ChartInsights:评估多模态大语言模型在低级图表问答中的表现
ChartInsights: Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models for Low-Level Chart Question Answering
AI总结:
本文提出ChartInsights数据集,系统评估19个多模态大模型在低级图表问答中的表现,并设计Chain-of-Charts提示策略,将准确率提升至84.32%。
摘要:
图表问答(ChartQA)任务在解释和提取可视化图表中的见解方面发挥着关键作用。尽管近期多模态大语言模型(MLLMs)如GPT-4o在高级ChartQA任务(如图表描述)中展现出潜力,但它们在低级ChartQA任务(例如识别相关性)中的有效性仍未得到充分探索。在本文中,我们通过使用新构建的数据集ChartInsights来评估MLLMs在低级ChartQA上的表现,填补了这一空白。该数据集包含22,347个(图表,任务,查询,答案)四元组,覆盖7种图表类型中的10个数据分析任务。我们系统评估了19个先进的MLLMs,包括12个开源模型和7个闭源模型。这些模型的平均准确率为39.8%,其中GPT-4o以69.17%的准确率最高。为了进一步探索MLLMs在低级ChartQA中的局限性,我们进行了改变图表视觉元素(例如更改配色方案、添加图像噪声)的实验,以评估它们对任务有效性的影响。此外,我们提出了一种新的文本提示策略Chain-of-Charts,专门针对低级ChartQA任务,该策略将性能提升了14.41%,达到83.58%的准确率。最后,结合一种引导注意力到相关视觉元素的视觉提示策略,进一步将准确率提升至84.32%。
英文摘要:
Chart question answering (ChartQA) tasks play a critical role in interpreting and extracting insights from visualization charts. While recent advancements in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) like GPT-4o have shown promise in high-level ChartQA tasks, such as chart captioning, their effectiveness in low-level ChartQA tasks (e.g., identifying correlations) remains underexplored. In this paper, we address this gap by evaluating MLLMs on low-level ChartQA using a newly curated dataset, ChartInsights, which consists of 22,347 (chart, task, query, answer) covering 10 data analysis tasks across 7 chart types. We systematically evaluate 19 advanced MLLMs, including 12 open-source and 7 closed-source models. The average accuracy rate across these models is 39.8%, with GPT-4o achieving the highest accuracy at 69.17%. To further explore the limitations of MLLMs in low-level ChartQA, we conduct experiments that alter visual elements of charts (e.g., changing color schemes, adding image noise) to assess their impact on the task effectiveness. Furthermore, we propose a new textual prompt strategy, Chain-of-Charts, tailored for low-level ChartQA tasks, which boosts performance by 14.41%, achieving an accuracy of 83.58%. Finally, incorporating a visual prompt strategy that directs attention to relevant visual elements further improves accuracy to 84.32%.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。