Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

ChartM$^3$: Benchmarking Chart Editing with Multimodal Instructions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that chart editing guided by visual indicators is a distinct task where current multimodal large language models, including GPT-4o, perform poorly, and that fine-tuning on 24,000 curated samples substantially improves…

desk verdict ChartM³ is a genuinely new benchmark for visually-guided chart editing with solid zero-shot evidence, but the fine-tuning gains are in-distribution until a transfer test says otherwise. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21167 v3 pith:OMUTNFCN submitted 2025-07-25 cs.CV cs.AI

Donglu Yang , Liang Zhang , Zihao Yue , Liangyu Chen , Yichen Xu , Wenxuan Wang , Qin Jin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords charteditingmultimodallargelanguagemodelsvisualindicatorsboundingboxesbenchmarkchart-to-codefine-tuningMatplotlib
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

The paper argues that text-only instructions are too ambiguous for fine-grained chart edits, so user intent should be expressed with a combination of language and visual indicators, such as bounding boxes around the elements to change. To support this, it builds ChartM3, a 1,000-sample benchmark of (chart, code, multimodal instruction) triples spanning four difficulty levels and two editing paradigms: text-description-guided and visual-indicator-guided. Evaluated on it, eight multimodal large language models, GPT-4o included, show a consistent weakness in mapping visual indicators to code-level changes. The paper then curates ChartM3-Train, a 24,000-sample training set, and shows that fine-tuning on it produces large gains across both paradigms and reduces the text-visual gap.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the visual indicator: a bounding box overlaid on the chart image that pinpoints the element to be modified, presented together with a basic task instruction. The task is formalized as $\hat{c} = M(I, c, T_{desc})$ for text-guided editing and $\hat{c} = M(I_{vi}, c, T)$ for visual-indicator-guided editing, where $I_{vi}$ is the chart with the indicator drawn on it. Around this, ChartM3 contributes a pipeline that samples chart code, applies one to three modifications, generates dual-format instructions, and validates them with LLM-based quality control. Evaluation is carried by two complementary metrics: $\Delta\text{SSIM}$, which normalizes the generated image's structural similarity gain toward the reference by the input's starting similarity, and the GPT Score, which asks an LLM judge for directive compliance and non-intervened robustness. The training counterpart, ChartM3-Train with 24,000 samples, feeds the same dual-format instruction pairs to models through cross-entropy loss on the reference code.

