Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

RAGE-Vis:A Relation-Aware Generative Editing Interface for Natural Language-Based Chart Editing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read RAGE-Vis turns vague, multi-part chart editing requests into coordinated, inspectable control panels that keep related chart elements in sync.

desk verdict A genuinely useful systems paper on relation-aware chart editing whose central consistency claim rests on an unmeasured relation-template completeness assumption, but the contribution still warrants serious peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11581 v1 pith:RNAJNR25 submitted 2026-08-12 cs.HC

Ziyao Kang , Yiping Sun , Linxuan Tian , Henghuan Qu , Wei Zeng , Jiazhi Xia This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords charteditingnaturallanguageinterfacesgenerativeuserlargemodelscross-componentconsistencyvisualencodingrelationsstudyimagereconstruction
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

RAGE-Vis claims that the right way to handle vague, multi-part chart editing instructions is to convert them into interactive panels that expose both the fields the user asked about and the fields those edits will silently disturb. The paper argues that existing natural-language chart tools fail when a request such as "make the chart more coordinated" touches marks, legends, labels, and titles at once. Its proposed system decomposes such requests into sub-intents, generates candidate presets for underspecified goals, and uses a typed relation model over chart fields to surface cross-component dependencies as adjustable widgets. A user study with 32 participants reports that this design significantly cuts the number of follow-up language requests (4.28 vs 6.25) and accumulated model response time, while preserving final chart quality. If the result holds, non-experts gain a practical route from loose intentions to coherent multi-component chart edits.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a typed field-level relation model over the chart's parameterized intermediate representation, resolved through a hand-authored relation template file. Each editable field carries source-data path, chart component, visual channel, semantic role, and dependency metadata; three relation types—visual encoding, structural, and expressive consistency—connect fields that should change together. This model is what lets Coordinated Relationship Analysis start from the target fields of a decomposed intent and return the Affected Fields that appear as coordinated widgets, turning cross-component consistency from an afterthought into a retrievable structure.

What would settle it

Run a broad set of chart edits (style change, data insertion, legend rearrangement, axis rescaling) across varied chart types and measure whether the Affected Fields panel omits a component that visibly must change for the chart to remain coherent; if such omissions occur regularly, the template-based relation model is incomplete. Concretely, rescale the y-axis of a dual-axis chart and check whether the second axis, its gridlines, and any linked annotations are exposed as affected fields.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that chart components are not isolated editing targets: every field in a rendered chart participates in visual encoding relations (e.g., mark colors and legend swatches sharing a mapping), structural relations (e.g., data rows generating marks, legend height constraining plot area), and expressive consistency relations (e.g., a subtitle that states the data range should change when the range changes). RAGE-Vis encodes these as typed field-level relations in the chart's intermediate representation and, for each natural-language request, retrieves all fields connected to the direct targets. The system then organizes retrieved fields into Affected Fields panels with brief explanations, alongside Design Presets and Target Fields, so that a single high-level request becomes an inspectable, coordinated editing space instead of a single widget.

