intervention: even one instruction to name the domain pushes output toward business-relevant metrics such as lifetime value, churn cohorts, and channel mix, and away from unsupported generic axes.
  • Self-reflection against a fixed rubric can push a model beyond one-pass output, which is what the reported depth lift claims to demonstrate.
  • Dashboards can be treated as the last step of an analysis pipeline rather than the first, with chart choice and annotations inheriting the domain-insight narrative from Stage 1.
  • Because the approach does not rely on closed ontologies or QA templates, the same machinery should transfer to mixed-domain and unfamiliar datasets, though the paper only demonstrates three.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test is ablating the Self-Reflector: the paper compares the whole pipeline to a single prompt, so it does not isolate how much of the gain comes from reflection versus domain detection.
  • If the domain-label-as-frame effect is real, it suggests a general principle for prompt design: asking the model to name the context of a task is a lightweight way to activate relevant knowledge frames, which could transfer beyond dashboards to report writing or root-cause analysis.
  • Because the evaluator criteria overlap with the system's own reflection target, the loop could be gaming its judge; a human-rated version of the same comparison would separate analytical quality from stylistic fluency.
  • The system's tendency to surface forward-looking concepts such as automation, compliance, and AI integration beyond the ground truth hints that domain-driven agents could serve as idea generators for analysts, not just dashboard builders.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes D2D, a multi-agent LLM framework that converts raw business tables into annotated dashboards through a staged pipeline: data profiling, domain detection, concept extraction, multi-perspective analysis generation, iterative self-reflection, and Tree-of-Thought-based chart selection. The authors evaluate the system on three datasets, comparing against a non-agentic GPT-4o baseline using G-Eval scores and against a single Kaggle notebook for chart and insight quality. They report improvements in insightfulness, novelty, and depth and claim that domain-aware modular agents outperform a prompt-only baseline. The paper also includes a qualitative comparison with InsightBench ground truth for one dataset.

Significance. If the central empirical claim is substantiated, the paper would offer a useful proof-of-concept for automating domain-grounded business analytics, with a modular design that avoids closed ontologies and question templates. The release of code, the use of a real business-school simulation dataset, and the qualitative anchoring against InsightBench ground truth are commendable and give the work a concrete starting point. The authors are also transparent about limitations, including the incomplete Stage 2 implementation and the need for future human expert evaluation. However, the current evaluation protocol is not sufficient to support the paper's headline claims: the G-Eval scores come from a single run with no error bars or significance tests, the primary judge is from the same model family that generates and iteratively optimizes the outputs, and there is an internal inconsistency between the scores in Table 1 and the text. The significance of the claimed result therefore remains unverified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, Table 1 and Result 2] The reported quantitative results are internally inconsistent. Table 1 reports Novelty 0.65 (GPT-4o) vs 0.83 (Ours) and Depth 0.75 vs 0.99, while the text immediately below reports novelty 0.599 vs 0.390 and depth 0.942 vs 0.803. These two sets of numbers cannot both describe the same experiment, and the discrepancy is not explained. Because the paper's central claim of 'significantly outperforms' rests on these numbers, the manuscript must be corrected to present a single, consistent set of scores.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Section 4.1] The evaluation protocol confounds architectural benefit with inference-time optimization budget. The Self-Reflector iterates until the in-pipeline Evaluator returns 4/4 on insightfulness, novelty, and depth, and the final outputs are then scored by G-Eval on the same three criteria, using an LLM judge from the same model family. The non-agentic GPT-4o baseline is not given any iterative rubric-optimization loop. Consequently, the relative lift in Table 1 could be produced mechanically by a judge that rewards longer, better-structured, or more domain-sounding text, rather than by the modular agent design. No error bars, repeated runs, or significance tests are reported, and the abstract's mention of 'qualitative human assessment' is not backed by any human evaluation in the paper (Section 4.1 explicitly defers this to future work). To support the claim, the authors should either give the baseline the same reflection budget, use a held-out judge or human raters, and report variance measures.
  3. [Section 6, Result 4 and Table 2] The chart-evaluation claim is undermined by the manuscript's own statements. The authors write that '2 charts being plotted incorrectly due to coding errors' in the Stage 2 system, yet Table 2 reports that the proposed method outperforms the Kaggle notebook on all G-Eval metrics, and the text concludes that 'our work still demonstrates highly insightful chart attributes.' With two of five charts incorrect, the chart-generation quality is not established. Moreover, the comparison uses a single Kaggle notebook as the only baseline, with no variance or statistical testing, and no quantitative chart-accuracy measure is reported. The claims in Result 4 should be substantially revised or supported with additional baselines and correctness metrics.
  4. [Section 5 and Section 4.1] The experimental description lacks the detail needed to reproduce the headline comparison. The manuscript does not specify the number of independent runs, the temperature or decoding parameters, the maximum reflection iterations 'n', the exact G-Eval prompts used, or how the G-Eval scores were aggregated. Since the entire quantitative contribution rests on these scores, these details are load-bearing and must be added, along with the actual output samples from both the system and the baseline.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The text refers to 'BenchInsight' in the sentence 'Unlike BenchInsight, our approach requires zero supplementary context'; this should be 'InsightBench' for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  2. [Section 6, Result 1] The phrase 'sectorfocu' and 'regionalocus' appears to contain typos; these should read 'sector focus' and 'regional focus.'
  3. [Section 3.3] The statement that 'the quality of generated insights was found to inversely impact chart generation accuracy' is unclear: the authors likely mean that higher-quality insights made chart generation more difficult, but the direction of the effect and the evidence for it are not stated explicitly.
  4. [Section 4.1] The paper says the evaluation is 'tailored' to enterprise needs but does not provide the actual G-Eval rubric. Including the full rubric in an appendix or supplementary material would improve transparency.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline empirical claim is partially circular: outputs are iteratively optimized until an in-pipeline LLM evaluator returns 4/4 on the same criteria later used by G-Eval to certify superiority.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2 (Self-Reflector) and Section 4.1 (G-Eval), feeding Table 1]
    "The loop runs for up to n iterations or terminates early once all evaluation scores meet a predefined threshold. Notably, we intentionally set a high bar (4 out of 4 across all criteria) to force the LLM to fully utilize its reasoning capabilities, improving insight quality and analytical depth over time. [...] Specifically, we tailor the prompts to account for business reasoning insightfulness and alignment with domain concepts , rather than general QA accuracy. To make the evaluation fair, the outputs are scored across (1) insightfulness, (2) novelty, and (3) depth."

