Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2506.15084

An Empirical Study of Bugs in Data Visualization Libraries

Weiqi Lu·Yongqiang Tian·Xiaohan Zhong·Haoyang Ma·Zhenyang Xu·Shing-Chi Cheung·Chengnian Sun
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Data visualization (DataViz) libraries play a crucial role in presentation, data analysis, and application development, underscoring the importance of their accuracy in transforming data into visual representations. Incorrect visualizations can adversely impact user experience, distort information conveyance, and influence user perception and decision-making processes. Visual bugs in these libraries can be particularly insidious as they may not cause obvious errors like crashes, but instead mislead users of the underlying data graphically, resulting in wrong decision making. Consequently, a good understanding of the unique characteristics of bugs in DataViz libraries is essential for researchers and developers to detect and fix bugs in DataViz libraries. This study presents the first comprehensive analysis of bugs in DataViz libraries, examining 564 bugs collected from five widely-used libraries. Our study systematically analyzes their symptoms and root causes, and provides a detailed taxonomy. We found that incorrect/inaccurate plots are pervasive in DataViz libraries and incorrect graphic computation is the major root cause, which necessitates further automated testing methods for DataViz libraries. Moreover, we identified eight key steps to trigger such bugs and two test oracles specific to DataViz libraries, which may inspire future research in designing effective automated testing techniques. Furthermore, with the recent advancements in Vision Language Models (VLMs), we explored the feasibility of applying these models to detect incorrect/inaccurate plots. The results show that the effectiveness of VLMs in bug detection varies from 29% to 57%, depending on the prompts, and adding more information in prompts does not necessarily increase the effectiveness. More findings can be found in our manuscript.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.CVcs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Weiqi Lu, Yongqiang Tian, Xiaohan Zhong, Haoyang Ma, Zhenyang Xu, Shing-Chi Cheung, Chengnian Sun. 2025-06-18. An Empirical Study of Bugs in Data Visualization Libraries. https://doi.org/10.1145/3729363

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