Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

VisGraphVar: A Benchmark Generator for Assessing Variability in Graph Analysis Using Large Vision-Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that changing a graph's visual appearance—node labels, layout, node overlap—shifts large vision-language model accuracy across seven graph-analysis tasks, so benchmarks must cover representational variability, not…

desk verdict Useful benchmark generator, but the headline claim about style effects is confounded by independent random graphs per condition and tiny samples. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14832 v1 pith:PP6P42KN submitted 2024-11-22 cs.CV cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG

Camilo Chacón Sartori , Christian Blum , Filippo Bistaffa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
keywords largevision-languagemodelsvisualgraphanalysisbenchmarkgeneratorlayoutvariabilitynodeoverlapchain-of-thoughtpromptingreasoningrepresentationrobustness
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that how a graph is drawn changes what large vision-language models are able to see in it, and that this representational variability matters as much as the underlying reasoning task. To show this, the authors build VisGraphVar, a configurable generator that renders graph images across seven tasks—detection, classification, segmentation, pattern recognition, link prediction, reasoning, and matching—while varying node labels, colors, arrows, layouts, and deliberate imperfections such as overlapping nodes. Applying it to 990 images and six state-of-the-art models under zero-shot and chain-of-thought prompting, they find that stylistic variations and visual imperfections significantly shift accuracy. The intended upshot is that LVLM evaluation on graphs must cover multiple tasks and multiple visual styles rather than reasoning alone.

What carries the argument

The central object is VisGraphVar itself, a Python-based benchmark generator that parameterizes graph rendering along several visual axes—layout, node color, node labels, edge arrows, and node-edge overlap—and emits images for seven graph-analysis tasks. The generator makes style variation an independent variable: 560 detection images test style axes directly, while smaller task blocks for classification, segmentation, pattern recognition, link prediction, reasoning, and matching test whether style sensitivity persists once the task requires global structure or algorithmic reasoning. Scores are normalized per task with mean absolute error, accuracy with partial credit, and Jaccard similarity for shortest paths.

What would settle it

Generate the same set of graph topologies, render each in multiple layouts, label settings, and overlap levels, and rerun the seven tasks; if performance gaps shrink or vanish, the reported style effects were artifacts of uncontrolled topology.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

VisGraphVar's central discovery is that visual style is not a neutral carrier of graph content for LVLMs. On the generated dataset, every tested model is sensitive to how nodes are labeled and arranged; spectral layouts depress detection performance for the strongest model, labeled graphs yield higher detection scores than unlabeled ones for all models, and overlapping nodes degrade counting and shortest-path answers. The paper argues that no model is robust across all seven tasks, that proprietary models currently lead open-weight ones on average, and that chain-of-thought prompting does not consistently beat zero-shot prompting. The authors' conclusion is that graph benchmarks must be judged by how well models cope with representational variability, not by reasoning accuracy alone.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that images from different style conditions are comparable: graph topology is not held fixed across layouts, labels, or overlap levels, so score differences could reflect independent random graph difficulty instead of visual style.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LVLM evaluations that use only one graph rendering style overstate a model's ability to analyze graphs, because layout and labeling alone can shift scores.
  • A capable model for real graph images must handle overlapping nodes and imperfect drawings, not just clean synthetic layouts.
  • Reasoning-heavy evaluation is insufficient: foundational tasks such as node and edge detection and matching show large gaps and should be tested first.
  • Prompt strategy is not a reliable lever: zero-shot and chain-of-thought produce similar results overall, so gains must come from model or data changes.
  • No single tested model dominates all seven tasks, so deploying LVLMs for graph analysis should be task-specific rather than based on aggregate ranking.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An untested but direct consequence: reporting only mean accuracy over a dataset hides style fragility; minimum or variance across layouts would be a sharper robustness metric.
  • The labeled-versus-unlabeled gap points to a concrete experiment: fine-tune a model on unlabeled graph images and re-run detection; if the gap closes, the deficit is training-distribution bias rather than vision.
  • Because the detection graphs are independently generated per style condition, a paired regeneration holding topology fixed would separate style effects from difficulty effects; this is a testable extension of the benchmark design.
  • A task-specific model-routing scheme—choosing the best model per task instead of one global model—would likely lift average performance immediately, given the large per-task reversals reported.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces VisGraphVar, a Python-based generator for producing graph images with configurable visual styles (layout, labels, colors, arrows, overlaps) across seven graph-analysis tasks: detection, classification, segmentation, pattern recognition, link prediction, reasoning, and matching. Using a dataset of 990 generated images, the authors evaluate six LVLMs under zero-shot and chain-of-thought prompting, reporting average scores per model, task, and style condition. The central claim is that variations in visual attributes such as node labeling, layout, and visual imperfections like node overlap significantly affect LVLM performance, and that current LVLMs are not robust to representational variability in graph analysis. The paper also argues for evaluating LVLMs on a broader range of graph tasks beyond pure reasoning.