    The system's outputs are iteratively revised until an in-pipeline LLM Evaluator gives 4/4 on criteria that include insightfulness, novelty, and depth (Section 3.2). The final evaluation then scores the same outputs with G-Eval on exactly those three dimensions (Section 4.1), and Table 1 reports the resulting lift. The non-agentic baseline is a single-prompt GPT-4o run with no equivalent reflection loop, so it never gets to optimize against the judge's rubric. The headline 'significantly outperforms' therefore conflates architectural merit with extra compute spent optimizing toward an LLM-judged criterion that is the same criterion used to measure success.

full rationale

One specific circular step is present, and it bears on the paper's central quantitative claim (Table 1 / Result 2). The Self-Reflector optimizes until the in-pipeline Evaluator returns maximum scores on insightfulness, novelty, and depth; the final G-Eval evaluation measures precisely the same three dimensions. Because the baseline is not given the iterative rubric-optimization loop, the reported 'lift' is in part a measure of inference-time search against the judge's rubric rather than an independent property of the architecture. This is not a full 8-10 because there is no self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and the InsightBench comparison and the chart-style analysis do use external artifacts; however, those external checks are qualitative or acknowledged as incomplete. The numeric inconsistency between Section 6 text (novelty 0.599 vs 0.390; depth 0.942 vs 0.803) and Table 1 (0.65 vs 0.83; 0.75 vs 0.99) is a reporting/consistency concern rather than a circularity, but it further weakens confidence in the empirical foundation. Overall, the central 'better than baseline' claim is partially circular because the system is fitted to maximize the same LLM-judged criteria on which it is then evaluated.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The system rests on several unvalidated domain assumptions: that LLM-generated domain labels are accurate enough to anchor analysis, that LLM-based evaluation reflects real quality, and that the chosen benchmark comparisons are representative. The only adjustable numeric parameter is the 4/4 reflection threshold; no fitting to data occurs.

free parameters (1)
  • reflection threshold = 4 out of 4
    Hand-set stopping criterion for the Self-Reflector; forces the LLM to iterate until its own evaluator awards maximum scores. Chosen by hand, not derived.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLM-inferred domain labels, grounded in Wikipedia, are adequate substitutes for expert domain knowledge
    Section 3.2 Domain Detector; the whole pipeline anchors on this label, with no validation against a fixed ontology or expert labels.
  • domain assumption G-Eval scores (LLM-as-judge) reflect true insightfulness, novelty, and depth
    Section 4.1; used for all quantitative comparisons; no human expert ratings were collected, only planned in future work.
  • domain assumption The InsightBench ground-truth insights are the correct reference for analytical direction
    Section 4.1 and Result 3; the system is judged by alignment with InsightBench's ground truth, but the paper also claims its own directions might be valid.
  • domain assumption A single Kaggle notebook's insights and charts are a representative baseline for chart analysis comparison
    Section 6 Result 4; only one Kaggle user comparison.
invented entities (2)
  • domain (business context label)
    purpose: Anchors all downstream analysis; generated per dataset by the Domain Detector
    A self-generated abstraction without benchmark validation; future work proposes self-consistency but it is not implemented.
  • domain concept (granular analytical element)
    purpose: Guides the Analysis Generator and chart selection
    Extracted from the self-generated domain label; no external grounding.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-to-Dashboard: Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Insightful Visualization in Enterprise Analytics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EL54OW3G

@misc{pith2026250523695,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-to-Dashboard: Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Insightful Visualization in Enterprise Analytics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EL54OW3G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23695}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid advancement of LLMs has led to the creation of diverse agentic systems in data analysis, utilizing LLMs' capabilities to improve insight generation and visualization. In this paper, we present an agentic system that automates the data-to-dashboard pipeline through modular LLM agents capable of domain detection, concept extraction, multi-perspective analysis generation, and iterative self-reflection. Unlike existing chart QA systems, our framework simulates the analytical reasoning process of business analysts by retrieving domain-relevant knowledge and adapting to diverse datasets without relying on closed ontologies or question templates. We evaluate our system on three datasets across different domains. Benchmarked against GPT-4o with a single-prompt baseline, our approach shows improved insightfulness, domain relevance, and analytical depth, as measured by tailored evaluation metrics and qualitative human assessment. This work contributes a novel modular pipeline to bridge the path from raw data to visualization, and opens new opportunities for human-in-the-loop validation by domain experts in business analytics. All code can be found here: https://github.com/77luvC/D2D_Data2Dashboard

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23695 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Existing approaches, whether agentic or non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our end-to-end data-insight-visualization approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Comparison of our generated insights with Insight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: This figure compares the insights obtained with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of insightful figures generated by our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Data Analysis in the Wild: Benchmarking Large Language Models Against Real-World Data Complexities

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    DataGovBench is a new benchmark using 178 large multi-tabular government datasets showing state-of-the-art LLMs and agents achieve below 40% QA accuracy and below 50% insight scores, far from real-world data analysis demands.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Leilani Battle and Alvitta Ottley. 2023. What exactly is an insight? a literature review. 2023 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS) (2023), 91–95

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Alexander Bendeck and John Stasko. 2024. An empirical evaluation of the gpt-4 multimodal language model on visualization literacy tasks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    schraefel

    Eun Kyoung Choe, Bongshin Lee, and m.c. schraefel. 2015. Characterizing Vi- sualization Insights from Quantified Selfers’ Personal Data Presentations. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 35, 4 (2015), 28–37. doi:10.1109/MCG.2015.51

    doi:10.1109/mcg.2015.51 2015

  4. [4]

    Kiroong Choe, Chaerin Lee, Soohyun Lee, Jiwon Song, Aeri Cho, Nam Wook Kim, and Jinwook Seo. 2024. Enhancing data literacy on-demand: Llms as guides for novices in chart interpretation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Choudhary

    T. Choudhary. 2024. Domain expertise in data analytics: Enhancing insights across industries. International Journal of Research in Computer Applications and Information Technology (IJRCAIT) 7, 2 (2024), 69–82

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Nadia Delanoy. 2021. The Importance of Human Domain Knowledge and Business Data Analytics to Support Modern Financial Decisions. International Journal of Accounting and Finance 4 (01 2021). doi:10.22158/ijafs.v4n1p1

    work page doi:10.22158/ijafs.v4n1p1 2021

  7. [7]

    Victor Dibia. 2023. LIDA: A tool for automatic generation of grammar-agnostic visualizations and infographics using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.02927 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    2004.Domain-driven design: tackling complexity in the heart of software

    Eric Evans. 2004.Domain-driven design: tackling complexity in the heart of software. Addison-Wesley Professional

    2004

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Gomez, Hua Guo, Caroline Ziemkiewicz, and David H

    Steven R. Gomez, Hua Guo, Caroline Ziemkiewicz, and David H. Laidlaw. 2014. An insight- and task-based methodology for evaluating spatiotemporal visual analytics. In 2014 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (V AST). 63–72. doi:10.1109/VAST.2014.7042482

    2014

  2. [10]

    Jiayi Hong, Christian Seto, Arlen Fan, and Ross Maciejewski. 2025. Do LLMs Have Visualization Literacy? An Evaluation on Modified Visualizations to Test Generalization in Data Interpretation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Eser Kandogan and Ulrich Engelke. 2018. Towards a unified representation of insight in human-in-the-loop analytics: A user study. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Human-In-the-Loop Data Analytics. 1–7

    2018

  4. [12]

    Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. 2023. G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment. arXiv:2303.16634 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16634

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Zijun Liu, Peiyi Wang, Runxin Xu, Shirong Ma, Chong Ruan, Peng Li, Yang Liu, and Yu Wu. 2025. Inference-time scaling for generalist reward modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02495 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Michael Lounsbury, Joep Cornelissen, Nina Granqvist, and Stine Grodal. 2021. Cul- ture, innovation and entrepreneurship. In Culture, Innovation and Entrepreneur- ship. Routledge, 1–12

