We introduce Chart2Code, a new benchmark for evaluating the natural language to chart code generation capabilities of large multimodal models (LMMs). Chart2Code is explicitly designed from a user-driven perspective, capturing diverse real-world scenarios and progressively increasing task difficulty. It consists of three levels: Level 1 (Chart Reproduction) reproduces charts from a reference figure and user query; Level 2 (Chart Editing) involves complex modifications such as changing chart types or adding elements; and Level 3 (Long-Table to Chart Generation) requires models to transform long, unprocessed tables into faithful charts following user instructions. To our knowledge, this is the first hierarchical benchmark that reflects practical chart2code usage while systematically scaling task complexity. In total, Chart2Code contains 2,186 tasks across 22 chart types, paired with multi-level evaluation metrics that assess both code correctness and the visual fidelity of rendered charts. We benchmark 29 state-of-the-art (SoTA) LMMs, including both proprietary and the latest open-source models such as GPT-5.2, Qwen3-VL, InternVL3/3.5, MiMo-VL, and Seed-1.6-VL. Experimental results demonstrate that even the SoTA model GPT-5.2 averages 72.21 on code-based evaluation and only 33.41 on chart-quality assessment across the editing tasks, underscoring the difficulty of Chart2Code. We anticipate this benchmark will drive advances in multimodal reasoning and foster the development of more robust and general-purpose LMMs.

Existing benchmarks do not test Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) on their interactive intelligence with human users which is vital for developing general-purpose AI assistants. We design InterFeedback, an interactive framework, which can be applied to any LMM and dataset to assess this ability autonomously. On top of this, we introduce InterFeedback-Bench that evaluates interactive intelligence using two representative datasets, MMMU-Pro and MathVerse, to test 10 different open-source LMMs. Additionally, we present InterFeedback-Human, a newly collected dataset of 120 cases designed for manually testing interactive performance in leading models such as OpenAI-o1 and Claude-3.5-Sonnet. Our evaluation results show that state-of-the-art LMM (e.g., OpenAI-o1) can correct their results through human feedback less than 50%. Our findings point to the need for methods that can enhance LMMs’ capabilities to interpret and benefit from feedback.