REVIEW 2 cited by
Are Large Vision Language Models up to the Challenge of Chart Comprehension and Reasoning? An Extensive Investigation into the Capabilities and Limitations of LVLMs
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
Are Large Vision Language Models up to the Challenge of Chart Comprehension and Reasoning? An Extensive Investigation into the Capabilities and Limitations of LVLMs
read the original abstract
Natural language is a powerful complementary modality of communication for data visualizations, such as bar and line charts. To facilitate chart-based reasoning using natural language, various downstream tasks have been introduced recently such as chart question answering, chart summarization, and fact-checking with charts. These tasks pose a unique challenge, demanding both vision-language reasoning and a nuanced understanding of chart data tables, visual encodings, and natural language prompts. Despite the recent success of Large Language Models (LLMs) across diverse NLP tasks, their abilities and limitations in the realm of data visualization remain under-explored, possibly due to their lack of multi-modal capabilities. To bridge the gap, this paper presents the first comprehensive evaluation of the recently developed large vision language models (LVLMs) for chart understanding and reasoning tasks. Our evaluation includes a comprehensive assessment of LVLMs, including GPT-4V and Gemini, across four major chart reasoning tasks. Furthermore, we perform a qualitative evaluation of LVLMs' performance on a diverse range of charts, aiming to provide a thorough analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. Our findings reveal that LVLMs demonstrate impressive abilities in generating fluent texts covering high-level data insights while also encountering common problems like hallucinations, factual errors, and data bias. We highlight the key strengths and limitations of chart comprehension tasks, offering insights for future research.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
A Multimodal Reasoning Typology for Grounding Chart-Image Coherence in Science Communication
A five-level typology of reasoning gaps (R1–R5) classifies how chart-image pairs in scientific papers jointly convey claims, predicting where expert and non-expert interpretations diverge.
-
Chart Deception in Vision-Language Models: From Vulnerability to Mitigation
Misleading chart designs shift vision-language models' answers away from the true data interpretation; a paired benchmark measures this shift, and a model-extracted chart summary reduces it for most models.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.