    2021

  7. [15]

    Ahmed Masry, Do Xuan Long, Jia Qing Tan, Shafiq Joty, and Enamul Hoque

  8. [16]

    Deborah McCutchen. 1986. Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of memory and language 25, 4 (1986), 431–444

    1986

  9. [17]

    Nitindatta. n.d.. Finance Data. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/nitindatta/ finance-data Kaggle

  10. [18]

    Nitindatta. n.d.. Finance Data Analysis. https://www.kaggle.com/code/nitindatta/ finance-data-analysis Kaggle Notebook

  11. [19]

    Alberto Sánchez Pérez, Alaa Boukhary, Paolo Papotti, Luis Castejón Lozano, and Adam Elwood. 2025. An LLM-Based Approach for Insight Generation in Data Analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11664 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Md Main Uddin Rony, Fan Du, Ryan Rossi, Jane Hoffswell, Niyati Chhaya, Iftikhar Burhanuddin, and Eunyee Koh. 2023. Augmenting Visualizations with Predictive and Investigative Insights to Facilitate Decision Making. In Companion Proceed- ings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 . 77–81

    2023

  13. [21]

    Gaurav Sahu, Abhay Puri, Juan Rodriguez, Amirhossein Abaskohi, Mohammad Chegini, Alexandre Drouin, Perouz Taslakian, Valentina Zantedeschi, Alexandre Lacoste, David Vazquez, et al. 2024. Insightbench: Evaluating business analytics agents through multi-step insight generation. ...

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Saraiya, C

    P. Saraiya, C. North, and K. Duca. 2004. An Evaluation of Microarray Visualization Tools for Biological Insight. In IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization . 1–8. doi:10.1109/INFVIS.2004.5

    2004 doi

  15. [23]

    Saraiya, C

    P. Saraiya, C. North, and K. Duca. 2005. An insight-based methodology for evaluating bioinformatics visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 11, 4 (2005), 443–456. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2005.53

    2005 doi

  16. [24]

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:2303.11366 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303. 11366

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Drucker, Alex Endert, and John Stasko

    Arjun Srinivasan, Steven M. Drucker, Alex Endert, and John Stasko. 2019. Aug- menting Visualizations with Interactive Data Facts to Facilitate Interpretation and Communication. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 1 (2019), 672–681. doi:10.1109/TVCG.201...

    2019

  18. [26]

    Mara Ströbel, Kai Eckert, and Till Nagel. 2024. Hey ChatGPT, can you visualize my data?–A Multi-Dimensional Study on using an LLM for Constructing Data Visualizations. (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    The Wharton School. 2025. Marketing Simulation: Customer Centricity . https: //interactive.wharton.upenn.edu/academic/customer-centricity-simulation/ © 2025, The Wharton School, The University of Pennsylvania

    2025

  20. [28]

    Fen Wang, Bomiao Wang, Xueli Shu, Zhen Liu, Zekai Shao, Chao Liu, and Siming Chen. 2025. ChartInsighter: An Approach for Mitigating Hallucination in Time- series Chart Summary Generation with A Benchmark Dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09349 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Huichen Will Wang, Jane Hoffswell, Victor S Bursztyn, Cindy Xiong Bearfield, et al. 2024. How Aligned are Human Chart Takeaways and LLM Predictions? A Case Study on Bar Charts with Varying Layouts. IEEE Transactions on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Lei Wang, Songheng Zhang, Yun Wang, Ee-Peng Lim, and Yong Wang. 2023. Llm4vis: Explainable visualization recommendation using chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07652 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Norman L Webb. 2002. Depth-of-knowledge levels for four content areas. Lan- guage Arts 28, March (2002), 1–9

    2002

  24. [32]

    Yang Wu, Yao Wan, Hongyu Zhang, Yulei Sui, Wucai Wei, Wei Zhao, Guandong Xu, and Hai Jin. 2024. Automated data visualization from natural language via large language models: An exploratory study. Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data 2, 3 (2024), 1–28

    2024

  25. [33]

    Yifan Wu, Lutao Yan, Leixian Shen, Yunhai Wang, Nan Tang, and Yuyu Luo. 2024. Chartinsights: Evaluating multimodal large language models for low-level chart question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07001 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zhengzhuo Xu, Sinan Du, Yiyan Qi, Chengjin Xu, Chun Yuan, and Jian Guo. 2023. Chartbench: A benchmark for complex visual reasoning in charts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15915 (2023). Data-to-Dashboard: Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Insightful Visualization in Enterprise Analyti...

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models. arXiv:2305.10601 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2305.10601

    2023 arXiv

  28. [2022]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10244 (2022)

    Chartqa: A benchmark for question answering about charts with visual and logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10244 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.