Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Enhancing Scientific Visual Question Answering through Multimodal Reasoning and Ensemble Modeling

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Prompt optimization plus chain-of-thought pushes InternVL3 to ROUGE and BERTScore of 0.740/0.983 on the SciVQA test set, and a figure-type ensemble improves most models but not the best single one.

desk verdict Solid shared-task system description; the 0.740 is partly a post-processing artifact and needs an ablation before it supports the claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06183 v1 pith:N2E5EEIW submitted 2025-07-08 cs.CV

Prahitha Movva , Naga Harshita Marupaka This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords scientificvisualquestionansweringSciVQA2025sharedtaskchain-of-thoughtpromptingvision-languagemodelsensemblemodelingpromptoptimizationfigure-typeselectionanswerpost-processing
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

SciVQA 2025 asks systems to answer closed-ended questions about charts and figures in scientific papers. This paper shows that InternVL3, an 8-billion-parameter vision-language model, becomes a strong answerer when it is steered by a carefully composed prompt, a two-step chain-of-thought procedure, and a post-processing rule that standardizes 'cannot answer' responses. The reported test results are ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-L F1 of 0.740 and a BERTScore of 0.983. The authors also report that chain-of-thought prompting improved every tested model, and that a figure-type-aware ensemble of four models beat most individual models while still trailing InternVL3 alone. The practical point is that prompt engineering, ensembling, and answer standardization can push mid-size models near the top of a scientific VQA leaderboard without changing the underlying architecture.

What carries the argument

The system is carried by three components working together. The first is a composite prompt that concatenates a base formatting instruction with figure-type-specific cues (colors, axes, scale, trends for line charts; segments and percentages for pie charts; row and column labels for confusion matrices), a binary answer constraint, a choice-letters constraint, and the figure caption. The second is a two-step chain-of-thought prompt with a rethink stage: step one asks the model to reason aloud with self-questioning, self-verification, and self-correction, and step two demands a bare numeric or single-sentence answer, with answer letters only for choice questions. The third is a post-processing rule that removes XML end tags and rewrites any output classified as having insufficient information into the exact sentence 'It is not possible to answer this question based only on the provided data.' Around these, a figure-type-aware ensemble assigns Qwen2.5-VL to scatter plots and trees, Bespoke MiniChart to pie and bar charts, and Phi-4 to line charts and tables, based on per-type validation accuracy.

What would settle it

Re-run the InternVL3 evaluation on the SciVQA test split with the answer-standardization rule disabled, keeping only the end-tag removal, and recompute ROUGE-1 and BERTScore; if the scores fall noticeably below 0.740 and 0.983, part of the reported performance comes from the rewriting rule. Independently, inspect the gold answers for the unanswerable questions in the training or validation splits and count how many literally match the standardized 'It is not possible...' sentence, since the rule can only inflate scores on questions whose gold phrasing is identical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that InternVL3-8B with an optimized composite prompt and a two-step chain-of-thought 'rethink' procedure achieves ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-L F1 of 0.740 and BERTScore of 0.983 on the SciVQA test split, establishing a reproducible baseline for the task. A supporting claim is that chain-of-thought prompting yields consistent gains across all four tested vision-language models, and that an ensemble assigning each model to its strongest figure types reaches an ensemble ROUGE-1 F1 of 0.735, which improves on most individual systems but not on InternVL3 alone. The paper further argues that inconsistencies in the gold annotations, such as multiple-answer formatting and a verifiable labeling error, mean the metric scores likely underestimate how well the models actually answer.