Significance. If the central claim is supported, VisGraphVar would be a useful benchmark generator for stress-testing LVLMs on visual graph interpretation, and the finding that style variations affect performance would have practical implications for evaluation methodology. The paper has strengths: it covers seven diverse tasks, evaluates six leading LVLMs, compares two prompting strategies, and the generator is designed to be customizable. The authors also provide a public website for supplementary results. However, the empirical evidence for the style-effects claim is currently weakened by a confound between visual style and graph topology, and by the absence of any statistical inference. The benchmark generator itself is a constructive contribution that could be valuable after the experiments are made rigorous.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Figs. 16 and 19, App. B.6] The edge-generation probabilities are inconsistent with the displayed examples and with the reported image content. Section 3.3 states that Task 1 graphs have 10 nodes with edges determined by a 2% probability per pair, Task 6 uses a 3% probability, and Task 7 uses 4%. For 10 nodes, 2% yields an expected 0.9 edges, but Figure 16 shows a graph with 10 nodes and 20 edges, and Figure 19 shows graphs with 10 nodes and 16 edges; Appendix B.6 shows a multi-edge weighted graph for a 5–7-node Task 6 instance. The probability of observing these edge counts under the stated Bernoulli model is vanishingly small. Either the percentages are misreported or the generator uses a different procedure. This is load-bearing because the dataset's difficulty and the reproducibility of the generator depend on the actual edge densities, and the paper's parameters cannot be used to regenerate the images.
  2. [§3.3, Figs. 15 and 18, Table 2] The comparisons across style conditions confound visual style with graph topology. Section 3.3 specifies that for each style variation 10 images are generated, and that Task 1 edge sets are obtained probabilistically for graphs with 10 nodes; it does not state that the same underlying graph instance is rendered under different layouts, label conditions, or arrow types. Therefore, the score differences attributed to style—for example, the spectral-layout deficit of 48.82% versus 67–79% in Figure 15 or the label-vs-unlabel gap in Figure 18—could be caused by random differences in edge count, density, or path structure among the graph samples assigned to each condition, rather than by the visual style itself. To support the claim that visual attributes significantly affect performance, the authors should generate paired images with identical topology across style variants, or otherwise statistically control for graph complexity (e.g., edge count, number of overlaps) in the analysis. Providing the generator code and random seeds would allow this confound to be checked.
  3. [§4.2, Figs. 11–18] The paper reports point estimates over 10 images per style condition with no confidence intervals, significance tests, or effect sizes, yet the abstract and conclusions assert that visual variations 'significantly affect' model performance. For example, Figure 18 shows a roughly 9-point difference for GPT-4o between labeled and unlabeled graphs, and Figure 15 shows an 18-point spectral deficit for Claude-3.5-Sonnet, but with n=10 per condition these magnitudes may be within sampling noise, and no measure of variance is reported. The authors should report per-condition variability (e.g., standard deviation or confidence interval) and ideally a permutation or bootstrap test, or a human baseline, to support the causal language used in the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4] The text introduces the metric as 'MEA' but the equation and subsequent text use 'MAE'; please make the abbreviation consistent.
  2. [§3.2.2 and §3.3] The list of Task 2 graph types is inconsistent: §3.2.2 lists 'acyclic, cyclic, bipartite, complete, meshs, planar, tree', whereas §3.3 says 'tree, planar, mesh, cyclic, complete bipartite, and acyclic' (six items, with 'complete bipartite' rather than separate 'complete' and 'bipartite'). Please reconcile the list and the category names.
  3. [§3.2.1] The discussion of overlapping nodes implies that partial credit should reward counting 9 of 10 nodes when 3 overlap, but the MAE metric does not implement such partial-credit semantics; it simply takes the absolute difference between the true and predicted counts. Please clarify how overlap is handled in scoring.
  4. [§4.3.1] The qualitative explanation for the spectral-layout deficit is based on a single example and a speculative link to the model's pattern-recognition strength; this should be framed as a hypothesis, not an explanation, especially given the topology confound noted above.
  5. [§3.1] There are several placeholders where 'LLVM' appears instead of 'LVLM' (e.g., 'if an LLVM fails to perform consistently'); please correct these typos.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper reports external benchmark measurements with no fitted parameters, self-referential derivations, or self-citation chains.

