Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 67 references

From EduVisBench to EduVisAgent: A Benchmark and Multi-Agent Framework for Reasoning-Driven Pedagogical Visualization

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A coordinated multi-agent pipeline that plans instruction before drawing scores 81.6% on a new educational-visualization benchmark, beating the best single agent by 40.2%.

desk verdict Useful benchmark and a sensible agent, but the 'educationally aligned' claim overreaches: the evidence is a rubric gain, not a learning gain. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16832 v2 pith:67Y4C44M submitted 2025-05-22 cs.AI cs.CLcs.CVcs.LG

Haonian Ji , Shi Qiu , Siyang Xin , Siwei Han , Zhaorun Chen , Dake Zhang , Hongyi Wang , Huaxiu Yao This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.CVcs.LG
keywords EduVisBenchAgentpedagogicalvisualizationmulti-agentLLMframeworkSTEMeducationvisualreasoningbenchmarkAIevaluationrubricinteractivelearningwebpages
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 tries to establish that foundation models fail at educational visualization not because they cannot draw, but because they do not decompose the reasoning that the drawing must carry, and that a coordinated multi-agent system can supply that missing structure. To measure the gap, the authors build EduVisBench, a benchmark of 1,154 STEM questions across mathematics, physics, and chemistry at three difficulty levels, scored along five pedagogically motivated dimensions by GPT-4o. To close the gap, they build EduVisAgent, in which agents for task planning, conceptual mapping, reasoning decomposition, metacognitive review, and visualization design collaborate to produce interactive webpages. The paper reports an average EduVisAgent score of 81.6%, against 58.2% for the best baseline v0, a relative improvement of about 40.2%, and presents case analyses arguing the outputs are more educationally aligned. A sympathetic reader would care because the work shifts the target for educational AI from producing correct text to producing explanations a student can actually see and follow.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the explicit division of instructional labor before any pixels are generated. Rather than asking one model to produce an image or webpage from a problem, EduVisAgent first runs a Task Planning Agent that converts the problem into subgoals, expected reasoning, formulas, and likely misconceptions; then a Conceptual Mapping Agent, a Reasoning Decomposition Agent, and a Metacognitive Reviewer shape the content; and finally a Visualization Agent renders it as an interactive webpage using v0. The paper's argument is that reasoning decomposition is the step single-model baselines skip, and that the five-dimension GPT-4o rubric is what turns that architectural difference into a measurable score.