Load-bearing premise

The system's consistency guarantee depends on the hand-written relation template file containing all the dependencies that actually matter for a given editing task; the paper itself notes that its three predefined relation types omit complex dependencies such as cross-view consistency and high-level design constraints.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can issue one underspecified request and get several candidate schemes to compare rather than a single interpretation committed by the model.
  • Fewer additional natural-language clarifications are needed during a session, which also reduces accumulated model response time.
  • Editing operations propagate consistently across marks, legends, labels, titles, and annotations, so local fixes do not produce globally inconsistent charts.
  • Because the input can be a bitmap chart image reconstructed into editable code, existing static charts become editable without their original source files.
  • The workflow is not tied to D3 specifically, and the paper argues it can transfer to Vega-Lite, ECharts, SVG, or other structured visualization representations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to expand the relation model beyond three categories, e.g., learned or instance-specific relations for cross-view consistency and design constraints, which the paper lists as future work; if effective, the same Affected Fields mechanism could serve multi-chart dashboards and infographics.
  • The measured reduction in follow-up requests suggests a general interaction principle: explicitly exposing the side effects of an edit can substitute for conversational repair turns in other generative-UI settings.
  • One testable extension is to vary the completeness of the relation template across conditions and measure how often users must manually correct a coordinated edit, which would quantify how much of the benefit comes from relation coverage versus panel design.
  • The system's reliance on a proprietary LLM for intent parsing means reproducibility and quality may shift with the underlying model; the offline intent-decomposition precision of 82.02% indicates headroom for validation rules that catch mis-parsed intents before panels are generated.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents RAGE-Vis, a system for natural-language chart editing that converts bitmap or HTML charts into a parameterized intermediate representation, decomposes composite and underspecified requests into sub-intents, and generates hierarchical editing panels containing Design Presets, Target Fields, and Affected Fields. Cross-component dependencies are modeled as three typed field-level relations: visual encoding relations, structural relations, and expressive consistency relations. The authors report two case studies (a mirrored bar chart and a multi-category radar chart) and a within-subjects user study (N=32) comparing the full system with an ablation that removes Design Presets and Affected Fields. The reported results include fewer additional natural-language requests (4.28 vs. 6.25, p<.001), lower accumulated model response time, comparable objective final-chart quality (8.20 vs. 8.36), and higher subjective ratings for alternative comparison (TQ4), related-component discovery (TQ6), and consistency maintenance (TQ7). An offline pipeline evaluation reports an intent-decomposition precision of 82.02% and an affected-field false-positive ratio of 0.84%.

Significance. If the central claims hold, RAGE-Vis would be a useful step toward letting non-experts express composite, underspecified chart-editing goals in natural language while keeping cross-component consistency inspectable and controllable. The paper's conceptual contributions—the decomposition of editing into sub-intents, the display of affected fields with dependency reasons, and the three relation types—are clearly articulated and align with real design requirements. The user study is more rigorous than many systems papers in reporting effect sizes and Holm-adjusted p-values, and the two case studies demonstrate the system on structurally different charts. The offline precision of affected-field expansion is a positive signal, and the authors deserve credit for identifying the setting of the study honestly, including a fixed condition order and the proprietary-model dependency. However, as detailed below, the evidence for the load-bearing relation-aware contribution is incomplete, and two experimental confounds make the current comparative claims stronger than the design supports.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.2 / Section 5.2.3] The central claim that relation-aware expansion maintains cross-component consistency is not supported because the offline evaluation measures only a precision-side metric, never recall. The paper states that Coordinated Relationship Analysis "retrieves relevant fields and determines dependencies based on a relation template file," but the contents, size, authoring process, and coverage of that template are not reported. The affected-field false-positive ratio of 0.84% is consistent with a system that returns very few or no affected fields, so it cannot establish that the fields that should change together are actually retrieved. Section 6.3 explicitly concedes that the three predefined relation types omit complex dependencies such as cross-view consistency and high-level design constraints. The paper should report recall or a ground-truth completeness analysis over a labeled set of editing requests, and it should describe the relation template and its coverage; without this, the observed reductions in natural-language requests and the high TQ6/TQ7 ratings may reflect only the subset of relations covered by the template.
  2. [Section 5.2.1 / Section 5.2.2] The within-subjects user study is confounded by a fixed system order: "all participants used RAGE-Vis before the control condition." Learning effects, task familiarity, and fatigue in the second condition can reduce the number of additional natural-language requests, accumulated model response time, and subjective workload independently of the interface's merits. The authors invoke the fixed order to explain the slightly lower objective quality of the full system (8.20 vs. 8.36), but if order can plausibly explain that decrement, it can equally explain the observed efficiency and subjective gains. The comparative claims require counterbalancing of system order or, failing that, a quantitative order-effect analysis showing that the measured differences are not explained by session position.
  3. [Section 5.2.1 / Section 4.3] The ablation removes Design Presets and Affected Fields simultaneously, so the user-study results cannot isolate the contribution of the relation-aware Affected Fields component from that of Design Presets. For example, TQ4 (alternative comparison) is naturally driven by Design Presets, while TQ6 and TQ7 are intended to measure the affected-field mechanism; a reduction in the number of natural-language requests could plausibly be caused by the presets alone. The paper should add a condition that removes only one of the two components, or it should use per-panel interaction logs to show that the affected-field widgets themselves, rather than the preset alternatives, produce the measured benefits.
  4. [Section 5.2.3] The offline pipeline evaluation is too thinly reported to support the reliability conclusions drawn from it. Intent-decomposition is summarized only as a precision of 82.02%, with no recall, no inter-annotator agreement measure, and no error taxonomy, even though two experts were used for annotation. The affected-field expansion is summarized only by a false-positive ratio, which, as noted above, says nothing about missed affected fields. Without recall, an inter-annotator agreement statistic, and a description of how the gold annotations were constructed, the reader cannot judge whether the pipeline reliably finds the intents and dependencies that the user study depends on.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 5 and 6 / Section 5.2.2] The text contains long corrupted glyph sequences (the "/uni000000..." strings) inside the figure captions and between the numerical results in Section 5.2.2, making part of the quantitative results unreadable. The manuscript source should be regenerated so that the captions and the total-task-time values appear as normal text.
  2. [Section 5.2.2] The total task time for the full-system condition is reported as "13 min 51 s±" and is then interrupted by the corrupted glyph block; the mean and standard deviation should be stated explicitly in readable form.
  3. [Section 4.1.3] The expressive consistency relation is defined as an intent-specific relation template, but no concrete example of such a template or of an instantiation is provided; a small worked example would greatly improve reproducibility and reader understanding.
  4. [Section 6.2] The claim that the workflow "could be transferred" to Vega-Lite, ECharts, SVG, infographics, and interface editing is plausible but currently unsubstantiated; consider either providing a concrete transfer argument or softening the claim to a research opportunity.
  5. [References] Several bibliography entries contain awkward line breaks inside DOIs (for example, references [2], [5], and [13]); these should be cleaned up in the camera-ready version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper's central claims are evaluated through independent user-study outcomes and no derived quantity reduces by construction to its inputs.