What would settle it

Remove the bounding-box overlay from a random subset of visual-indicator test samples while keeping the same editing instruction, rerun the benchmarked models, and compare $\Delta\text{SSIM}$ and Compliance scores; if performance does not drop substantially, the central claim that models fail specifically at interpreting visual indicators is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that current multimodal large language models cannot reliably translate a visually indicated target region in a chart into the corresponding code edit, and that this failure is distinct from and larger than the ambiguity of textual description. The benchmark measures this with two parallel tasks on the same underlying samples: textual-description-guided editing, where the model locates targets from phrases like 'the third bar from the left,' and visual-indicator-guided editing, where a bounding box highlights the target. Across zero-shot models, performance on the visual-indicator task is consistently lower, and even GPT-4o, with a 90.3% execution rate on text guidance, drops to 87.2% execution and scores much lower on compliance (76.80 to 63.36). Fine-tuning open models on ChartM3-Train lifts visual-indicator $\Delta$-SSIM scores from 6.5 to 57.88 in Qwen2-VL and 11.18 to 51.00 in Llama-3.2-vision, surpassing GPT-4o on several metrics. The conclusion is that multimodal supervision, not just more text data, is what builds practical chart editing ability.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's validity rests on the assumption that auto-generated bounding boxes around the exact ground-truth target regions, combined with instructions derived from the same code modifications, represent how real users point at charts and phrase edit requests; if real clicks are noisier or real requests differ, both the measured limitations and the fine-tuning gains may not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Chart editing evaluations that rely only on natural-language instructions can hide the visual-to-code failure mode, so benchmarks should include a visual-indicator condition.
  • Fine-tuning on multimodal supervision improves both text-guided and visual-guided chart editing, with the largest absolute gains in the visual-guided task.
  • Training on visual indicator data transfers to text-guided tasks better than the reverse, making pointing annotations a high-value training signal.
  • The proposed $\Delta\text{SSIM}$ metric, which measures normalized visual progress toward the target, agrees with human preference at 0.86 and can serve as a visual-progress metric beyond chart editing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not test this, but the same click-to-code paradigm should transfer to other code-rendered graphics, such as SVG, HTML canvas, slide tools, or diagram editors, because any visual element with a programmatic counterpart admits the same bounding-box-to-code mapping.
  • Real users' clicks and boxes will be noisier and less precisely aligned than the auto-generated ground-truth boxes, so the reported zero-shot gaps and fine-tuning gains are likely optimistic; collecting human click data would quantify that gap.
  • A testable extension of the paper's asymmetry result is that instruction-tuning datasets for general code generation could cheaply include pointing annotations to boost visual grounding, even when the downstream task is text-only.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ChartM3, a benchmark for multimodal chart editing in which user intent is expressed through natural language plus visual indicators (bounding boxes), alongside a text-only description condition. The dataset contains 1,000 test samples across four complexity levels and 24,000 fine-tuning samples, built from Matplotlib code with automatically generated instruction/annotation pairs. The authors evaluate eight MLLMs zero-shot, report that GPT-4o performs best but still struggles with visual indicators, and show that fine-tuning Qwen2-vl, Llama-3.2-vision, and LLaVA-v1.6 on ChartM3-Train yields large gains on ΔSSIM, Compliance, and Non-intervened Robustness. They also propose ΔSSIM and a GPT-4-based score, validating these against human judgments on 200 samples.

Significance. If the claims hold, ChartM3 provides a useful new task paradigm for chart editing that combines pointing with code generation, and the zero-shot results demonstrate a measurable weakness of current MLLMs in translating visual indicators into code-level edits. The paper's concrete strengths include the public release of datasets, code, and evaluation tools; a multi-metric evaluation framework with explicit human validation (ΔSSIM agreement 0.86); and a large-scale training set that enables a systematic fine-tuning study. The central fine-tuning claim, however, is currently supported only by in-distribution gains on test data generated with the same pipeline, so the 'practical chart editing systems' conclusion needs either additional out-of-distribution evidence or a substantial narrowing of the claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, Table 2] Section 3.5 states that ChartM3-Train uses 'the same data construction pipeline from Section 3.2,' and the ChartM3 test set is constructed by that same pipeline. The large fine-tuning gains in Table 2 (e.g., Qwen2-vl ΔSSIM 12.59→63.23 in the textual setting and 6.5→57.88 in the visual setting) therefore measure in-distribution pattern learning rather than generalization to real-world chart editing. The abstract's claim that multimodal supervision is important for 'building practical chart editing systems' requires an out-of-distribution transfer check, such as evaluation on paraphrased user instructions, noisier or less precise bounding boxes, or chart code from a different distribution. Without that evidence, the fine-tuning result should be reported as a within-benchmark diagnostic rather than as evidence of practical capability.
  2. [§3.2, Automated Annotation] The bounding boxes in ChartM3 are generated automatically from the exact code modifications, so the visual indicators are perfectly tight and unambiguous. The footnote in Section 1 says that in practice a bounding box is drawn around the user's click position, but real clicks are noisy and may not align exactly with the intended chart element. The benchmark does not test sensitivity to imperfect indicators, and the conclusion does not acknowledge this mismatch. The authors should either add an experiment that perturbs the bounding boxes (e.g., jitter, partial overlap) and measures the effect on model performance, or explicitly scope the benchmark as a synthetic diagnostic with clean indicators.
  3. [§5.4, Table 3] Table 3 reports human agreement of 0.56 for Non-intervened Robustness, which is substantially lower than the 0.86 for ΔSSIM and 0.70 for Directive Compliance. The text in §5.4 says 'ΔSSIM metric and Compliance score demonstrate high agreement with human judgement' and omits discussion of the Non-intervened dimension, even though the abstract claims a 'multi-perspective evaluation' and the GPT Score includes Non-intervened Robustness. The low agreement suggests that this dimension may not be a reliable automated measure, and the paper should either explain the discrepancy, refine the metric, or de-emphasize it in the evaluation framework.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2, Section 3.4] The column header 'iSSIM' in Table 2 does not match the metric name 'ΔSSIM' defined in Section 3.4 and Equation (3); the same typo appears in the text ('highest Compliance score and iSSIM score').
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract describes samples as 'triplets' and says the benchmark contains 1,000 samples, while the Introduction says '1,000 carefully curated quadruplets'; Section 3.1 uses (chart, code, multimodal instruction) in the task definition. Please clarify the exact data structure and terminology.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract contains a duplicated release sentence and a second, apparently outdated repository URL (https://github.com/yaolinli/VCE); this should be cleaned up.
  4. [§5.4] The human evaluation uses 200 samples with three assessors but reports no inter-annotator agreement measure; reporting Fleiss' kappa or a similar statistic would strengthen the claim of reliable majority-vote judgments.
  5. [Table 2, §3.4] The 'Execute Rate' metric is reported in Table 2 but never defined in the metrics section; please specify how execution success is determined (e.g., whether a timeout or exception counts as failure).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Fine-tuning gains are demonstrated on test samples generated by the same synthetic pipeline as the training set, so the 'practical chart editing' claim rests on an in-distribution fit rather than independent evidence.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.5 (Supervised Fine-Tuning) and Table 2]
    "we create the ChartM3-Train dataset, which includes 24,000 samples using the same data construction pipeline from Section 3.2."