What would settle it

Run a randomized study in which students study the same problems with EduVisAgent-generated and v0-generated visualizations and then take a transfer test. If the higher-scoring EduVisAgent group does not learn more than the v0 group, or if GPT-4o's rubric scores do not predict per-item learning gains, the central claim of educationally aligned improvement is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that current foundation models, including strong LVLMs, routinely get the textual reasoning of STEM problems right while producing visual explanations that are misaligned, incomplete, or misleading, and that this failure is measurable and addressable. EduVisBench makes the failure measurable by combining 1,154 curated questions from existing math, physics, and chemistry sources with a five-dimension rubric covering context visualization, diagram design, text-graphic integration, thought guidance, and interactivity, scored by GPT-4o and validated against human raters on 150 samples. EduVisAgent makes it addressable by splitting the work of instruction into specialized roles: a Task Planning Agent sets subgoals and anticipates misconceptions, a Conceptual Mapping Agent organizes content using the Concrete-Representational-Abstract model, a Reasoning Decomposition Agent builds step-by-step logic with the FOPS strategy, a Metacognitive Reviewer injects reflection prompts, and a Visualization Agent renders the result as an interactive webpage through v0. The paper reports that this pipeline scores 81.6% on average, outperforming the strongest baseline v0 (58.2%) by 23.4 percentage points, a 40.2% relative gain, and argues the resulting visualizations better guide a learner through the reasoning.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that GPT-4o's five-dimension scores, checked against human raters on 150 samples, actually measure whether a visualization helps a student learn, because the paper reports no direct test of learning outcomes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If EduVisAgent's scores reflect genuine pedagogical quality, then orchestrated multi-agent pipelines can replace much of the manual work of designing explanatory STEM visuals.
  • EduVisBench provides a reusable protocol: 1,154 questions and a five-dimension rubric for comparing any future model or agent on educational visualization rather than only on answer accuracy.
  • The fine-grained dimension analysis identifies interactivity and thought guidance as the weakest areas of all baselines, directing future work toward those dimensions.
  • Because EduVisAgent builds on general-purpose LVLMs and the v0 renderer, its gains come from workflow design rather than new base models, so the approach should strengthen as the underlying models improve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The rubric rewards dashboard-style layouts, labeled diagrams, color coding, and slider-based interactivity; if those surface features correlate with perceived quality but not with comprehension, the 40.2% gap could shrink in a study that measures actual learning.
  • The paper does not ablate individual agents, so a single strong model prompted with the same instructional plan might reproduce much of the gain; running that comparison would isolate what the multi-agent orchestration itself contributes.
  • A randomized pre-test/post-test study with real students using EduVisAgent versus v0 outputs would settle whether the score gap translates into learning gains; this is the natural next experiment and the paper does not report it.
  • The decompose-then-visualize pattern may transfer to other multimodal explanation settings such as medical or engineering instruction, but the paper only demonstrates it on K-12-style STEM problems.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two artifacts. EduVisBench is a benchmark of 1,154 curated STEM questions across mathematics, physics, and chemistry, organized into three difficulty levels and 15 sub-domains, designed to test whether foundation models can generate pedagogically effective, step-by-step visualizations. Outputs are rendered to images or web pages and scored by GPT-4o on five 0–5 rubric dimensions (context visualization, diagram design, text–graphic integration, thought guidance, interactivity), normalized to 0–100; the GPT-4o judge is checked against undergraduate raters on 150 samples (cosine similarity 0.9655, MSE 0.5702). EduVisAgent is a multi-agent framework whose five specialized agents (task planning, conceptual mapping, reasoning decomposition, metacognitive reviewer, visualization) produce interactive instructional web pages. Experiments over diffusion models, LVLMs, and the v0 agent report that EduVisAgent scores 81.6% on average, surpassing the best baseline v0 (58.2%) by 23.4 points (40.2% relative improvement), with per-dimension analysis in Figure 7 and case studies in Figure 6.