full rationale

RAGE-Vis is a systems paper; its claimed contributions are an interface, a relation-aware workflow, and an evaluation. The relation template file is an implementation input, not a result derived from the outcome it is supposed to produce. Affected-field retrieval (Section 4.2.2) is specified to 'determine dependencies based on a relation template file,' which encodes the system's design assumptions; the user study then measures independent behavioral outcomes (number of additional natural-language requests, accumulated model response time, task completion, objective chart-quality scores, and questionnaire ratings) against an ablated baseline. None of these outcome variables is defined in terms of the template contents, so the reductions in requests and response time cannot be forced by construction. The Section 5.2.3 offline evaluation reports intent-decomposition precision and a 0.84% false-positive ratio for affected-field expansion; while the experts' judgments may be influenced by the authors' own design (a validity concern), the paper does not define affected-field correctness in terms of the template, and a false-positive rate is not a metric whose maximization is equivalent to validating the template's coverage. Section 6.3 explicitly concedes that the three predefined relation types omit complex dependencies such as cross-view consistency and high-level design constraints; this is an acknowledged coverage limitation rather than a circular step. Citations to prior work (e.g., DynaVis [47] and ChartEdit [61]) are used for comparative framing and evaluation protocol, not to justify the paper's own relation mechanism, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation. Overall, no predicted or derived quantity in the paper reduces by construction, self-citation, or definition to the system's own inputs, so the appropriate circularity finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No numeric free parameters are fit in this systems paper. The central claims rest on hand-authored relation templates, a proprietary LLM, bitmap reconstruction fidelity, and expert labels in offline evaluation. The main circularity concern is that the relation-aware mechanism is designed and labeled by the same team; the user study provides independent, if imperfect, outcome evidence.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The three relation types (visual encoding, structural, expressive consistency) are sufficient to maintain cross-component consistency for the supported chart edits.
    This is the conceptual core of the system; the relation template file is hand-authored and the paper concedes in Section 6.3 that cross-view consistency and high-level design constraints are omitted.
  • domain assumption GPT-5.3-Codex can perform chart understanding, code generation, intent parsing, and recommendation reliably enough for the pipeline.
    Invoked in Section 4.2 and acknowledged as a reproducibility risk in Section 6.3; no ablation across alternative models is reported.
  • domain assumption Bitmap chart images can be reconstructed into HTML with sufficient fidelity for editable parameterization.
    Required for the chart-image input scenario in Section 4.2.1; the limitations section states that image-based reconstruction lacks pixel-level accuracy and can degrade responsiveness.
  • domain assumption Two expert annotations provide ground truth for intent decomposition and affected-field relevance.
    Used to compute the 82.02% intent-decomposition precision and 0.84% false-positive ratio in Section 5.2.3; no inter-annotator agreement or external benchmark is reported.
invented entities (1)
  • Expressive consistency relation as a dynamic intent-specific relation template
    purpose: Activates the fields that should jointly support a communicative goal such as emphasis, comparison, explanation, or narrative clarification during coordinated editing.
    Introduced in Section 4.1.3 as one of the three relation types; it is instantiated by hand-built templates tied to the inferred intent, with no external validation that these templates match users' communicative goals beyond self-reported questionnaires.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RAGE-Vis:A Relation-Aware Generative Editing Interface for Natural Language-Based Chart Editing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RNAJNR25