    The paper's central empirical claim is that fine-tuning MLLMs on ChartM3-Train yields 'substantial improvements, demonstrating the importance of multimodal supervision in building practical chart editing systems.' But Section 3.5 states that ChartM3-Train uses the same data construction pipeline as the ChartM3 test set, which is also produced by the Section 3.2 generator (same chart code pool, modification pools, instruction templates, and GPT-4o filtering). Therefore, the large gains in Table 2 measure how well the model learns the generator's specific patterns, not how well it generalizes to real users' noisy clicks, paraphrased requests, or unfamiliar chart code.

full rationale

The benchmark construction itself is not circular: the zero-shot evaluation is a measurement on held-out synthetic data, the ΔSSIM metric is a defined distance to ground-truth images, and the GPT Score is independently validated by human agreement on 200 samples with reported correlations. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The one partial circularity is the fine-tuning demonstration: Section 3.5 explicitly says ChartM3-Train uses 'the same data construction pipeline from Section 3.2' as the benchmark test set. Consequently, the substantial fine-tuning gains in Table 2 show that an MLLM can learn the Section 3.2 generator's code/modification/instruction patterns, which is a meaningful but narrow in-distribution result. The leap from this result to 'practical chart editing systems' is unsupported without an out-of-distribution transfer check, and the conclusion's own limitations (Matplotlib-only, parameter-level instructions) underscore that the 'practical' claim is not demonstrated. The benchmark itself remains a useful synthetic diagnostic, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