Significance. The benchmark fills a real gap—there is no standard platform for evaluating visual, reasoning-driven pedagogical output—and the paper ships the benchmark and code with a reproducible, fully automated evaluation pipeline and an explicit theory-grounded scoring rubric. The human-agreement check in Appendix A.3 is a good-faith validation effort, and the multi-agent architecture is modular and clearly specified. However, the headline claim that EduVisAgent delivers 'more educationally aligned visualizations' is not established: the metric is an AI-judged rubric whose validity for predicting actual learning is unverified, and whose dimensions closely mirror the framework's own design goals. The community value of EduVisBench will depend on adding criterion validation, per-run statistics, and honest reporting of aggregation; as it stands, this is a strong benchmark-plus-system report whose central educational claim requires substantially stronger evidence.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.3 and Appendix A.3] The central claim that EduVisAgent delivers 'more educationally aligned visualizations' rests entirely on GPT-4o rubric scores whose only validation is agreement with undergraduate raters applying the same rubric (cosine similarity 0.9655, MSE 0.5702 on 150 samples). This demonstrates inter-rater agreement on the rubric, not criterion validity: nothing in the paper shows that higher rubric scores predict better student learning or comprehension. With an MSE of 0.57 on a 0–5 scale and no reported inter-rater reliability among the human raters, the judge's scores are too weakly anchored to support the educational-alignment conclusion; a learning-outcome study, or at minimum a validity analysis against established multimedia-learning measures, is needed.
  2. [§2.3 versus §3.2 and Tables 4–8] The five evaluation dimensions in Section 2.3 mirror the functions of the five agents in Section 3.2 almost one-to-one, and the Level-5 rubric descriptors reward precisely the features EduVisAgent is engineered to produce—for example, Table 8's Level-5 Interactivity requires 'difficulty suggestions, personalized hints, worked examples, and extension resource links,' which the agent pipeline is designed to generate. The 40.2% improvement may therefore measure rubric conformance rather than pedagogical superiority. The authors should test with a rubric held out from the system design, include human raters blind to system identity, or otherwise show that the scoring dimensions do not simply restate the system's own specification.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2(a)] The reported averages are not reproducible from the displayed cells. For example, the nine Gemini 2.0 Flash Webpage cells in Table 1 average 26.9, not the reported 43.6; the Claude 3.7 Sonnet Webpage cells average 51.8, not 54.6; the v0 row averages 56.3, not 58.2; and the nine EduVisAgent cells in Table 2(a) average 78.7, not 81.6, with an unexplained '65.0' in the Maths row. Unless an aggregation rule (e.g., weighting by the number of questions per difficulty level) is stated explicitly, the headline numbers—including the 23.4-point gap and the 40.2% relative improvement—cannot be verified from the tables.
  4. [§4.1–§4.3] The evaluation lacks statistical grounding: no standard deviations, confidence intervals, significance tests, or repeated judge runs are reported, and the manuscript does not state whether each model was scored on all 1,154 items or on a subsample. Because GPT-4o's scoring is stochastic and the prompt in Appendix A.4 requests integer scores, single-run scores can fluctuate by non-trivial amounts; the authors should provide per-sample counts, per-run variance, and an interval estimate for the 23.4-point gap between EduVisAgent and v0.
  5. [§4.3] No ablation is reported, so the 40.2% improvement cannot be attributed to the multi-agent collaboration per se: EduVisAgent uses the best baseline (v0) as its rendering engine on top of a presumably stronger LLM backbone, and any of these components could account for part of the gain. Ablations (e.g., a single-agent version, removal of the Metacognitive Reviewer, or GPT-4o-plus-v0 without the planning agents) are needed to support the paper's attribution of the gains to 'modular specialization and collaborative integration.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.3, Figures 3/4/7, Appendix A.2] The five evaluation dimensions are named inconsistently: Section 2.3 uses Context Visualization, Diagram Design, Text–Graphic Integration, Thought Guidance, and Interactivity, while Figures 3, 4, and 7 use Visual Guidance, Visual Design, Coordination, Learning Guidance, and Interactivity, and Appendix A.2 uses yet another set of names (Visual Scenario Design Guidance, Visual Illustration Design, Text–Illustration Coordination, Learning Thought Guidance, Interactivity and Personalized Support); the terminology should be aligned throughout.
  2. [§3.2] The sentence 'In this stage, EduVisBench executes the instructional task...' should read 'EduVisAgent executes the instructional task,' since the benchmark is an evaluation corpus, not an executor.
  3. [Appendix A.4] The evaluation prompt instructs the scorer to assign an integer 'from 0 to 5' for each of the 'five categories (1–5),' while the rubrics in Tables 4–8 define levels 1–5; the paper should clarify whether 0 is a valid score and how it maps to the level descriptions.
  4. [Appendix A.3] The description of the human raters as 'undergraduate students from top universities' is insufficient detail for a gold-standard; the number of raters, their per-rater agreement, and the adjudication procedure should be reported so that the 0.9655 cosine similarity can be interpreted.
  5. [Abstract and §4.3] The '40.2% improvement' is a relative improvement over v0, whereas the absolute gap is 23.4 points; the relative versus absolute distinction should be stated explicitly in the abstract to avoid misreading.
  6. [§2.2] The chemistry portion is translated from Chinese-language source data, but no translation quality check or back-translation protocol is described; a brief note on the translation procedure would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

EduVisAgent's central 'educational alignment' claim is measured by a five-dimension rubric whose dimensions mirror the five agents the system is built from, so the headline gain is partly true by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.3 (Evaluation Metric), Section 3.2 (Collaborative Solution Generation), Section 4.3 (Performance Analysis); validation in Appendix A.3]
    "To comprehensively evaluate the quality of generated visualizations in supporting student understanding and learning, we introduce a fine-grained scoring metric grounded in five pedagogically motivated dimensions: (1) Context Visualization ... (5) Interactivity. ... EduVisAgent consists of five specialized yet interdependent agents: a Task Planning Agent ... a Conceptual Mapping Agent ... a Reasoning Decomposition Agent ... a Metacognitive Reviewer ... and a Visualization Agent."