@misc{pith2026260811581,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RAGE-Vis:A Relation-Aware Generative Editing Interface for Natural Language-Based Chart Editing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RNAJNR25}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11581}
}
read the original abstract

Natural language offers an easy way for users to express chart editing intents, which are often composite and cross-component (e.g., adjusting style, extending categories, highlighting values). However, existing methods typically map instructions to a single operation or widget, limiting their ability to handle high-level requests and often producing locally plausible but globally inconsistent results due to a lack of awareness of relationships between chart components. To address these challenges, we introduce RAGE-Vis, a Relation-Aware Generative Editing interface for natural language-based chart editing. The system supports bitmap chart images as input and converts them into an editable parameterized intermediate representation. Instead of mapping instructions to a single edit or widget, RAGE-Vis parses composite intents, identifies targets and scopes, and generates hierarchical editing panels for underspecified requests, enabling users to adjust both global settings and local parameters. Furthermore, RAGE-Vis identifies potentially affected fields based on visual encoding relations, structural relationships, and expressive consistency relations, and organizes them into actionable widgets to support cross-component coordinated controls. Through two case studies, we demonstrate the applicability of RAGE-Vis in complex editing tasks, including style adjustment, data extension, order rearrangement, legend layout, and color mapping. A user study further shows that participants can effectively handle underspecified requests, explore candidate alternatives, and maintain cross-component consistency with RAGE-Vis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11581 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Case I: RAGE-Vis supports relation-aware editing of a chart image. Starting from an uploaded mirrored bar chart, the system parses the visual content, reconstructs it into editable code, and generates a visual editing panel. Users can then iteratively issue natural-language requests, such as resizing the chart and changing its color style, adding new data and highlighting the maximum value, and reversing the data or… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The workflow of RAGE-Vis. Given a chart (bitmap/HTML) and a NL request, The Chart Preprocessing Module (A) extracts ed￾itable data and rendering scripts via Chart Refactoring and Module Separation. The Intent-driven Editing Module (B) then processes the request through Intent Decomposition, Fields Expansion, Coordi￾nated Relationship Analysis, and Recommendation Setting. Finally, the Panel Generation Module (C) tran… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. System interface of RAGE-Vis, including Chart Input (A), LLM Chat (B), Chart Preview (C), and Visual Panels (D). Coordinated Relationship Analysis. Starting from the target fields identified for each sub-intent, RAGE-Vis searches the field￾level relation structure to find additional fields that may need to be inspected or edited together with the target. The search fol￾lows three relation types: visual encoding rela… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Case II: RAGE-Vis supports relation-aware editing of a multi-category radar chart. The system generates visual controls for title/decorative adjustment, legend and color editing, and stylized data generation while enabling users to coordinate related components. verify…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Post-task questionnaire results, together with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Post-study comparative questionnaire results. SQ1–SQ9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    S. Cha, S. Jo, J. Shin, and K. Seo. Design system-compliant user interface generation with llm agents: A comparative study of context engineering strategies. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’26. Association for Computing Machinery, 2026. doi: 10. 1145/3772363.3798616 3

    arXiv 2026

  2. [3]