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

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are about the representativeness of synthetic data, the precision of automatically generated bounding boxes, the validity of its automated metrics, and the transferability of fine-tuning gains. These are domain assumptions rather than fitted parameters or invented constructs.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A bounding box drawn around the exact target region unambiguously identifies the chart element a user wants to edit.
    Section 3.1 defines Task 2 on this premise. Real clicks and real bounding boxes may be noisier, overlapping, or ambiguous, which would change task difficulty and the conclusions about model limitations.
  • domain assumption Synthetic chart edits generated from 10k chart code samples and modification pools are representative of real-world chart editing requests.
    Section 3.2 constructs the dataset with automated scripts and GPT-4o filtering instead of human-authored edit requests. If real user requests differ in phrasing or in the kinds of edits attempted, the measured performance and any fine-tuning gains may not transfer.
  • domain assumption The evaluation metrics, especially DeltaSSIM and the GPT-4 compliance score, capture chart editing quality well enough to rank models.
    Section 3.4 introduces these metrics, and Section 5.4 validates them on 200 samples with three human assessors. The human agreement is decent for DeltaSSIM but lower for non-intervened robustness, and no inter-annotator agreement is reported.
  • domain assumption Improved scores after fine-tuning on ChartM3-Train, when tested on the same synthetic distribution, indicate a general improvement in multimodal chart editing capability.
    Section 4.2 reports large fine-tuning gains, but the training and test sets come from the same data-construction pipeline. No out-of-distribution evaluation is provided, so the gain could be in-distribution learning rather than general capability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ChartM$^3$: Benchmarking Chart Editing with Multimodal Instructions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OMUTNFCN

@misc{pith2026250721167,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ChartM$^3$: Benchmarking Chart Editing with Multimodal Instructions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OMUTNFCN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21167}
}
abstract

Charts are a fundamental visualization format widely used in data analysis across research and industry. While enabling users to edit charts based on high-level intentions is of great practical value, existing methods primarily rely on natural language instructions, which are often too ambiguous to support fine-grained editing. In this work, we introduce a novel paradigm for multimodal chart editing, where user intent is expressed through a combination of natural language and visual indicators that explicitly highlight the elements to be modified. To support this paradigm, we present Chart$\text{M}^3$, a new benchmark for Multimodal chart editing with Multi-level complexity and Multi-perspective evaluation. Chart$\text{M}^3$ contains 1,000 samples spanning four levels of editing difficulty. Each sample includes triplets in the form of (chart, code, multimodal instructions). To comprehensively evaluate chart editing models, Chart$\text{M}^3$ provides metrics that assess both visual appearance and code correctness. Our benchmark reveals significant limitations in current multimodal large language models (MLLMs), including GPT-4o, particularly in their ability to interpret and act on visual indicators. To address this, we construct Chart$\text{M}^3$-Train, a large-scale training set with 24,000 multimodal chart editing samples. Fine-tuning MLLMs on this dataset leads to substantial improvements, demonstrating the importance of multimodal supervision in building practical chart editing systems. Our datasets, codes, and evaluation tools are available at https://github.com/MLrollIT/ChartM3. %https://github.com/MLrollIT/ChartM3Our datasets, codes, and evaluation tools are available at https://github.com/yaolinli/VCE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21167 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of text description-guided and visual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of ChartM3 (Multimodal, Multilevel Complexity, Multidimensional Evaluation). Our benchmark features 1,000 human-curated (chart, code, multimodal instruction) triplets that evaluate MLLMs’ proficiency in chart modification tasks across multiple complexity levels, incorporating both high-level textual descriptions and low-level visual indicator-guided editing instructions. captioning mainly focus on seman… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Model performance transfer results across textual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Performance of models on tasks with various difficulty levels. Left: Zero-shot results; Right: Results of models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Error analysis across models for both text description-guided (left) and bounding box-guided (right) tasks reveals key [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A. Efros. 2023. InstructPix2Pix: Learning to Follow Image Editing Instructions. In2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 18392–18402. doi:10.1109/ CVPR52729.2023.01764

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Xiangnan Chen, Yuancheng Fang, Qian Xiao, Juncheng Li, Jun Lin, Siliang Tang, Yi Yang, and Yueting Zhuang. 2025. Chart-HQA: A Benchmark for Hypothetical Question Answering in Charts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04095(2025). https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.04095

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.04095 2025

  3. [3]