Load-bearing premise

The headline scores assume that every unanswerable question in the SciVQA gold set uses exactly the standardized phrase 'It is not possible to answer this question based only on the provided data,' because the post-processing step rewrites all insufficient-information outputs into that string before scoring.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future SciVQA entries can treat InternVL3 with the reported prompt recipe as a strong baseline, since a 0.740 ROUGE-1 F1 result is now documented and reproducible.
  • Chain-of-thought prompting is a cheap gain: every model in the study improved on the test set with CoT, so teams with limited compute can extract improvements without fine-tuning or larger models.
  • Figure-type ensembling is a bounded strategy: it beat three of the four individual models on test (0.735 versus 0.709, 0.695, and 0.562) but lost to InternVL3 alone, suggesting vision-encoder quality outweighs model diversity.
  • The answer-standardization rule means reproducing the reported numbers requires also reproducing the exact 'It is not possible...' sentence rewriting, because the rule converts many outputs into the reference phrasing before scoring.
  • The documented gold-annotation inconsistencies, such as '52,3%' versus '3%', imply ROUGE and BERTScore estimates are lower bounds on true agreement and that a cleaned evaluation set could shift rankings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A clean ablation that disables the answer-standardization rule would quantify how much of the 0.740 ROUGE-F1 comes from the models themselves versus from rewriting insufficient-information outputs; the paper does not report this comparison.
  • A learned router that selects models by figure type, rather than hand-picked assignments, could plausibly beat InternVL3 alone, since the validation table shows different models dominate different chart types.
  • Comparing the two-step rethink prompt to sampling multiple chain-of-thought answers and voting would separate the benefit of self-correction from the benefit of simply generating more tokens.
  • Reporting exact-match accuracy as well as ROUGE and BERTScore on a human-audited subset would make future leaderboard movements easier to interpret, since the paper shows annotation noise can mask real model improvements.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper describes a system submitted to the SciVQA 2025 shared task for answering questions about scientific figures. The authors evaluate four vision-language models in the 5–8B parameter range (InternVL3-8B, Qwen2.5-VL-7B, Bespoke MiniChart 7B, Phi-4 Multimodal), combine task-specific prompt templates, chain-of-thought with a rethink mechanism, and a figure-type-aware ensemble, followed by a post-processing step that standardizes outputs classified as unanswerable. The headline result is that InternVL3 reaches ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-L F1 of 0.740 and BERTScore of 0.983 on the SciVQA test split, while the ensemble reaches 0.735 and ranked 5th on the leaderboard. The paper also reports validation error analysis and identifies several dataset quality issues.

Significance. If the reported numbers are reproducible, this is a useful shared-task system description with a clear, checkable empirical claim: prompt optimization and CoT make InternVL3 a strong baseline on SciVQA. The paper's positive features include public code release, full prompt templates in the appendix, per-figure-type validation tables, and explicit documentation of annotation inconsistencies in the gold data. The contribution is not a new mechanism or theory, but a carefully engineered system; its value lies in the reproducibility of the benchmark result and the practical lessons about prompt design and post-processing. However, the central performance claim depends on an unablated post-processing rule and on single-run evaluations, so the significance is conditional on those issues being resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.4, Tables 1–2] The central 0.740 ROUGE claim is not attributable to the model alone because the post-processing rule in §4.4 rewrites every output judged to contain insufficient information into the exact sentence "It is not possible to answer this question based only on the provided data." This canonicalization is applied before the reported ROUGE/BERTScore numbers, but no evaluation with the rule disabled and no breakdown of the unanswerable subset is given. Since Table 4 lists 2,160 of 15,120 train samples (about 14%) as unanswerable, the rule can mechanically convert a large fraction of outputs into exact matches irrespective of visual reasoning. Please report scores with post-processing disabled, and also report metrics separately on the answerable and unanswerable subsets, so the headline number can be attributed correctly.
  2. [§4.5, Tables 1–2] The claim in §4.5 that InternVL3 outperforms other individual models "by at least +0.30 ROUGE-1 F1 score on the test split" is arithmetically inconsistent with the reported numbers: the gap between InternVL3 (0.740) and the next-best individual model, Bespoke (0.709), is about +0.031, not +0.30. This should be corrected, and the comparison should also state whether the delta is statistically meaningful.
  3. [§4.5, Tables 1–2] All headline metrics appear to be single-run evaluations with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The claims that "CoT prompting achieved consistent improvements across all VLMs" and that InternVL3 is the strongest standalone model are based on differences that may be within run-to-run noise (e.g., InternVL3 0.740 vs. ensemble 0.735, or CoT vs. no-CoT differences of 0.01–0.06). Please provide at least bootstrap confidence intervals over the test items, or multiple inference runs, for the central comparisons.
  4. [§4.3, Table 9] The figure-type-aware ensemble assignment is based on validation-set accuracy per chart type, but many rows in Table 9 contain very small per-type sample sizes (for example, line_chart,table, vector_plot, and several compound types have roughly 7–14 validation items), and the reported standard deviations are accordingly large. The resulting assignment of models to figure types may not be robust. Please report the number of validation items per figure type and assess whether the ensemble's 0.735 test score is reliably better than simply running InternVL3 on all items, especially given that the ensemble underperforms InternVL3 by 0.005 in ROUGE-1 F1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Table 10] The abstract and §4.5 credit InternVL3 with the 0.740 test score, while Table 10 reports the submitted system "Infyn" at 0.735 ROUGE-1 F1. Please clarify explicitly that the leaderboard submission was the ensemble, not the single InternVL3 model, so the reader can reconcile the numbers.
  2. [§4.4] The description of post-processing should state the exact criterion used to determine that "the reasoning process determined insufficient information," since this judgment is presumably made by the model itself; without that criterion, the rule is not fully reproducible.
  3. [Appendix C] The sentence "which our models corrects predict" contains a grammatical error and should be rewritten as "which our models predict correctly" or similar.
  4. [Table 9] For readability, Table 9 should include a column with the number of validation examples per figure type, since the accuracy means are otherwise hard to interpret when sample sizes vary from below 10 to over 1,000.
  5. [§4.2] The relation between the baselines and the final prompts could be clearer: Baseline 1 achieves very low ROUGE F1 (0.180) with high recall (0.498), which suggests a formatting mismatch; please state whether the evaluation script strips extra text and whether baselines were subject to the same post-processing as the main system.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Empirical benchmark paper with no derivation chain; the only reduction-adjacent issue is the unablated canonicalization of unanswerable outputs to the exact gold-style phrase, which can force perfect scores on that subset.

