Dashboards are powerful visualization tools for data-driven decision-making, integrating multiple interactive views that allow users to explore, filter, and navigate data. Unlike static charts, dashboards support rich interactivity, which is essential for uncovering insights in real-world analytical workflows. However, existing question-answering benchmarks for data visualizations largely overlook this interactivity, focusing instead on static charts. This limitation severely constrains their ability to evaluate the capabilities of modern multimodal agents designed for GUI-based reasoning. To address this gap, we introduce DashboardQA, the first benchmark explicitly designed to assess how vision-language GUI agents comprehend and interact with real-world dashboards. The benchmark includes 292 tasks on 112 interactive dashboards, encompassing 405 question answer pairs overall. These questions span five categories: multiple-choice, factoid, hypothetical, multi-dashboard, and conversational. By assessing a variety of leading closed- and open-source GUI agents, our analysis reveals their key limitations, particularly in grounding dashboard elements, planning interaction trajectories, and performing reasoning. Our findings indicate that interactive dashboard reasoning is a challenging task overall for all the VLMs evaluated. Even the top-performing agents struggle; for instance, the best agent based on Gemini-Pro-2.5 achieves only 38.69% accuracy, while the OpenAI CUA agent reaches just 22.69%, demonstrating the benchmark’s significant difficulty. We release DashboardQA at ..

Vision-language models (VLMs) have shown strong capabilities in generating visualization code from textual or visual specifications. However, real-world visualization authoring is inherently iterative: users frequently revise existing visualizations to repair flawed charts or adapt them to desired styles. Existing benchmarks primarily evaluate generation from scratch, leaving visualization code editing from multimodal feedback largely unexplored. We introduce VisEditBench, a benchmark of 1,395 human-annotated visualization code-editing tasks grounded in realistic visualization workflows and failure cases. VisEditBench covers two practical settings: feedback-guided repair, where models revise visualization code using buggy or marked charts together with textual feedback, and reference-guided restyling, where models modify code to match a target chart image. Evaluating 24 state-of-the-art VLMs reveals that visualization code editing remains challenging: Claude Opus 4.6 achieves the best overall pass rate of 76.0%, while most open-source models remain below 50%. Performance is particularly weak on visually grounded style adaptation, where Claude-4.6-Sonnet achieves only 55.71%. To establish a strong baseline, we further propose VisEditAgent, a render-grounded editing framework that iteratively generates, executes, validates, and refines candidate edits. Built on GPT-4o, VisEditAgent improves overall pass rate from 55.75% to 67.99%, demonstrating the importance of render-grounded feedback for faithful visualization editing. We will release VisEditBench at <redacted>.

Charts are ubiquitous, as people often use them to analyze data, answer questions, and discover critical insights. However, performing complex analytical tasks with charts requires significant perceptual and cognitive effort. Chart Question Answering (CQA) systems automate this process by enabling models to interpret and reason with visual representations of data. However, existing benchmarks like ChartQA lack real-world diversity and have recently shown performance saturation with modern large vision-language models (LVLMs). To address these limitations, we introduce ChartQAPro, a new benchmark that includes 1,341 charts from 99 diverse sources, spanning various chart types—including infographics and dashboards—and featuring 1,948 questions in various types, such as multiple-choice, conversational, hypothetical, and unanswerable questions, to better reflect real-world challenges. Our evaluations with 21 models show a substantial performance drop for LVLMs on ChartQAPro; e.g., Claude Sonnet 3.5 scores 90.5% on ChartQA but only 55.81% on ChartQAPro, underscoring the complexity of chart reasoning. We complement our findings with detailed error analyses and ablation studies, identifying key challenges and opportunities for advancing LVLMs in chart understanding and reasoning. We release ChartQAPro at https://github.com/vis-nlp/ChartQAPro.