REVIEW 5 cited by
Can Large Language Models Understand Symbolic Graphics Programs?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Can Large Language Models Understand Symbolic Graphics Programs?
read the original abstract
Against the backdrop of enthusiasm for large language models (LLMs), there is a growing need to scientifically assess their capabilities and shortcomings. This is nontrivial in part because it is difficult to find tasks which the models have not encountered during training. Utilizing symbolic graphics programs, we propose a domain well-suited to test multiple spatial-semantic reasoning skills of LLMs. Popular in computer graphics, these programs procedurally generate visual data. While LLMs exhibit impressive skills in general program synthesis and analysis, symbolic graphics programs offer a new layer of evaluation: they allow us to test an LLM's ability to answer semantic questions about the images or 3D geometries without a vision encoder. To semantically understand the symbolic programs, LLMs would need to possess the ability to "imagine" and reason how the corresponding graphics content would look with only the symbolic description of the local curvatures and strokes. We use this task to evaluate LLMs by creating a large benchmark for the semantic visual understanding of symbolic graphics programs, built procedurally with minimal human effort. Particular emphasis is placed on transformations of images that leave the image level semantics invariant while introducing significant changes to the underlying program. We evaluate commercial and open-source LLMs on our benchmark to assess their ability to reason about visual output of programs, finding that LLMs considered stronger at reasoning generally perform better. Lastly, we introduce a novel method to improve this ability -- Symbolic Instruction Tuning (SIT), in which the LLM is finetuned with pre-collected instruction data on symbolic graphics programs. Interestingly, we find that SIT not only improves LLM's understanding on symbolic programs, but it also improves general reasoning ability on various other benchmarks.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
DisciplineGen-1M: A Large-Scale Dataset for Multidisciplinary Visual Generation and Editing
DisciplineGen-1M is a million-scale multidisciplinary dataset for text-to-image generation and editing, paired with a discipline-informed model that improves results on discipline-specific benchmarks.
-
mEOL: Training-Free Instruction-Guided Multimodal Embedder for Vector Graphics and Image Retrieval
mEOL creates aligned embeddings for text, images, and SVGs using instruction-guided MLLM one-word summaries and semantic SVG rewriting, outperforming baselines on a new text-to-SVG retrieval benchmark.
-
CodePercept: Code-Grounded Visual STEM Perception for MLLMs
Perception, not reasoning, is the main bottleneck for MLLM STEM visual reasoning, and training on executable reconstruction code measurably fixes it.
-
BrepCoder: A Unified Multimodal Large Language Model for Multi-task B-rep Reasoning
BrepCoder trains one multimodal LLM to read B-rep CAD geometry and output CAD code, handling reverse engineering, completion, error correction, and CAD-QA.
-
InternVL3.5: Advancing Open-Source Multimodal Models in Versatility, Reasoning, and Efficiency
InternVL3.5 advances open-source multimodal models with Cascade RL for +16% reasoning gains and ViR for 4x inference speedup, with the 241B model reaching SOTA among open-source MLLMs on multimodal, reasoning, and age...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.