    J. Chen, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhang, Y . Shao, and D. Yang. Generative in- terfaces for language models.CoRR, abs/2508.19227, 2025. doi: 10. 48550/ARXIV.2508.19227 3

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.19227 2025

  3. [4]

    N. Chen, Y . Zhang, J. Xu, K. Ren, and Y . Yang. Viseval: A bench- mark for data visualization in the era of large language models.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(1):1301– 1311, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456320 2

    arXiv 2025

  4. [5]

    Y . Chen, R. Li, A. Mac, T. Xie, T. Yu, and E. Wu. NL2INTERFACE: interactive visualization interface generation from natural language queries.CoRR, abs/2209.08834, 2022. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2209 .08834 1, 2

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209 2022

  5. [6]

    Y . Chen, C. Shi, and L. Chen. Specifyui: Supporting iterative UI design intent expression through structured specifications and genera- tive AI.CoRR, abs/2509.07334, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2509. 07334 3

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509 2025

  6. [7]

    Cheng, T

    R. Cheng, T. Barik, A. Leung, F. Hohman, and J. Nichols. Bis- cuit: Scaffolding llm-generated code with ephemeral uis in compu- tational notebooks. In2024 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), pp. 13–23, 2024. doi: 10. 1109/VL/HCC60511.2024.00012 3

    arXiv 2024

  7. [8]

    Dhamdhere, K

    K. Dhamdhere, K. S. McCurley, R. Nahmias, M. Sundararajan, and Q. Yan. Analyza: Exploring data with conversation. InProceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI ’17, p. 493–504. Association for Computing Machinery, 2017. doi: 10.1145/3025171.3025227 2

    arXiv 2017

  8. [9]

    V . Dibia. LIDA: A tool for automatic generation of grammar-agnostic visualizations and infographics using large language models. In D. Bollegala, R. Huang, and A. Ritter, eds.,Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 3: System Demonstrations), pp. 113–126. Association for Computational Linguistics, ...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-demo 2023

Show all 59 references
  1. [10]

    T. Gao, M. Dontcheva, E. Adar, Z. Liu, and K. G. Karahalios. Data- tone: Managing ambiguity in natural language interfaces for data visu- alization. InProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology, UIST ’15, p. 489–500. Association for Co...

    2015

  2. [11]

    J. Hao, M. Yang, Q. Shi, Y . Jiang, G. Zhang, and W. Zeng. Fin- flier: Automating graphical overlays for financial visualizations with knowledge-grounding large language model.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(9):6353–6369, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.20...

    2025

  3. [12]

    Harper and M

    J. Harper and M. Agrawala. Deconstructing and restyling d3 visual- izations. InProceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’14, p. 253–262. Associa- tion for Computing Machinery, 2014. doi: 10.1145/2642918.2647411 2

    2014

  4. [13]

    M. N. Kapadnis, L. Baghel, A. Naik, and C. P. Ros ´e. Charteditbench: Evaluating grounded multi-turn chart editing in multimodal language models.CoRR, abs/2602.15758, 2026. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2602. 15758 2

    2026 doi

  5. [14]

    Kaputa, A

    Z. Kaputa, A. Rajaram, V . Feliciano, Z. Lyu, M. Agrawala, and H. Subramonyam. Simstep: Human-in-the-loop authoring of inter- active educational simulations through task-level abstractions. InPro- ceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems, CHI...

    2026

  6. [16]

    Leviathan, D

    Y . Leviathan, D. Valevski, M. Kalman, D. Lumen, E. Segalis, E. Mo- lad, S. Pasternak, V . Natchu, V . Nygaard, Srinivasan Venkatachary, J. Manyika, and Y . Matias. Generative ui: Llms are effective ui gen- erators, 2026. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.09577 3

    2026 doi arXiv

  7. [17]

    S. Li, R. A. Rossi, S. Kim, S. Choudhary, F. Dernoncourt, P. Mathur, Z. Tu, and Y . Zhao. Charts are not images: On the challenges of scientific chart editing.CoRR, abs/2512.00752, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ ARXIV.2512.00752 2

    2025 doi

  8. [18]

    T. J.-J. Li, M. Radensky, J. Jia, K. Singarajah, T. M. Mitchell, and B. A. Myers. Pumice: A multi-modal agent that learns concepts and conditionals from natural language and demonstrations. InProceed- ings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Soft- ware and Techn...

    2019 doi

  9. [19]

    Z. Li, W. Zhang, and J. Tao. Flowllm: Large language model driven flow visualization.Visual Informatics, 9(3):100241, 2025. doi: 10. 1016/j.visinf.2025.100241 2

    2025

  10. [20]

    Z. Liu, J. Thompson, A. Wilson, M. Dontcheva, J. Delorey, S. Grigg, B. Kerr, and J. Stasko. Data illustrator: Augmenting vector design tools with lazy data binding for expressive visualization authoring. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sy...

    2018

  11. [21]

    W. Lu, J. Zhang, J. Fan, Z. Fu, Y . Chen, and X. Du. Large language model for table processing: A survey.Frontiers of Computer Science, 19(2):192350, 2025. doi: 10.1007/s11704-024-40763-6 2

    2025 doi

  12. [22]

    Y . Luo, N. Tang, G. Li, J. Tang, C. Chai, and X. Qin. Natural language to visualization by neural machine translation.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):217–226, 2022. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2021.3114848 2

    2022

  13. [23]

    J. Ma, L. Shi, K. A. Robertsen, and P. Chi. Ambigchat: Interactive hi- erarchical clarification for ambiguous open-domain question answer- ing. InProceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’25. Association for Com- puting Machi...

    2025

  14. [24]

    Maddigan and T

    P. Maddigan and T. Susnjak. Chat2vis: Generating data visualizations via natural language using chatgpt, codex and gpt-3 large language models.IEEE Access, 11:45181–45193, 2023. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS .2023.3274199 2

    2023

  15. [25]

    A. M. McNutt and R. Chugh. Integrated visualization editing via pa- rameterized declarative templates. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’21. As- sociation for Computing Machinery, 2021. doi: 10.1145/3411764. 3445356 1, 2

    2021 doi

  16. [26]

    B. Min, A. Chen, Y . Cao, and H. Xia. Malleable overview-detail inter- faces. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’25. Association for Computing Machin- ery, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3714164 3

    2025

  17. [27]

    Mitra, A

    R. Mitra, A. Narechania, A. Endert, and J. Stasko. Facilitating conver- sational interaction in natural language interfaces for visualization. In 2022 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS), pp. 6–10, 2022. doi: 10.1109/VIS54862.2022.00010 2

    2022

  18. [28]

    Narechania, A

    A. Narechania, A. Srinivasan, and J. Stasko. Nl4dv: A toolkit for generating analytic specifications for data visualization from natural language queries.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):369–379, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030378 2, 3

    2021

  19. [29]

    Nichols, B

    J. Nichols, B. A. Myers, M. Higgins, J. Hughes, T. K. Harris, R. Rosenfeld, and M. Pignol. Generating remote control interfaces for complex appliances. InProceedings of the 15th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’02, p. 161–170. Association f...

    2002

  20. [30]

    Nichols, B

    J. Nichols, B. A. Myers, and K. Litwack. Improving automatic in- terface generation with smart templates. InProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI ’04, p. 286–288. Association for Computing Machinery, 2004. doi: 10.1145/ 964442.964507 3

    2004

  21. [31]

    D. R. Olsen. Mike: the menu interaction kontrol environment.ACM Trans. Graph., 5(4):318–344, 1986. doi: 10.1145/27623.28868 2

    1986

  22. [32]

    S. Park, S. Lee, E. Choi, H. Kim, M. Kweon, Y . Song, and J. Seo. Bridging gulfs in ui generation through semantic guidance. InPro- ceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems, CHI ’26. Association for Computing Machinery, 2026. doi: 10.1145/377...

