Natural Language Generation for Visualizations: State of the Art, Challenges and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Natural language and visualization are two complementary modalities of human communication that play a crucial role in conveying information effectively. While visualizations help people discover trends, patterns and anomalies in data, natural language descriptions help explain these insights. Thus, combining text with visualizations is a prevalent technique for effectively delivering the core message of the data. Given the rise of natural language generation (NLG), there is a growing interest in automatically creating natural language descriptions for visualizations, which can be used as chart captions, answering questions about charts or telling data‐driven stories. In this survey, we systematically review the state of the art on NLG for visualizations and introduce a taxonomy of the problem. The NLG tasks fall within the domain of natural language interfaces (NLIs) for visualization, an area that has garnered significant attention from both the research community and industry. To narrow down the scope of the survey, we primarily concentrate on the research works that focus on text generation for visualizations. To characterize the NLG problem and the design space of proposed solutions, we pose five Wh‐questions, why and how NLG tasks are performed for visualizations, what the task inputs and outputs are, as well as where and when the generated texts are integrated with visualizations. We categorize the solutions used in the surveyed papers based on these ‘five Wh‐questions’. Finally, we discuss the key challenges and potential avenues for future research in this domain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".