Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Products

aiqbench analysis

This research addresses the reliability gap in using LLMs to generate interactive what-if analysis interfaces, demonstrating that direct code generation often fails to capture analytical intent or constraints. The authors propose a two-stage workflow utilizing an intermediate declarative specification language (PSL) combined with taxonomy-guided repair, which significantly improves interface correctness rates compared to one-shot generation. This work advances the field of AI-driven data exploration by establishing robust methods for translating natural language queries into functional interactive tools.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Bridging Natural Language and Interactive What-If Interfaces via LLM-Generated Declarative Specifications

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2604.07652v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: What-if analysis (WIA) lets users explore hypothetical scenarios by adjusting parameters, applying constraints, and scoping data through interactive interfaces. Current tools fall short: spreadsheet and BI tools require laborious setup, while LLM-generated interfaces frequently misinterpret analytical intent. It remains unclear whether an explicit intermediate representation is needed, or whether LLMs can generate WIA interfaces directly. We build a benchmark of 405 WIA questions across 11 types and 5 datasets with human-authored ground-truth intent, and find that direct one-shot generation across three LLMs fails to produce a working interface in 17-45% of cases and, when interfaces render, often misrepresents the question's objective (up to 77.5%) and constraints (up to 58.2%). We therefore present a two-stage workflow that translates NL questions into Praxa Specification Language (PSL) specifications, then compiles them into interfaces. Because errors localize to named properties, taxonomy-guided repair raises correctness from 52.42% to 80.42%, unlike errors in directly generated code.

Abstract:What-if analysis (WIA) lets users explore hypothetical scenarios by adjusting parameters, applying constraints, and scoping data through interactive interfaces. Current tools fall short: spreadsheet and BI tools require laborious setup, while LLM-generated interfaces frequently misinterpret analytical intent. It remains unclear whether an explicit intermediate representation is needed, or whether LLMs can generate WIA interfaces directly. We build a benchmark of 405 WIA questions across 11 types and 5 datasets with human-authored ground-truth intent, and find that direct one-shot generation across three LLMs fails to produce a working interface in 17-45% of cases and, when interfaces render, often misrepresents the question's objective (up to 77.5%) and constraints (up to 58.2%). We therefore present a two-stage workflow that translates NL questions into Praxa Specification Language (PSL) specifications, then compiles them into interfaces. Because errors localize to named properties, taxonomy-guided repair raises correctness from 52.42% to 80.42%, unlike errors in directly generated code.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)

arXiv:2604.07652 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2604.07652v2 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.07652 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 245 words

Related coverage