    The benchmark score that supports 'more educationally aligned visualizations' (Section 4.3) is defined by the five dimensions in Section 2.3. EduVisAgent is explicitly constructed as five agents whose assigned functions instantiate those same dimensions: context visualization is produced by conceptual mapping and task planning, diagram design by the visualization agent, text-graphic integration by the alignment requirement of the visualization agent, thought guidance by reasoning decomposition and the metacognitive reviewer, and interactivity by the final interactive webpage. Thus the 81.6% score and the 40.2% improvement over v0 measure how completely EduVisAgent realizes the authors' own rubric.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the paper's headline claim is: EduVisAgent is better because it scores 81.6% on EduVisBench; EduVisBench scores are GPT-4o ratings on five rubric dimensions; EduVisAgent's five agents are functionally aligned with those same five dimensions. This is a partial definitional circle: the outcome variable ('educational alignment') is operationalized as the rubric, and the intervention was architected to match that rubric. The human validation in Appendix A.3 does not break the circle because it only shows that GPT-4o and undergraduates agree on the same rubric, not that rubric scores predict learning or comprehension. No independent self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem is load-bearing; the circularity is concentrated in the benchmark/agent co-design rather than in citation practice. Because the numeric comparison to baseline v0 is still a real measurement on the authors' benchmark, and the system could in principle have failed even its own rubric, the circularity is partial rather than total. Score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric curve fitting is involved; the central numerical claims rest on the choice of the rubric, the GPT-4o judge, and the curated datasets, all of which are hand-selected rather than fitted. The five agent roles are software components, not postulated physical entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Equal rubric dimension weights = 1/5 each (all five dimensions scored 0-5, summed, normalized to 100)
    The central score depends on the choice to weight Context Visualization, Diagram Design, Text-Graphic Integration, Thought Guidance, and Interactivity equally. This choice is made in Section 2.3 and is not derived from pedagogical evidence.
  • GPT-4o evaluation prompt template = Exact instruction text in Appendix A.4
    The prompt instructs GPT-4o to return only integer scores in a fixed JSON format. Small prompt variations could shift scores, and no stability analysis is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-4o scoring approximates human pedagogical judgment
    Section 2.3 and Appendix A.3: GPT-4o is used to score all outputs; validation on 150 samples shows cosine similarity 0.9655, but no learning-outcome evidence.
  • domain assumption The five evaluation dimensions fully capture pedagogical visualization quality
    Appendix A.2 defines levels for each dimension; the paper does not justify completeness or independence of the dimensions.
  • domain assumption The curated public datasets are representative STEM problems for K-12
    Section 2.2: questions come from C-MHChem, high-school-physics, Illustrative Mathematics, and MATH-500; no analysis of coverage or bias.
  • domain assumption v0 rendering faithfully reflects the intended visualization
    Section 3.2: 'All visuals are rendered using the v0 system'; the paper does not control for v0's own behavior or failures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From EduVisBench to EduVisAgent: A Benchmark and Multi-Agent Framework for Reasoning-Driven Pedagogical Visualization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/67Y4C44M

@misc{pith2026250516832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From EduVisBench to EduVisAgent: A Benchmark and Multi-Agent Framework for Reasoning-Driven Pedagogical Visualization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/67Y4C44M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16832}
}
read the original abstract