full rationale

VisGraphVar is an empirical benchmark study: it generates graph images with configurable parameters, probes six external LVLMs through API calls, and reports measured performance scores. None of the paper's claims are derived from equations supplied by the authors; the metrics in Section 3.4 are standard evaluation definitions (MAE, accuracy, Jaccard index) and are not fitted to the data. The central conclusion that visual attributes affect LVLM performance is an experimental observation about independent models, not a construction that reduces to its inputs. The few self-citations are to the authors' own prior work only in the sense of referencing their website or previous benchmarks, and none of these citations are load-bearing for the benchmark's validity. The paper is self-contained with respect to external evaluation, reporting 11,880 model evaluations across six independently developed LVLMs. Potential concerns about the study, such as whether graph topology is held constant across style conditions (Section 3.3 describes independent probabilistic edge generation for Tasks 1, 6, and 7), are threats to internal validity or confounding, not circularity; they do not make any prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction. Therefore, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on design choices and comparability assumptions rather than on a mathematical derivation. The generator settings are hand-picked, no sensitivity analysis is given, and the style-effect conclusion leans on the unstated assumption that independently generated graphs with the same global parameters are interchangeable across style conditions.

free parameters (3)
  • Edge insertion probability per task = 2% (Task 1), 3% (Task 6), 4% (Task 7)
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.3 to control graph density. No sensitivity analysis is reported, and different densities across tasks complicate cross-task comparisons.
  • Images per style condition = 10
    Set in Section 3.3 as the number of images per variation. This small sample size drives the missing-error-bars limitation and weakens the statistical basis of the style-effect claims.
  • Node counts per task = Task 1: 10; Task 3: 10/20/30; Task 5: 4/5/6; Task 6: 5/6/7; Task 7: 4/5/6
    Hand-chosen complexity levels in Section 3.3, not calibrated against model performance or human performance.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Randomly generated graphs with identical node counts and edge probabilities are comparable across visual style conditions.
    Underlies all style comparisons in Sections 3.3 and 4.2. The paper does not pair the same graph structure across layouts or label conditions, so graph topology is not controlled.
  • domain assumption LVLM outputs in JSON can be parsed and assigned partial credit in a way that measures true task ability.
    The metrics in Section 3.4 assume reliable parsing and well-defined partial matches, but no parse-error analysis or inter-annotator validation is reported.
  • standard math The graph-theoretic definitions used as ground truth are standard.
    Definitions of acyclic graphs, cut-edges, shortest paths, and matching in Section 3.2 follow textbook graph theory and are not contentious.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VisGraphVar: A Benchmark Generator for Assessing Variability in Graph Analysis Using Large Vision-Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PP6P42KN

@misc{pith2026241114832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VisGraphVar: A Benchmark Generator for Assessing Variability in Graph Analysis Using Large Vision-Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PP6P42KN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14832}
}
read the original abstract

