Probing the Visualization Literacy of Vision Language Models: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vision Language Models (VLMs) demonstrate promising chart comprehension capabilities. Yet, prior explorations of their visualization literacy have been limited to assessing their response correctness and fail to explore their internal reasoning. To address this gap, we adapted attention-guided class activation maps (AG-CAM) for VLMs, to visualize the influence and importance of input features (image and text) on model responses. Using this approach, we conducted an examination of four open-source (ChartGemma, Janus 1B and 7B, and LLaVA) and two closed-source (GPT-4o, Gemini) models comparing their performance and, for the open-source models, their AG-CAM results. Overall, we found that ChartGemma, a 3B parameter VLM fine-tuned for chart question-answering (QA), outperformed other open-source models and exhibited performance on par with significantly larger closed-source VLMs. We also found that VLMs exhibit spatial reasoning by accurately localizing key chart features, and semantic reasoning by associating visual elements with corresponding data values and query tokens. Our approach is the first to demonstrate the use of AG-CAM on early fusion VLM architectures, which are widely used, and for chart QA. We also show preliminary evidence that these results can align with human reasoning. Our promising open-source VLMs results pave the way for transparent and reproducible research in AI visualization literacy. Code and Supplemental Materials: https://osf.io/fp3rg.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it