  1. other [Section 4.4 (Postprocessing), with Table 4 and abstract/Table 2 headlines]
    "Then, for questions where the reasoning process determined insufficient information to give a valid response, outputs were standardized to "It is not possible to answer this question based only on the provided data." regardless of the initial model output. Model outputs, after applying post-processing, were evaluated on both the test set (Table 2) and validation set (Table 1) using BERTScore and ROUGE metrics."

    For the unanswerable subset, the final answer is replaced by a fixed sentence before scoring. Because the unanswerable train subset contains 2,160 of 15,120 samples (~14%, Table 4), and because this standardization only helps if SciVQA gold unanswerable answers use that same sentence, every item flagged as unanswerable can become an exact match by construction, independent of the model's generated text and visual reasoning. The headline 0.740 ROUGE-F1 attributed to InternVL3 with prompt optimization and CoT therefore includes a rule-forced contribution that is not ablated in the paper, so the score describes the post-processed system rather than the VLM's answer generation alone. This is a partial attribution/measurement circularity rather than a derivation circularity.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted equations, no first-principles derivation, and no uniqueness or ansatz argument; it reports measured benchmark performance with comparisons across models, prompts, CoT, and ensembles, all of which carry independent empirical content. The only load-bearing reduction-adjacent issue is the Section 4.4 post-processing rule that standardizes unanswerable outputs to a fixed sentence before ROUGE/BERTScore evaluation; if that sentence matches the gold reference, scores on the unanswerable subset are forced by construction. The paper discloses this rule in table captions and in Section 4.4, but it never reports an ablation without the rule or a breakdown of the unanswerable subset, so the central 0.740 attribution is partly contingent on the rule. No self-citations, author-imported uniqueness theorems, or renamed known results are present. The score is kept at 2 because the finding is a disclosure/ablation caveat in an otherwise self-contained empirical study, not a wholesale collapse of the derivation into its inputs.

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

This is an empirical systems report, not a derivation. No free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities appear. The only tuned choices are prompt templates and the figure-type-to-model assignment rule, both selected from validation data and described qualitatively rather than as fitted parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Scientific Visual Question Answering through Multimodal Reasoning and Ensemble Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N2E5EEIW

@misc{pith2026250706183,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Scientific Visual Question Answering through Multimodal Reasoning and Ensemble Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N2E5EEIW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06183}
}
read the original abstract

Technical reports and articles often contain valuable information in the form of semi-structured data like charts, and figures. Interpreting these and using the information from them is essential for downstream tasks such as question answering (QA). Current approaches to visual question answering often struggle with the precision required for scientific data interpretation, particularly in handling numerical values, multi-step reasoning over visual elements, and maintaining consistency between visual observation and textual reasoning. We present our approach to the SciVQA 2025 shared task, focusing on answering visual and non-visual questions grounded in scientific figures from scholarly articles. We conducted a series of experiments using models with 5B to 8B parameters. Our strongest individual model, InternVL3, achieved ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-L F1 scores of \textbf{0.740} and a BERTScore of \textbf{0.983} on the SciVQA test split. We also developed an ensemble model with multiple vision language models (VLMs). Through error analysis on the validation split, our ensemble approach improved performance compared to most individual models, though InternVL3 remained the strongest standalone performer. Our findings underscore the effectiveness of prompt optimization, chain-of-thought reasoning and ensemble modeling in improving the model's ability in visual question answering.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Sibo Song, Kai Dang, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Jun Tang, Humen Zhong, Yuanzhi Zhu, Mingkun Yang, Zhaohai Li, Jianqiang Wan, Pengfei Wang, Wei Ding, Zheren Fu, Yiheng Xu, Jiabo Ye, Xi Zhang, Tianbao Xie, Zesen Cheng, Hang Zhang, Zhibo Yang, Haiyang Xu, and Junyang Lin. 2025. http://arxiv.org/abs/250...