The fast advancement of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) has shown immense potential. These models are increasingly capable of tackling abstract visual tasks. Geometric structures, particularly graphs with their inherent flexibility and complexity, serve as an excellent benchmark for evaluating these models' predictive capabilities. While human observers can readily identify subtle visual details and perform accurate analyses, our investigation reveals that state-of-the-art LVLMs exhibit consistent limitations in specific visual graph scenarios, especially when confronted with stylistic variations. In response to these challenges, we introduce VisGraphVar (Visual Graph Variability), a customizable benchmark generator able to produce graph images for seven distinct task categories (detection, classification, segmentation, pattern recognition, link prediction, reasoning, matching), designed to systematically evaluate the strengths and limitations of individual LVLMs. We use VisGraphVar to produce 990 graph images and evaluate six LVLMs, employing two distinct prompting strategies, namely zero-shot and chain-of-thought. The findings demonstrate that variations in visual attributes of images (e.g., node labeling and layout) and the deliberate inclusion of visual imperfections, such as overlapping nodes, significantly affect model performance. This research emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive evaluation across graph-related tasks, extending beyond reasoning alone. VisGraphVar offers valuable insights to guide the development of more reliable and robust systems capable of performing advanced visual graph analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A general overview of the seven tasks covered by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Available configurations for generating graph images to evaluate node and edge detection capabil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LVLM execution of Task 1 with overlapping nodes and prompt input. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Seven different types of graphs. additional types of graphs for classification. This difference arises because VisionGraph emphasizes reasoning tasks, whereas VisGraphVar reserves reasoning tasks primarily for Task 7; see Section 3.2.6. 3.2.3 Task 3: Segmentation Beyon…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Networks with an increasing number of nodes and a single cut-edge: the graph on the left has [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Three graphs with different types of patterns. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Three types of graphs with different numbers of nodes for which the LVLM is expected to predict a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Three graphs with varying levels of interpretive difficulty in identifying shortest paths. (a) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Graph pairs are shown with the goal for the LVLM to identify matches on the left and distinctions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: An overview of LVLM performance across the seven tasks (complete dataset). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The distribution of average scores across the six LVLMs for each task. The violin plot is configured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Average LVLM performance (best to worst from left to right) regarding the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Average performance of Claude-3.5-Sonnet for each task from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Average scores for each task by prompt strategy, Chain-of-Thought ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Average performance of Claude-3.5-Sonnet on Task 1 for each considered graph layout. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Image from our dataset (Task 1), showcasing a spectral layout with randomly colored nodes, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Image from the dataset concerning Task 7 (Matching), containing two structurally equal graphs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Comparison of the average model performance for graphs with labeled nodes (pink) and graphs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: (a) A node-labeled graph with 10 nodes and 16 edges and random node-colors. (b) A similar, un-labeled graph. Both belong to the dataset of Task 1. Output: GPT-4o (for the graph in Figure 19b) { "total_nodes": 9, "total_edges": 23, "analysis": "The graph contains nodes…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pravesh Agrawal, Szymon Antoniak, Emma Bou Hanna, Baptiste Bout, Devendra Chaplot, Jessica Chudnovsky, Diogo Costa, Baudouin De Monicault, Saurabh Garg, Theophile Gervet, Soham Ghosh, 24 VisGraphVar: A Benchmark Generator for Assessing Variability in Graph Analysis Using LVLMs Amélie Héliou, Paul Jacob, Albert Q. Jiang, Kartik Khandelwal, Timothée Lacroix...

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, January 2015

    Arthur Benjamin, Gary Chartrand, and Ping Zhang.The fascinating world of graph theory . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, January 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    The aesthetics of graph visualization

    Chris Bennett, Jody Ryall, Leo Spalteholz, and Amy Gooch. The aesthetics of graph visualization. In Proceedings of the Third Eurographics Conference on Computational Aesthetics in Graphics, Vi- sualization and Imaging , Computational Aesthetics’07, page 57–64, Goslar, DEU, 2007. Eurographics Association. ISBN 9783905673432

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Camilus and Govindan V K

    K. Camilus and Govindan V K. A review on graph based segmentation.International Journal of Image, Graphics and Signal Processing , 4, 06 2012. doi: 10.5815/ijigsp.2012.05.01

    work page doi:10.5815/ijigsp.2012.05.01 2012

  5. [5]

    Graph matching based on similarities in structure and attributes.arXiv [cs.DS], September 2024

    Raphaël Candelier. Graph matching based on similarities in structure and attributes.arXiv [cs.DS], September 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    A First Course in Graph Theory

    Gary Chartrand. A First Course in Graph Theory . Dover Books on Mathematics. Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, February 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Vision-language models can self-improve reasoning via reflection, 2024