    Zhe Chen, Weiyun Wang, Yue Cao, Yangzhou Liu, Zhangwei Gao, Erfei Cui, Jinguo Zhu, Shenglong Ye, Hao Tian, Zhaoyang Liu, et al . 2024. Expanding Performance Boundaries of Open-Source Multimodal Models with Model, Data, and Test-Time Scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05271(2024)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Zhe Chen, Weiyun Wang, Hao Tian, Shenglong Ye, Zhangwei Gao, Erfei Cui, Wenwen Tong, Kongzhi Hu, Jiapeng Luo, Zheng Ma, et al. 2024. How Far Are We to GPT-4V? Closing the Gap to Commercial Multimodal Models with Open- Source Suites.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16821(2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Golnaz Ghiasi, Honglak Lee, Manjunath Kudlur, Vincent Dumoulin, and Jonathon Shlens. 2017. Exploring the structure of a real-time, arbitrary neural artistic stylization network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.06830(2017). https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.1705.06830 Accepted as an oral presentation at British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC) 2017

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.06830 2017

  6. [6]

    Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde- Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio

    Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde- Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Generative Adversarial Networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.2661(2014). https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.1406.2661

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1406.2661 2014

  7. [7]

    Kanika Goswami, Puneet Mathur, Ryan Rossi, and Franck Dernoncourt. 2025. PlotEdit: Natural Language-Driven Accessible Chart Editing in PDFs via Multi- modal LLM Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.11233(2025). https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2501.11233

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.11233 2025

  8. [8]

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. 2022. Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross attention control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626(2022). Sections: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7

    arXiv 2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Shankar Kantharaj, Xuan Long Do, Rixie Tiffany Ko Leong, Jia Qing Tan, Enamul Hoque, and Shafiq Joty. 2022. OpenCQA: Open-ended Question Answering with Charts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06628(2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2210.06628

    2022 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Bahjat Kawar, Shiran Zada, Oran Lang, Omer Tov, Huiwen Chang, Tali Dekel, Inbar Mosseri, and Michal Irani. 2022. Imagic: Text-Based Real Image Editing with Diffusion Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09276(2022). https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2210.09276

    2022 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Gwanghyun Kim, Taesung Kwon, and Jong Chul Ye. 2022. DiffusionCLIP: Text- Guided Diffusion Models for Robust Image Manipulation. In2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2416–2425. doi:10. 1109/CVPR52688.2022.00246

    2022

  4. [12]

    Jewon Lee, Ki-Ung Song, Seungmin Yang, Donguk Lim, Jaeyeon Kim, Wooksu Shin, Bo-Kyeong Kim, Yong Jae Lee, and Tae-Ho Kim. 2025. Efficient LLaMA- 3.2-Vision by Trimming Cross-attended Visual Features.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00557(2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.005...

    2025 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Yuheng Li, Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Sheng Shen, and Yong Jae Lee. 2024. LLaVA-NeXT: Improved reasoning, OCR, and world knowl- edge. https://llava-vl.github.io/blog/2024-01-30-llava-next/

    2024

  6. [14]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual Instruc- tion Tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08485(2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2304.08485

    2023 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Haoyu Lu, Wen Liu, Bo Zhang, Bingxuan Wang, Kai Dong, Bo Liu, Jingxiang Sun, Tongzheng Ren, Zhuoshu Li, Hao Yang, Yaofeng Sun, Chengqi Deng, Hanwei Xu, Zhenda Xie, and Chong Ruan. 2024. DeepSeek-VL: Towards Real-World Vision-Language Understanding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.055...