    2026

  23. [33]

    A. R. Puerta and J. Eisenstein. Towards a general computational framework for model-based interface development systems. In M. T. Maybury, P. A. Szekely, and C. G. Thomas, eds.,Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI 1999, Los Angele...

    1999

  24. [34]

    D. Ren, B. Lee, and M. Brehmer. Charticulator: Interactive construc- tion of bespoke chart layouts.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):789–799, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2018 .2865158 1, 2

    2019 doi

  25. [35]

    Satyanarayan and J

    A. Satyanarayan and J. Heer. Lyra: An interactive visualization design environment.Comput. Graph. F orum, 33(3):351–360, 2014. doi: 10. 1111/CGF.12391 1, 2

    2014

  26. [36]

    Satyanarayan, D

    A. Satyanarayan, D. Moritz, K. Wongsuphasawat, and J. Heer. Vega- lite: A grammar of interactive graphics.IEEE Transactions on Vi- sualization and Computer Graphics, 23(1):341–350, 2017. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2016.2599030 1, 2

    2017

  27. [37]

    Savva, N

    M. Savva, N. Kong, A. Chhajta, L. Fei-Fei, M. Agrawala, and J. Heer. Revision: automated classification, analysis and redesign of chart im- ages. InProceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’11, p. 393–402. Associa- tion for C...

    2011

  28. [38]

    Setlur, S

    V . Setlur, S. E. Battersby, M. Tory, R. Gossweiler, and A. X. Chang. Eviza: A natural language interface for visual analysis. InProceed- ings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’16, p. 365–377. Association for Computing Ma- chinery, 2...

    2016

  29. [39]

    Setlur, M

    V . Setlur, M. Tory, and A. Djalali. Inferencing underspecified natural language utterances in visual analysis. InProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI ’19, p. 40–51. Association for Computing Machinery, 2019. doi: 10.1145/ 330127...

    2019

  30. [40]

    L. Shen, E. Shen, Y . Luo, X. Yang, X. Hu, X. Zhang, Z. Tai, and J. Wang. Towards natural language interfaces for data visualization: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(6):3121–3144, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3148007 2

    2023

  31. [42]

    Srinivasan and J

    A. Srinivasan and J. Stasko. Orko: Facilitating multimodal interaction for visual exploration and analysis of networks.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):511–521, 2018. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2017.2745219 2

    2018

  32. [43]

    Y . Sun, J. Leigh, A. Johnson, and S. Lee. Articulate: A semi- automated model for translating natural language queries into mean- ingful visualizations. In R. Taylor, P. Boulanger, A. Kr ¨uger, and P. Olivier, eds.,Smart Graphics, pp. 184–195. Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, 2010. 2

    2010

  33. [44]

    Szekely, P

    P. Szekely, P. Luo, and R. Neches. Facilitating the exploration of in- terface design alternatives: the humanoid model of interface design. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems, CHI ’92, p. 507–515. Association for Computing Ma- chiner...

    1992

  34. [45]

    Szekely, P

    P. Szekely, P. Sukaviriya, P. Castells, J. Muthukumarasamy, and E. Salcher.Declarative interface models for user interface construc- tion tools: the Mastermind approach, pp. 120–150. Springer US,

  35. [46]

    Y . Tian, W. Cui, D. Deng, X. Yi, Y . Yang, H. Zhang, and Y . Wu. Chartgpt: Leveraging llms to generate charts from abstract natural lan- guage.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(3):1731–1745, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3368621 2

    2025

  36. [47]

    Vaithilingam, E

    P. Vaithilingam, E. L. Glassman, J. P. Inala, and C. Wang. Dynavis: Dynamically synthesized ui widgets for visualization editing. InPro- ceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput- ing Systems, CHI ’24. Association for Computing Machinery, 2024. doi: 10.114...