    Kanzhi Cheng, Yantao Li, Fangzhi Xu, Jianbing Zhang, Hao Zhou, and Yang Liu. Vision-language models can self-improve reasoning via reflection, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00855

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Fast approximate isorank for scalable global alignment of biological networks.bioRxiv, 2023

    Kapil Devkota, Anselm Blumer, Lenore Cowen, and Xiaozhe Hu. Fast approximate isorank for scalable global alignment of biological networks.bioRxiv, 2023. doi: 10.1101/2023.03.13.532445. URL https: //www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2023/03/15/2023.03.13.532445

    work page doi:10.1101/2023.03.13.532445 2023

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, 2019

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding, 2019. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Benchmarking and improving detail image caption, 2024

    Hongyuan Dong, Jiawen Li, Bohong Wu, Jiacong Wang, Yuan Zhang, and Haoyuan Guo. Benchmarking and improving detail image caption, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19092

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, 2021

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at...

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    The llama 3 herd of models, 2024

    Abhimanyu Dubey and et al. The llama 3 herd of models, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2407. 21783

    2024

  5. [13]

    An introduction to graph theory.arXiv [math.HO], August 2023

    Darij Grinberg. An introduction to graph theory.arXiv [math.HO], August 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    The false promise of imitating proprietary llms, 2023

    Arnav Gudibande, Eric Wallace, Charlie Snell, Xinyang Geng, Hao Liu, Pieter Abbeel, Sergey Levine, and Dawn Song. The false promise of imitating proprietary llms, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2305.15717

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Survey of graph analysis applications, 2018

    Tim Hegeman and Alexandru Iosup. Survey of graph analysis applications, 2018. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/1807.00382

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Omnimedvqa: A new large-scale comprehensive evaluation benchmark for medical lvlm, 2024

    Yutao Hu, Tianbin Li, Quanfeng Lu, Wenqi Shao, Junjun He, Yu Qiao, and Ping Luo. Omnimedvqa: A new large-scale comprehensive evaluation benchmark for medical lvlm, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2402.09181

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey, 2023

    Jie Huang and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. Towards reasoning in large language models: A survey, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10403

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Are large vision language models up to the challenge of chart compre- hension and reasoning? an extensive investigation into the capabilities and limitations of lvlms, 2024

    Mohammed Saidul Islam, Raian Rahman, Ahmed Masry, Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Mir Tafseer Nayeem, and Enamul Hoque. Are large vision language models up to the challenge of chart compre- hension and reasoning? an extensive investigation into the capabilities and limitations of lvl...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Llms meet vlms: Boost open vocabulary object detection with fine-grained descriptors, 2024

    Sheng Jin, Xueying Jiang, Jiaxing Huang, Lewei Lu, and Shijian Lu. Llms meet vlms: Boost open vocabulary object detection with fine-grained descriptors, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2402. 04630. 25 VisGraphVar: A Benchmark Generator for Assessing Variability in Graph Analysi...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Networkfailuredetectionandgraphconnectivity

    JonKleinberg, MarkSandler, andAleksandrsSlivkins. Networkfailuredetectionandgraphconnectivity. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms , SODA ’04, page 76–85, USA, 2004. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. ISBN 089871558X

    2004

  13. [21]

    Largelanguage models are zero-shot reasoners, 2023

    TakeshiKojima, ShixiangShaneGu, MachelReid, YutakaMatsuo, andYusukeIwasawa. Largelanguage models are zero-shot reasoners, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11916

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Evaluating graph neural networks for link prediction: Current pitfalls and new benchmarking,

    Juanhui Li, Harry Shomer, Haitao Mao, Shenglai Zeng, Yao Ma, Neil Shah, Jiliang Tang, and Dawei Yin. Evaluating graph neural networks for link prediction: Current pitfalls and new benchmarking,

  15. [23]

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre- training for unified vision-language understanding and generation, 2022

    Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre- training for unified vision-language understanding and generation, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2201.12086

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Visualbert: A simple and performant baseline for vision and language, 2019

    Liunian Harold Li, Mark Yatskar, Da Yin, Cho-Jui Hsieh, and Kai-Wei Chang. Visualbert: A simple and performant baseline for vision and language, 2019. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03557