While foundation models (FMs), such as diffusion models and large vision-language models (LVLMs), have been widely applied in educational contexts, their ability to generate pedagogically effective visual explanations remains limited. Most existing approaches focus primarily on textual reasoning, overlooking the critical role of structured and interpretable visualizations in supporting conceptual understanding. To better assess the visual reasoning capabilities of FMs in educational settings, we introduce EduVisBench, a multi-domain, multi-level benchmark. EduVisBench features diverse STEM problem sets requiring visually grounded solutions, along with a fine-grained evaluation rubric informed by pedagogical theory. Our empirical analysis reveals that existing models frequently struggle with the inherent challenge of decomposing complex reasoning and translating it into visual representations aligned with human cognitive processes. To address these limitations, we propose EduVisAgent, a multi-agent collaborative framework that coordinates specialized agents for instructional planning, reasoning decomposition, metacognitive prompting, and visualization design. Experimental results show that EduVisAgent substantially outperforms all baselines, achieving a 40.2% improvement and delivering more educationally aligned visualizations. EduVisBench and EduVisAgent are available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/EduVisBench and https://github.com/aiming-lab/EduVisAgent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GPT-4o fails to illustrate its problem-solving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dataset distribution of EduVisBench. Each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Representative examples from EduVisBench, featuring questions from Maths, Chemistry, and Physics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The structure of EduVisAgent. interpretability by embedding distinct instructional roles directly into the agent workflow. The overall operation of EduVisAgent proceeds in two stages: (1) instructional flow construction and (2) collabo￾rative solution generation, as de…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Workflow for the EduVisBench benchmark evaluation. Models receive a visualization prompt and a question to generate visual outputs. All resulting vi￾sualizations undergo evaluation by GPT-4o across five dimensions to compute a total performance score. 3 EduVisAgent Usi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Baseline models versus our EduVisAgent. These examples clearly demonstrate the often poor output qual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fine-grained performance comparison across our five key evaluation dimensions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

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

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Marah Abdin, Sam Ade Jacobs, Ammar Ahmad Awan, Jyoti Aneja, Ahmed Awadallah, Hany Hassan Awadalla, Nguyen Bach, Amit Bahree, Arash Bakhtiari, Harkirat Singh Behl, Alon Benhaim, Misha Bilenko, Johan Bjorck, S \'e bastien Bubeck, Martin Cai, Caio C'esar Teodoro Mendes, Weizhu Chen, Vishrav Chaudhary, Parul Chopra, and 69 others. 2024. https://api.semanticsc...

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Abdelrahman Abouelenin, Atabak Ashfaq, Adam Atkinson, Hany Hassan Awadalla, Nguyen Bach, Jianmin Bao, Alon Benhaim, Martin Cai, Vishrav Chaudhary, Congcong Chen, Dongdong Chen, Dongdong Chen, Junkun Chen, Weizhu Chen, Yen-Chun Chen, Yi ling Chen, Qi Dai, Xiyang Dai, Ruchao Fan, and 54 others. 2025. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:276747153 Phi-4-...

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Cognition AI. 2024. Devin ai: World’s first ai software engineer

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Anthropic . 2025. Claude 3.7 sonnet and claude code. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-7-sonnet. Accessed: 2025-05-16

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Jun Shern Chan, Neil Chowdhury, Oliver Jaffe, James Aung, Dane Sherburn, Evan Mays, Giulio Starace, Kevin Liu, Leon Maksin, Tejal Patwardhan, and 1 others. 2024. Mle-bench: Evaluating machine learning agents on machine learning engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07095

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Jiawen Chen, Jianghao Zhang, Huaxiu Yao, and Yun Li. 2025 a . Celltypeagent: Trustworthy cell type annotation with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08844

    arXiv 2025

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Zhaorun Chen, Yichao Du, Zichen Wen, Yiyang Zhou, Chenhang Cui, Zhenzhen Weng, Haoqin Tu, Chaoqi Wang, Zhengwei Tong, Qinglan Huang, and 1 others. 2024 a . Mj-bench: Is your multimodal reward model really a good judge for text-to-image generation? arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04842

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Zhaorun Chen, Mintong Kang, and Bo Li. 2025 b . Shieldagent: Shielding agents via verifiable safety policy reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22738

    2025

  3. [11]

    Zhaorun Chen, Zhen Xiang, Chaowei Xiao, Dawn Song, and Bo Li. 2024 b . Agentpoison: Red-teaming llm agents via poisoning memory or knowledge bases. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:130185--130213