    2024

  37. [48]

    Vaithilingam and P

    P. Vaithilingam and P. J. Guo. Bespoke: Interactively synthesiz- ing custom guis from command-line applications by demonstration. InProceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Inter- face Software and Technology, UIST ’19, p. 563–576. Association for Computing Machine...

    2019

  38. [49]

    C. Wang, Y . Feng, R. Bodik, I. Dillig, A. Cheung, and A. J. Ko. Falx: Synthesis-powered visualization authoring. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’21. Association for Computing Machinery, 2021. doi: 10.1145/ 3411764.3445249 2

    2021

  39. [50]

    C. Wang, B. Lee, S. M. Drucker, D. Marshall, and J. Gao. Data for- mulator 2: Iterative creation of data visualizations, with ai transform- ing data along the way. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’25. Association for Computin...

    2025

  40. [51]

    C. Wang, J. Thompson, and B. Lee. Data formulator: Ai-powered concept-driven visualization authoring.IEEE Transactions on Visu- alization and Computer Graphics, 30(1):1128–1138, 2024. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2023.3326585 1, 2

    2024

  41. [52]

    Y . Wang, Z. Hou, L. Shen, T. Wu, J. Wang, H. Huang, H. Zhang, and D. Zhang. Towards natural language-based visualization author- ing.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):1222–1232, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209357 1, 2

    2023

  42. [53]

    Wiecha, W

    C. Wiecha, W. Bennett, S. Boies, J. Gould, and S. Greene. Its: a tool for rapidly developing interactive applications.ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 8(3):204–236, 1990. doi: 10.1145/98188.98194 2

    1990

  43. [54]

    L. Xie, Y . Lin, C. Liu, H. Qu, and X. Shu. Datawink: Reusing and adapting svg-based visualization examples with large multimodal models.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 32(1):824–834, 2026. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2025.3634635 1, 2

    2026

  44. [55]

    Y . Xu, S. Xiang, Y . Song, R. Sun, and X. Tong. Duetui: A bidi- rectional context loop for human-agent co-generation of task-oriented interfaces. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’26. Association for Computing Machinery, 2026...

    2026

  45. [56]

    D. Yang, L. Zhang, Z. Yue, L. Chen, Y . Xu, W. Wang, and Q. Jin. Chartm3: Benchmarking chart editing with multimodal instructions. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multi- media, MM ’25, p. 5001–5009. Association for Computing Machin- ery, 2025. doi: 10...

    2025

  46. [57]

    Y . Ye, J. Hao, Y . Hou, Z. Wang, S. Xiao, Y . Luo, and W. Zeng. Gen- erative AI for Visualization: State of the Art and Future Directions. Visual Informatics, 8:43–66, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.visinf.2024.04.003 3

    2024 doi

  47. [58]

    L. Ying, Y . Wang, H. Li, S. Dou, H. Zhang, X. Jiang, H. Qu, and Y . Wu. Reviving static charts into live charts.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(8):4314–4328, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3397004 2

    2025

  48. [59]

    Yu and C

    B. Yu and C. T. Silva. Flowsense: A natural language interface for visual data exploration within a dataflow system.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1):1–11, 2020. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2019.2934668 2

    2020

  49. [60]

    X. Zeng, H. Lin, Y . Ye, and W. Zeng. Advancing Multimodal Large Language Models in Chart Question Answering with Visualization- Referenced Instruction Tuning.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(1):525–535, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TVCG. 2024.3456159 2

    2024

  50. [61]

    X. Zhao, X. Liu, Y . Haoyue, X. Luo, F. Zeng, J. Li, Q. Shi, and C. Chen. ChartEdit: How far are MLLMs from automating chart analysis? evaluating MLLMs’ capability via chart editing. In W. Che, J. Nabende, E. Shutova, and M. T. Pilehvar, eds.,Findings of the As- sociation for ...

    2025 doi

  51. [1996]

    doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-34907-7 8 2

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.