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Evaluating object hallucination in large vision-language models, 2023

    Yifan Li, Yifan Du, Kun Zhou, Jinpeng Wang, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. Evaluating object hallucination in large vision-language models, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10355

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Graph matching networks for learning the similarity of graph structured objects, 2019

    Yujia Li, Chenjie Gu, Thomas Dullien, Oriol Vinyals, and Pushmeet Kohli. Graph matching networks for learning the similarity of graph structured objects, 2019. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1904.12787

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Visiongraph: Leveraging large multimodal models for graph theory problems in visual context, 2024

    Yunxin Li, Baotian Hu, Haoyuan Shi, Wei Wang, Longyue Wang, and Min Zhang. Visiongraph: Leveraging large multimodal models for graph theory problems in visual context, 2024. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2405.04950

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A survey on hallucination in large vision-language models, 2024

    Hanchao Liu, Wenyuan Xue, Yifei Chen, Dapeng Chen, Xiutian Zhao, Ke Wang, Liping Hou, Rongjun Li, and Wei Peng. A survey on hallucination in large vision-language models, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2402.00253

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks, 2019

    Jiasen Lu, Dhruv Batra, Devi Parikh, and Stefan Lee. Vilbert: Pretraining task-agnostic visiolinguistic representations for vision-and-language tasks, 2019. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1908.02265

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Self-refine: Iterative refine- ment with self-feedback, 2023

    Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Prakhar Gupta, Skyler Hallinan, Luyu Gao, Sarah Wiegreffe, Uri Alon, Nouha Dziri, Shrimai Prabhumoye, Yiming Yang, Shashank Gupta, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Katherine Hermann, Sean Welleck, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, and Peter Clark. Self-refine: Iterativ...

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Revisiting link prediction: A data perspective, 2024

    Haitao Mao, Juanhui Li, Harry Shomer, Bingheng Li, Wenqi Fan, Yao Ma, Tong Zhao, Neil Shah, and Jiliang Tang. Revisiting link prediction: A data perspective, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2310. 00793

    2024

  24. [32]

    Unichart: A univer- sal vision-language pretrained model for chart comprehension and reasoning

    Ahmed Masry, Parsa Kavehzadeh, Do Xuan Long, Enamul Hoque, and Shafiq Joty. Unichart: A univer- sal vision-language pretrained model for chart comprehension and reasoning. InThe 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2023. URL https://openreview....

    2023

  25. [33]

    Ian R. McKenzie, Alexander Lyzhov, Michael Pieler, Alicia Parrish, Aaron Mueller, Ameya Prabhu, Euan McLean, Aaron Kirtland, Alexis Ross, Alisa Liu, Andrew Gritsevskiy, Daniel Wurgaft, Derik Kauffman, Gabriel Recchia, Jiacheng Liu, Joe Cavanagh, Max Weiss, Sicong Huang, The Fl...

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Brain network similarity: methods and applications

    Ahmad Mheich, Fabrice Wendling, and Mahmoud Hassan. Brain network similarity: methods and applications. Network Neuroscience, 4(3):507–527, 07 2020. ISSN 2472-1751. doi: 10.1162/netn_a_ 00133. URL https://doi.org/10.1162/netn_a_00133

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Attacking shortest paths by cutting edges.arXiv [cs.SI], November 2022

    Benjamin A Miller, Zohair Shafi, Wheeler Ruml, Yevgeniy Vorobeychik, Tina Eliassi-Rad, and Scott Alfeld. Attacking shortest paths by cutting edges.arXiv [cs.SI], November 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Gpt-4 technical report, 2024

    OpenAI and et al. Gpt-4 technical report, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Automatically correcting large language models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategies

    Liangming Pan, Michael Saxon, Wenda Xu, Deepak Nathani, Xinyi Wang, and William Yang Wang. Automatically correcting large language models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategies. arXiv [cs.CL], August 2023. 26 VisGraphVar: A Benchmark Generator for Asses...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision, 2021. URL https://ar...