    2024

  4. [12]

    Zhaorun Chen, Zhuokai Zhao, Hongyin Luo, Huaxiu Yao, Bo Li, and Jiawei Zhou. 2024 c . Halc: Object hallucination reduction via adaptive focal-contrast decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00425

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Zhaorun Chen, Zhuokai Zhao, Zhihong Zhu, Ruiqi Zhang, Xiang Li, Bhiksha Raj, and Huaxiu Yao. 2024 d . Autoprm: Automating procedural supervision for multi-step reasoning via controllable question decomposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11452

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Zhendong Chu, Shen Wang, Jian Xie, Tinghui Zhu, Yibo Yan, Jinheng Ye, Aoxiao Zhong, Xuming Hu, Jing Liang, Philip S Yu, and 1 others. 2025. Llm agents for education: Advances and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11733

    2025

  7. [15]

    Chenhang Cui, An Zhang, Yiyang Zhou, Zhaorun Chen, Gelei Deng, Huaxiu Yao, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2024. Fine-grained verifiers: Preference modeling as next-token prediction in vision-language alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14148

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Team GLM, Aohan Zeng, Bin Xu, Bowen Wang, Chenhui Zhang, Da Yin, Diego Rojas, Guanyu Feng, Hanlin Zhao, Hanyu Lai, Hao Yu, Hongning Wang, Jiadai Sun, Jiajie Zhang, Jiale Cheng, Jiayi Gui, Jie Tang, Jing Zhang, Juanzi Li, and 37 others. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12793 Ch...

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kanika Goswami, Puneet Mathur, Ryan Rossi, and Franck Dernoncourt. 2025. Plotgen: Multi-agent llm-based scientific data visualization via multimodal feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.00988

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Siwei Han, Peng Xia, Ruiyi Zhang, Tong Sun, Yun Li, Hongtu Zhu, and Huaxiu Yao. 2025. Mdocagent: A multi-modal multi-agent framework for document understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13964

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Jiayi Hong, Christian Seto, Arlen Fan, and Ross Maciejewski. 2025. Do llms have visualization literacy? an evaluation on modified visualizations to test generalization in data interpretation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics

    2025

  12. [20]

    Yushi Hu, Weijia Shi, Xingyu Fu, Dan Roth, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A Smith, and Ranjay Krishna. 2024. Visual sketchpad: Sketching as a visual chain of thought for multimodal language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09403

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, and 1 others. 2024. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    IT Admin . 2024. Introducing Stable Diffusion 3 . 5 . https://stability.ai/news/introducing-stable-diffusion-3-5. Updated October 29, 2024; Accessed: 2025-05-20

    2024

  15. [23]

    Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06770

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hyoungwook Jin, Minju Yoo, Jeongeon Park, Yokyung Lee, Xu Wang, and Juho Kim. 2025. Teachtune: Reviewing pedagogical agents against diverse student profiles with simulated students. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1--28

    2025

  17. [25]

    Max Ku, Thomas Chong, Jonathan Leung, Krish Shah, Alvin Yu, and Wenhu Chen. 2025. Theoremexplainagent: Towards multimodal explanations for llm theorem understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19400

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Black Forest Labs. 2024. Flux. https://github.com/black-forest-labs/flux

    2024

  19. [27]

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. 2023. Let's verify step by step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Shrestha Basu Mallick and Logan Kilpatrick. 2025. Gemini 2.0: Flash, flash-lite and pro. https://developers.googleblog.com/en/gemini-2-family-expands/. Accessed: 2025-05-20

    2025

  21. [29]

    Jiageng Mao, Junjie Ye, Yuxi Qian, Marco Pavone, and Yue Wang. 2023. A language agent for autonomous driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10813

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Miller and Jonathan D

    Chad M. Miller and Jonathan D. Cohen. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09525-3 Metacognitive prompts in multimedia learning: A meta-analysis . Educational Psychology Review, 32(3):979--1003

