REVIEW 1 cited by
$C^2$: Scalable Auto-Feedback for LLM-based Chart Generation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
Generating high-quality charts with Large Language Models (LLMs) presents significant challenges due to limited data and the high cost of scaling through human curation. $\langle \text{instruction}, \text{data}, \text{code} \rangle$ triplets are scarce and expensive to manually curate as their creation demands technical expertise. To address this scalability challenge, we introduce a reference-free automatic feedback generator, which eliminates the need for costly human intervention. Our novel framework, C$^2$, consists of (1) an automatic feedback provider (ChartAF) and (2) a diverse, reference-free dataset (ChartUIE-8K). The results are compelling: in our first experiment, 74% of respondents strongly preferred, and 10% preferred, the results after feedback. The second post-feedback experiment demonstrates that ChartAF outperform nine baselines. Moreover, ChartUIE-8K significantly improves data diversity by increasing queries, datasets, and chart types by 5982%, 1936%, and 91%, respectively, over benchmarks. Finally, a study of LLM users revealed that 94% of participants preferred ChartUIE-8K's queries, with 93% deeming them aligned with real-world use cases. Core contributions are available as open-source at chartsquared.github.io, with ample qualitative examples.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Does It Run and Is That Enough? Revisiting Text-to-Chart Generation with a Multi-Agent Approach
A draft-and-repair agentic loop using GPT-4o-mini reduces text-to-chart execution errors to 4.5-4.6% on two benchmarks, suggesting execution is nearly solved and future work should focus on quality and accessibility.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.