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Self-reflection in llm agents: Effects on problem-solving performance,

    Matthew Renze and Erhan Guven. Self-reflection in llm agents: Effects on problem-solving performance,

  32. [40]

    A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: Techniques and applications, 2024

    Pranab Sahoo, Ayush Kumar Singh, Sriparna Saha, Vinija Jain, Samrat Mondal, and Aman Chadha. A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: Techniques and applications, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07927

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    GraphPi: High performance graph pattern matching through effective redundancy elimination.arXiv [cs.DC], September 2020

    Tianhui Shi, Mingshu Zhai, Yi Xu, and Jidong Zhai. GraphPi: High performance graph pattern matching through effective redundancy elimination.arXiv [cs.DC], September 2020

    2020

  34. [42]

    A survey on graph matching in computer vision

    Hui Sun, Wenju Zhou, and Minrui Fei. A survey on graph matching in computer vision. In 2020 13th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics (CISP-BMEI), pages 225–230, 2020. doi: 10.1109/CISP-BMEI51763.2020.9263681

    2020

  35. [43]

    Lxmert: Learning cross-modality encoder representations from transform- ers, 2019

    Hao Tan and Mohit Bansal. Lxmert: Learning cross-modality encoder representations from transform- ers, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.07490

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Introducing Claude 3.5 Sonnet — anthropic.com.https://www.anthropic.com/news/ claude-3-5-sonnet, 2024

    Anthropic Team. Introducing Claude 3.5 Sonnet — anthropic.com.https://www.anthropic.com/news/ claude-3-5-sonnet, 2024. [Accessed 02-11-2024]

    2024

  37. [45]

    Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context, 2024

    Gemini Team and et al. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05530

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kistowski, Jeremy A

    Jóakim v. Kistowski, Jeremy A. Arnold, Karl Huppler, Klaus-Dieter Lange, John L. Henning, and Paul Cao. How to build a benchmark. InProceedings of the 6th ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering , ICPE ’15, page 333–336, New York, NY, USA, 2015. Associatio...

    2015

  39. [47]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A survey of prompt engineering methods in large language models for different nlp tasks, 2024

    Shubham Vatsal and Harsh Dubey. A survey of prompt engineering methods in large language models for different nlp tasks, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12994

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Graph cut based image segmentation with connectivity priors

    Sara Vicente, Vladimir Kolmogorov, and Carsten Rother. Graph cut based image segmentation with connectivity priors. In2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1–8,

  42. [50]

    Surgical-lvlm: Learning to adapt large vision-language model for grounded visual question answering in robotic surgery, 2024

    Guankun Wang, Long Bai, Wan Jun Nah, Jie Wang, Zhaoxi Zhang, Zhen Chen, Jinlin Wu, Mobarakol Islam, Hongbin Liu, and Hongliang Ren. Surgical-lvlm: Learning to adapt large vision-language model for grounded visual question answering in robotic surgery, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.or...

    2024

  43. [51]

    Llm-seg: Bridging image segmentation and large language model reasoning,

    Junchi Wang and Lei Ke. Llm-seg: Bridging image segmentation and large language model reasoning,

  44. [52]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, 2023

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Kwok, and Yu Zhang

    Yanbin Wei, Shuai Fu, Weisen Jiang, Zejian Zhang, Zhixiong Zeng, Qi Wu, James T. Kwok, and Yu Zhang. Gita: Graph to visual and textual integration for vision-language graph reasoning, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.02130

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Multimodal LLMs struggle with basic visual network analysis: A VNA benchmark

    Evan M Williams and Kathleen M Carley. Multimodal LLMs struggle with basic visual network analysis: A VNA benchmark. arXiv [cs.CV], May 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.08767

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Qwen2 technical report, 2024

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Guanting Dong, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jialin Wang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Ma, Jianxin Yang, Jin Xu, Jingren Zhou, Jinze...

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A survey on multimodal large language models, 2024

    Shukang Yin, Chaoyou Fu, Sirui Zhao, Ke Li, Xing Sun, Tong Xu, and Enhong Chen. A survey on multimodal large language models, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13549

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Florence: A new foundation model for computer vision, 2021

    Lu Yuan, Dongdong Chen, Yi-Ling Chen, Noel Codella, Xiyang Dai, Jianfeng Gao, Houdong Hu, Xuedong Huang, Boxin Li, Chunyuan Li, Ce Liu, Mengchen Liu, Zicheng Liu, Yumao Lu, Yu Shi, Lijuan Wang, Jianfeng Wang, Bin Xiao, Zhen Xiao, Jianwei Yang, Michael Zeng, Luowei Zhou, and Pe...