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Mistral AI . 2025. Mistral small 3.1: Sota. multimodal. multilingual. apache 2.0. https://mistral.ai/news/mistral-small-3-1. Accessed: 2025-05-20

    2025

  24. [32]

    Inderjeet Nair, Jiaye Tan, Xiaotian Su, Anne Gere, Xu Wang, and Lu Wang. 2024. Closing the loop: Learning to generate writing feedback via language model simulated student revisions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08058

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Fan Nie, Lan Feng, Haotian Ye, Weixin Liang, Pan Lu, Huaxiu Yao, Alexandre Alahi, and James Zou. 2025. Weak-for-strong: Training weak meta-agent to harness strong executors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04785

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Satria Nugroho and Jailani Jailani. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i17.4620 The effectiveness of concrete representational abstract approach (cra) approach and problem solving approach on mathematical representation ability at elementary school . KnE Social Sciences

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Saugat Pandey and Alvitta Ottley. 2025. Benchmarking visual language models on standardized visualization literacy tests. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16632

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Muller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, A. Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Muller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. 2023. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259341735 Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis . ArXiv, abs/2307.01952

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Luca Podo, Muhammad Ishmal, and Marco Angelini. 2024. Vi (e) va llm! a conceptual stack for evaluating and interpreting generative ai-based visualizations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02167

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Norma Presmeg. 2006. Research on visualization in learning and teaching mathematics. Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education, pages 205--235

    2006

  31. [39]

    Jianing Qiu, Kyle Lam, Guohao Li, Amish Acharya, Tien Yin Wong, Ara Darzi, Wu Yuan, and Eric J Topol. 2024. Llm-based agentic systems in medicine and healthcare. Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(12):1418--1420

    2024

  32. [40]

    M. Rohith. 2023. High school physics. https://huggingface.co/datasets/mrohith29/high-school-physics. Accessed: 2025-05-15

    2023

  33. [41]

    Gregory Schraw and David Moshman. 1995. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23359367 Metacognitive theories . Educational Psychology Review, 7(4):351--371

    1995

  34. [42]

    Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre C \^o t \'e , Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. 2020. Alfworld: Aligning text and embodied environments for interactive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03768

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Chan Hee Song, Jiaman Wu, Clayton Washington, Brian M Sadler, Wei-Lun Chao, and Yu Su. 2023. Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 2998--3009

    2023

  36. [44]

    Giulio Starace, Oliver Jaffe, Dane Sherburn, James Aung, Jun Shern Chan, Leon Maksin, Rachel Dias, Evan Mays, Benjamin Kinsella, Wyatt Thompson, and 1 others. 2025. Paperbench: Evaluating ai's ability to replicate ai research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01848

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Qwen Team. 2025. https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qwen2.5-vl/ Qwen2.5-vl

    2025

  38. [46]

    Pere-Pau V \'a zquez. 2024. Are llms ready for visualization? In 2024 IEEE 17th Pacific Visualization Conference (PacificVis), pages 343--352. IEEE

    2024

  39. [47]

    Vercel . 2025. v0: Ai chat interface for web automation. https://v0.dev. Accessed: 2025-05-20

    2025

  40. [48]

    Lei Wang, Songheng Zhang, Yun Wang, Ee-Peng Lim, and Yong Wang. 2023 a . Llm4vis: Explainable visualization recommendation using chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07652

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Shen Wang, Tianlong Xu, Hang Li, Chaoli Zhang, Joleen Liang, Jiliang Tang, Philip S Yu, and Qingsong Wen. 2024 a . Large language models for education: A survey and outlook. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18105

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Yaoting Wang, Shengqiong Wu, Yuecheng Zhang, Shuicheng Yan, Ziwei Liu, Jiebo Luo, and Hao Fei. 2025. Multimodal chain-of-thought reasoning: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12605

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Yi Ru Wang, Jiafei Duan, Dieter Fox, and Siddhartha Srinivasa. 2023 b . Newton: Are large language models capable of physical reasoning? arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07018

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zora Zhiruo Wang, Jiayuan Mao, Daniel Fried, and Graham Neubig. 2024 b . Agent workflow memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07429

