Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Arrow-Guided VLM: Enhancing Flowchart Understanding via Arrow Direction Encoding

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

arxiv 2505.07864 v1 pith:WGZ22FCJ submitted 2025-05-09 cs.AI cs.CLcs.CV

classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.CV
keywords arrowflowchartsbenchmarkencodingevaluationnodesquestionsvlms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Flowcharts are indispensable tools in software design and business-process analysis, yet current vision-language models (VLMs) frequently misinterpret the directional arrows and graph topology that set these diagrams apart from natural images. We introduce a seven-stage pipeline grouped into three broader processes: (1) arrow-aware detection of nodes and arrow endpoints; (2) optical character recognition (OCR) to extract node text; and (3) construction of a structured prompt that guides the VLMs. Tested on a 90-question benchmark distilled from 30 annotated flowcharts, the method raises overall accuracy from 80 % to 89 % (+9 percentage points) without any task-specific fine-tuning. The gain is most pronounced for next-step queries (25/30 -> 30/30; 100 %, +17 pp); branch-result questions improve more modestly, and before-step questions remain difficult. A parallel evaluation with an LLM-as-a-Judge protocol shows the same trends, reinforcing the advantage of explicit arrow encoding. Limitations include dependence on detector and OCR precision, the small evaluation set, and residual errors at nodes with multiple incoming edges. Future work will enlarge the benchmark with synthetic and handwritten flowcharts and assess the approach on Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) and Unified Modeling Language (UML).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Survey of GenAI for Automotive Software Development: From Requirements to Executable Code

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A review of roughly 60 papers and 9 industry respondents finds GPT-family models dominate automotive code generation while requirements handling lags due to confidentiality constraints.

Pith tools