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Ekaterina Borisova, Nikolas Rauscher, and Georg Rehm. 2025. SciVQA 2025: Overview of the first scientific visual question answering shared task. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Scholarly Document Processing (SDP), Vienna, Austria

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Victor Carbune, Hassan Mansoor, Fangyu Liu, Rahul Aralikatte, Gilles Baechler, Jindong Chen, and Abhanshu Sharma. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12596 Chart-based reasoning: Transferring capabilities from llms to vlms

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Yucheng Han, Chi Zhang, Xin Chen, Xu Yang, Zhibin Wang, Gang Yu, Bin Fu, and Hanwang Zhang. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.16483 Chartllama: A multimodal llm for chart understanding and generation

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685 Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Farhan Ishmam, Md

    Md. Farhan Ishmam, Md. Sakib Hossain Shovon, M.F. Mridha, and Nilanjan Dey. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102270 From image to language: A critical analysis of visual question answering (vqa) approaches, challenges, and opportunities . Information Fusion, 106:102270

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Raihan Kabir, Naznin Haque, Md Saiful Islam, and Marium-E-Jannat. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11150 A comprehensive survey on visual question answering datasets and algorithms

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.06180 Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention

    arXiv 2023

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Pan Lu, Hritik Bansal, Tony Xia, Jiacheng Liu, Chunyuan Li, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Hao Cheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02255 Mathvista: Evaluating mathematical reasoning of foundation models in visual contexts

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ahmed Masry, Parsa Kavehzadeh, Xuan Long Do, Enamul Hoque, and Shafiq Joty. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14761 Unichart: A universal vision-language pretrained model for chart comprehension and reasoning

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Ahmed Masry, Do Xuan Long, Jia Qing Tan, Shafiq Joty, and Enamul Hoque. 2022. Chartqa: A benchmark for question answering about charts with visual and logical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10244

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Microsoft, :, Abdelrahman Abouelenin, Atabak Ashfaq, Adam Atkinson, Hany Awadalla, Nguyen Bach, Jianmin Bao, Alon Benhaim, Martin Cai, Vishrav Chaudhary, Congcong Chen, Dong Chen, Dongdong Chen, Junkun Chen, Weizhu Chen, Yen-Chun Chen, Yi ling Chen, Qi Dai, Xiyang Dai, Ruchao ...

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Shraman Pramanick, Rama Chellappa, and Subhashini Venugopalan. 2025. http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09413 Spiqa: A dataset for multimodal question answering on scientific papers

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Manning, and Chelsea Finn

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.18290 Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.06538 Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Rossi, Mike Rimer, Xiang Chen, Sungchul Kim, Vaishnavi Muppala, Tong Yu, Zhengmian Hu, Ritwik Sinha, Wei Zhang, Iftikhar Ahamath Burhanuddin, and Franck Dernoncourt

    Md Mehrab Tanjim, Ryan A. Rossi, Mike Rimer, Xiang Chen, Sungchul Kim, Vaishnavi Muppala, Tong Yu, Zhengmian Hu, Ritwik Sinha, Wei Zhang, Iftikhar Ahamath Burhanuddin, and Franck Dernoncourt. 2025. http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.18860 Exploring rewriting approaches for different co...

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Omkar Thawakar, Dinura Dissanayake, Ketan More, Ritesh Thawkar, Ahmed Heakl, Noor Ahsan, Yuhao Li, Mohammed Zumri, Jean Lahoud, Rao Muhammad Anwer, Hisham Cholakkal, Ivan Laptev, Mubarak Shah, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, and Salman Khan. 2025. http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06186 Llamav-o1...

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Haozhe Wang, Chao Qu, Zuming Huang, Wei Chu, Fangzhen Lin, and Wenhu Chen. 2025. http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08837 Vl-rethinker: Incentivizing self-reflection of vision-language models with reinforcement learning

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Zirui Wang, Mengzhou Xia, Luxi He, Howard Chen, Yitao Liu, Richard Zhu, Kaiqu Liang, Xindi Wu, Haotian Liu, Sadhika Malladi, et al. 2024. Charxiv: Charting gaps in realistic chart understanding in multimodal llms. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:113569--113697

    2024

  12. [20]

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

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601 Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hongli Zhan, Muneeza Azmat, Raya Horesh, Junyi Jessy Li, and Mikhail Yurochkin. 2025. http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.03397 Spri: Aligning large language models with context-situated principles

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Qihao Zhu Runxin Xu Junxiao Song Mingchuan Zhang Y.K. Li Y. Wu Daya Guo Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03300 Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Jinguo Zhu, Weiyun Wang, Zhe Chen, Zhaoyang Liu, Shenglong Ye, Lixin Gu, Hao Tian, Yuchen Duan, Weijie Su, Jie Shao, Zhangwei Gao, Erfei Cui, Xuehui Wang, Yue Cao, Yangzhou Liu, Xingguang Wei, Hongjie Zhang, Haomin Wang, Weiye Xu, Hao Li, Jiahao Wang, Nianchen Deng, Songze Li,...

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    URL: " 'urlintro :=

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before...

  18. [26]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.