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hao Wei, Jianing Qiu, Haibao Yu, and Wu Yuan. 2024. Medco: Medical education copilots based on a multi-agent framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12496

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Yiran Wu, Feiran Jia, Shaokun Zhang, Hangyu Li, Erkang Zhu, Yue Wang, Yin Tat Lee, Richard Peng, Qingyun Wu, and Chi Wang. 2023. Mathchat: Converse to tackle challenging math problems with llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01337

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Zhiyu Wu, Xiaokang Chen, Zizheng Pan, Xingchao Liu, Wen Liu, Damai Dai, Huazuo Gao, Yiyang Ma, Chengyue Wu, Bingxuan Wang, Zhenda Xie, Yu Wu, Kai Hu, Jiawei Wang, Yaofeng Sun, Yukun Li, Yishi Piao, Kang Guan, Aixin Liu, and 8 others. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.10302 Deep...

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Songlin Xu, Xinyu Zhang, and Lianhui Qin. 2024. Eduagent: Generative student agents in learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07963

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Yiying Yang, Wei Cheng, Sijin Chen, Xianfang Zeng, Jiaxu Zhang, Liao Wang, Gang Yu, Xingjun Ma, and Yu-Gang Jiang. 2025. Omnisvg: A unified scalable vector graphics generation model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06263

    2025

  50. [58]

    Zhiyu Yang, Zihan Zhou, Shuo Wang, Xin Cong, Xu Han, Yukun Yan, Zhenghao Liu, Zhixing Tan, Pengyuan Liu, Dong Yu, and 1 others. 2024. Matplotagent: Method and evaluation for llm-based agentic scientific data visualization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11453

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Yuan Yao, Tianyu Yu, Ao Zhang, Chongyi Wang, Junbo Cui, Hongji Zhu, Tianchi Cai, Haoyu Li, Weilin Zhao, Zhihui He, and 1 others. 2024. Minicpm-v: A gpt-4v level mllm on your phone. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01800

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Yangyang Yu, Haohang Li, Zhi Chen, Yuechen Jiang, Yang Li, Denghui Zhang, Rong Liu, Jordan W Suchow, and Khaldoun Khashanah. 2024. Finmem: A performance-enhanced llm trading agent with layered memory and character design. In Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, volume 3, ...

    2024

  54. [62]

    Puzhen Yuan, Angyuan Ma, Yunchao Yao, Huaxiu Yao, Masayoshi Tomizuka, and Mingyu Ding. 2025. Remac: Self-reflective and self-evolving multi-agent collaboration for long-horizon robot manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22122

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Di Zhang, Wei Liu, Qian Tan, Jingdan Chen, Hang Yan, Yuliang Yan, Jiatong Li, Weiran Huang, Xiangyu Yue, Dongzhan Zhou, Shufei Zhang, Mao Su, Hansen Zhong, Yuqiang Li, and Wanli Ouyang. 2024 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06852 Chemllm: A chemical large language model . Prepri...

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kechi Zhang, Jia Li, Ge Li, Xianjie Shi, and Zhi Jin. 2024 b . Codeagent: Enhancing code generation with tool-integrated agent systems for real-world repo-level coding challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07339

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Mike Zhang, Amalie Pernille Dilling, L \'e on Gondelman, Niels Erik Ruan Lyngdorf, Euan D Lindsay, and Johannes Bjerva. 2025. Sefl: Harnessing large language model agents to improve educational feedback systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12927

    2025

  58. [66]

    Shuyan Zhou, Frank F Xu, Hao Zhu, Xuhui Zhou, Robert Lo, Abishek Sridhar, Xianyi Cheng, Tianyue Ou, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, and 1 others. 2023. Webarena: A realistic web environment for building autonomous agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13854

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Yiyang Zhou, Zhaoyang Wang, Tianle Wang, Shangyu Xing, Peng Xia, Bo Li, Kaiyuan Zheng, Zijian Zhang, Zhaorun Chen, Wenhao Zheng, and 1 others. 2025. Anyprefer: An agentic framework for preference data synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19276

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.