An Empirical Study of Bugs in Data Visualization Libraries
June 18, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Proc. ACM Softw. Eng.
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Weiqi Lu, Yongqiang Tian, Xiaohan Zhong, Haoyang Ma, Zhenyang Xu, Shing-Chi Cheung, Chengnian Sun
arXiv ID
2506.15084
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Cross-listed
cs.CV,
cs.HC
Citations
2
Venue
Proc. ACM Softw. Eng.
Last Checked
4 months ago
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.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted