Are Large Vision Language Models up to the Challenge of Chart Comprehension and Reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural language is a powerful complementary modality of communication for data visualizations, such as bar and line charts.To facilitate chart-based reasoning using natural language, various downstream tasks have been introduced recently such as chart question answering, chart summarization, and fact-checking with charts.These tasks pose a unique challenge, demanding both vision-language reasoning and a nuanced understanding of chart data tables, visual encodings, and natural language instructions.Despite the recent success of Large Language Models (LLMs) across diverse NLP tasks, their abilities and limitations in the realm of data visualization remain under-explored, possibly due to their lack of multi-modal capabilities.To bridge the gap, this paper presents one of the first comprehensive evaluations of the recently developed large vision language models (LVLMs) for chart understanding and reasoning tasks.Our evaluation includes a comprehensive assessment of both closed and opensourced LVLMs across five major chart reasoning tasks.Furthermore, we perform a qualitative evaluation of LVLMs' performance on a diverse range of charts, aiming to provide a thorough analysis.Our findings reveal that while LVLMs demonstrate impressive abilities in generating fluent texts covering high-level data insights, they also encounter common problems like hallucinations, factual errors, and data bias.We highlight the key strengths and limitations of LVLMs in chart comprehension tasks, offering insights for future research 1 .* Equal contribution. 1 We make all our prompts as well as LVLMs' responses open source here. Chart Question-AnsweringSummary: The first two cases of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) in Italy were recorded between the end of January and the beginning of February 2020 .As of January 5 , 2021 , there were 569,161 thousand active coronavirus cases in the country .The highest figure was recorded on November 22 , 2020 , when the number of active coronavirus cases was equal to 805,947 .Also , the total number of cases (including active cases , recoveries , and deaths) in Italy surpassed 2.1 million .Question: What's the sum of median value of blue and green graph?Answer: 87.5 Chart Summarization Question:Compare the Democrats and Republicans views about providing healthcare to the Population Answer: While 83% of Democrats say providing high quality, affordable healthcare for all should be top priority, a much smaller share of Republicans (48%) agree. Open-ended Chart Question-AnsweringStatement: Ea patras is the only club to be established before 1900
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".