    2024 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ahmed Masry, Do Xuan Long, Jia Qing Tan, Shafiq Joty, and Enamul Hoque

  9. [17]

    Khapra, and Pratyush Kumar

    Nitesh Methani, Pritha Ganguly, Mitesh M. Khapra, and Pratyush Kumar. 2019. PlotQA: Reasoning over Scientific Plots.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.00997(2019). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1909.00997

    2019 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    OpenAI. 2023. GPT-4V(ision) system card. https://openai.com/index/gpt-4v- system-card/

    2023

  11. [19]

    Xingang Pan, Ayush Tewari, Thomas Leimkühler, Lingjie Liu, Abhimitra Meka, and Christian Theobalt. 2023. Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-based Manipu- lation on the Generative Image Manifold. InACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings

    2023

  12. [20]

    Deepak Pathak, Philipp Krahenbuhl, Jeff Donahue, Trevor Darrell, and Alexei A. Efros. 2016. Context Encoders: Feature Learning by Inpainting.arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07379(2016). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1604.07379 CVPR 2016

    2016 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Fatemeh Pesaran Zadeh, Juyeon Kim, Jin-Hwa Kim, and Gunhee Kim. 2024. Text2Chart31: Instruction Tuning for Chart Generation with Automatic Feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04064(2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.04064

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Shelly Sheynin, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Yuval Kirstain, Amit Zohar, Oron Ashual, Devi Parikh, and Yaniv Taigman. 2023. Emu Edit: Precise Image Editing via Recognition and Generation Tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10089(2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.10089 Acces...

    2023 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Yujun Shi, Chuhui Xue, Jiachun Pan, Wenqing Zhang, Vincent YF Tan, and Song Bai. 2023. DragDiffusion: Harnessing Diffusion Models for Interactive Point-based Image Editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14435(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric A. Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli

  17. [25]

    Alexander Vogel, Omar Moured, Yufan Chen, Jiaming Zhang, and Rainer Stiefel- hagen. 2025. RefChartQA: Grounding Visual Answer on Chart Images through Instruction Tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23131(2025). https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2503.23131

    2025 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Peng Wang, Shuai Bai, Sinan Tan, Shijie Wang, Zhihao Fan, Jinze Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Yang Fan, Kai Dang, Mengfei Du, Xuancheng Ren, Rui Men, Dayiheng Liu, Chang Zhou, Jingren Zhou, and Junyang Lin. 2024. Qwen2-VL: Enhancing Vision-Language Mode...

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bovik, H.R

    Zhou Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing13, 4 (2004), 600–612. doi:10.1109/TIP.2003.819861

    2004

  20. [28]

    Ruyi Xu, Yuan Yao, Zonghao Guo, Junbo Cui, Zanlin Ni, Chunjiang Ge, Tat- Seng Chua, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Gao Huang. 2024. LLaVA-UHD: an LMM Perceiving Any Aspect Ratio and High-Resolution Images.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11703(2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.11703

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Pengyu Yan, Mahesh Bhosale, Jay Lal, Bikhyat Adhikari, and David Doermann

  22. [30]

    Cheng Yang, Chufan Shi, Yaxin Liu, Bo Shui, Junjie Wang, Mohan Jing, Linran Xu, Xinyu Zhu, Siheng Li, Yuxiang Zhang, Gongye Liu, Xiaomei Nie, Deng Cai, and Yujiu Yang. 2025. ChartMimic: Evaluating LMM’s Cross-Modal Reasoning Capability via Chart-to-Code Generation.arXiv prepri...

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Xuanle Zhao, Xianzhen Luo, Qi Shi, Chi Chen, Shuo Wang, Wanxiang Che, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2025. ChartCoder: Advancing Multimodal Large Language Model for Chart-to-Code Generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06598 (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.06598

    2025 doi arXiv

  24. [2015]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.03585(2015)

    Deep Unsupervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.03585(2015). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1503.03585

    2015 doi arXiv

  25. [2022]

    https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10244

    ChartQA: A Benchmark for Question Answering about Charts with Visual and Logical Reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10244(2022). https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2203.10244

    2022 doi arXiv

  26. [2024]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.00209

    ChartReformer: Natural Language-Driven Chart Image Editing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00209(2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.00209

    2024 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.