Natural Language to Visualization (NL2VIS) enables users to create visualizations from natural language queries, making data insights more accessible. However, NL2VIS faces challenges in interpreting ambiguous queries, as users often express their visualization needs in imprecise language. To address this challenge, we introduce nvBench 2.0, a new benchmark designed to evaluate NL2VIS systems in scenarios involving ambiguous queries. nvBench 2.0 includes 7,878 natural language queries and 24,076 corresponding visualizations, derived from 780 tables across 153 domains. It is built using a controlled ambiguity-injection pipeline that generates ambiguous queries through a reverse-generation workflow. By starting with unambiguous seed visualizations and selectively injecting ambiguities, the pipeline yields multiple valid interpretations for each query, with each ambiguous query traceable to its corresponding visualization through step-wise reasoning paths. We evaluate various Large Language Models (LLMs) on their ability to perform ambiguous NL2VIS tasks using nvBench 2.0. We also propose Step-NL2VIS, an LLM-based model trained on nvBench 2.0, which enhances performance in ambiguous scenarios through step-wise preference optimization. Our results show that Step-NL2VIS outperforms all baselines, setting a new state-of-the-art for ambiguous NL2VIS tasks.

Translating users' natural language queries (NL) into SQL queries (i.e., NL2SQL, a.k.a., Text-to-SQL) can significantly reduce barriers to accessing relational databases and support various commercial applications. The performance of NL2SQL has been greatly enhanced with the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs). In this survey, we provide a comprehensive review of NL2SQL techniques powered by LLMs, covering its entire lifecycle from the following four aspects: (1) Model: NL2SQL translation techniques that tackle not only NL ambiguity and under-specification, but also properly map NL with database schema and instances; (2) Data: From the collection of training data, data synthesis due to training data scarcity, to NL2SQL benchmarks; (3) Evaluation: Evaluating NL2SQL methods from multiple angles using different metrics and granularities; and (4) Error Analysis: analyzing NL2SQL errors to find the root cause and guiding NL2SQL models to evolve. Moreover, we provide a rule of thumb for developing NL2SQL solutions. Finally, we discuss the research challenges and open problems of NL2SQL in the LLMs era.