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Gpt-4o: Visual perception performance of multimodal large language models in piglet activity understanding, 2024

    Yiqi Wu, Xiaodan Hu, Ziming Fu, Siling Zhou, and Jiangong Li. Gpt-4o: Visual perception performance of multimodal large language models in piglet activity understanding, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2406.09781

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey, 2024

    Jingyi Zhang, Jiaxing Huang, Sheng Jin, and Shijian Lu. Vision-language models for vision tasks: A survey, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2304.00685

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Link prediction based on graph neural networks, 2018

    Muhan Zhang and Yixin Chen. Link prediction based on graph neural networks, 2018. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/1802.09691

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Why are visually-grounded language models bad at image classification?, 2024

    Yuhui Zhang, Alyssa Unell, Xiaohan Wang, Dhruba Ghosh, Yuchang Su, Ludwig Schmidt, and Serena Yeung-Levy. Why are visually-grounded language models bad at image classification?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18415

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Fine-tuning large vision-language models as decision-making agents via reinforcement learning, 2024

    Yuexiang Zhai, Hao Bai, Zipeng Lin, Jiayi Pan, Shengbang Tong, Yifei Zhou, Alane Suhr, Saining Xie, Yann LeCun, Yi Ma, and Sergey Levine. Fine-tuning large vision-language models as decision-making agents via reinforcement learning, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10292

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    DynaMath: A dynamic visual benchmark for evaluating mathematical reasoning robustness of vision language models.arXiv [cs.CV], October 2024

    Chengke Zou, Xingang Guo, Rui Yang, Junyu Zhang, Bin Hu, and Huan Zhang. DynaMath: A dynamic visual benchmark for evaluating mathematical reasoning robustness of vision language models.arXiv [cs.CV], October 2024. Appendix A Prompt design Our evaluation methodology for the dat...

    2024

  57. [67]

    A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model based agents, 2024

    Zeyu Zhang, Xiaohe Bo, Chen Ma, Rui Li, Xu Chen, Quanyu Dai, Jieming Zhu, Zhenhua Dong, and Ji-Rong Wen. A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model based agents, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13501

    2024 arXiv

  58. [69]

    The goal is to answer the question: How many nodes and edges are in the image?↪→

    Zero-shot prompt: Ask the model to analyze the graph image without any prior examples or hints. The goal is to answer the question: How many nodes and edges are in the image?↪→

  59. [70]

    total_nodes

    Chain-of-thought prompt: Ask the model to reason step by step through the process of identifying the nodes and edges in the graph. The question remains: How many nodes and edges are in the image? ↪→ ↪→ Expected output format (JSON example): ```json { "total_nodes": 10, "total_...

  60. [71]

    - Count each unique node you see

    Identify the nodes: - Look for distinct points or circles in the graph. - Count each unique node you see. - Note the color of the nodes

  61. [72]

    - Count each unique edge you see

    Identify the edges: - Look for lines connecting the nodes. - Count each unique edge you see. - Note the color of the edges

  62. [73]

    - Report the total number of edges

    Summarize your findings: - Report the total number of nodes. - Report the total number of edges. - Briefly describe the graph 's appearance

  63. [74]

    total_nodes

    Format your answer: Present your analysis in the following JSON format: ```json { "total_nodes": [number of nodes], "total_edges": [number of edges], "analysis": "[Brief description of the graph, including node and edge colors]" } ``` 29 VisGraphVar: A Benchmark Generator for ...

  64. [75]

    shortest_path

    Consider only the visible connections and any weighted or unweighted paths. Return the answer in JSON format, detailing the nodes along the path and a brief explanation. ↪→ ↪→ ↪→ ↪→ ↪→ Expected output format: ```json { "shortest_path": ["1", "...", "6"], "analysis": "Explanati...

  65. [2008]

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2008.4587440

    2008

  66. [2023]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.10453

    arXiv

  67. [2024]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06682

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.