跳到正文
返回论文列表
cs.HC提交于 已译

以人为中心评估视觉语言模型的数据可视化理解能力

Human-centered evaluation of data visualization understanding in vision-language models

Arnav Verma · Kushin Mukherjee · Christopher Potts · Elisa Kreiss · Judith E. Fan

中文摘要

数据可视化理解需要整合视觉、数值与语言输入,对多模态推理构成根本挑战。近期视觉语言模型(VLM)有望模拟人类理解数据可视化的计算过程,但其科学模型价值不仅取决于答案是否正确,还取决于能否近似人类在同一任务中的反应模式。近期评估通常仅报告总体准确率,忽略了这一点。研究提出以人为中心的评估协议,在同一组可视化理解题目上直接比较VLM与人类反应,并将其应用于8个VLM和6项评估,包括5项成熟的人类可视化素养测试及1项专为VLM设计的测试。结果显示,模型平均表现低于人类,即使采用宽松标准,差距仍存在;模型与人类在各题上的相对表现虽有一定相关性,但所有模型的错误模式都稳定地不同于人类。该协议可帮助识别有望作为人类可视化推理科学认知模型的人工系统。

关键要点

  1. 01指出仅报告VLM准确率不足以判断其能否模拟人类认知模式
  2. 02提出在同一组可视化题目上直接比较VLM与人类反应的协议
  3. 03在8个VLM、6项评估中测试,涵盖5项人类素养测试和1项专用测试
  4. 04模型平均表现低于人类,且在宽松标准下仍存在明显差距
  5. 05模型错误模式虽与人类相对表现相关,但均稳定不同于人类

解读

尚无解读。

原始英文摘要

arXiv:2505.17202v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Data visualization understanding, which requires integrating visual, numerical, and linguistic inputs, poses fundamental challenges to multimodal reasoning. Recently developed vision-language models (VLMs) are promising candidates for modeling the computations that underlie human data visualization understanding. However, whether they are useful as scientific models depends not only on whether they produce correct answers, but also whether they approximate the patterns of responses that people produce on the same tasks. This distinction has been ignored in recent evaluations of VLMs, which typically only report overall model performance (accuracy) without direct comparison to human behavioral patterns. Here we introduce a human-centered evaluation protocol that compares VLM and human responses on the same set of visualization understanding items. We apply this protocol to eight VLMs across six assessments: five established tests of human visualization literacy, plus one designed specifically for evaluating VLMs. Models performed worse than humans on average, and this gap persisted even under lenient criteria. Moreover, while relative performance across items was somewhat correlated between models and humans, all models produced error patterns that were reliably distinct from those of humans. We envision our evaluation protocol helping to identify artificial systems that might serve as promising scientific cognitive models of how humans reason about data visualizations.

同方向论文 · cs.HC

查看全部 →