通过自主进化提升视觉语言模型(VLM)的科学图表分析能力
Improving VLMs on Scientific Chart Analysis via Autonomous Evolution
Abhinav Sudhakar Dubey · Vidushi Goel · Kiran Rana · Shikhar Mathur · Vaggos Chatziafratis
中文摘要
理解并使用科学图表是数据分析中的常规方法;尽管人类擅长解读图表,开放式视觉语言模型(VLMs)在基于图表回答问题时通常表现较差。鉴于许多错误源于回答不够精确,研究考察了一个问题:在完全不改变模型的情况下,最多能恢复多少准确率?方法是在冻结模型的推理程序及其周围代码上进行搜索。借鉴 AlphaEvolve 的自主进化思想,从基线推理程序出发,每轮向大语言模型(LLM)评审展示代码及若干训练集失败案例,要求其提出改进的进化操作。候选程序保存在小型池中,并按训练准确率排序,后续编辑基于池中得分最高的程序。该方法在 3 个 VLMs 和 4 个常用科学图表基准上开展实验,以描述性问题的答案与真值完全匹配的比例衡量效果。所有实验设置下的准确率均有提升,平均从 16.6% 增至 41.3%,单次最大提升为 55.2 个百分点。进化后的程序速度也提高了 3.8 倍,因为简短答案更易评分和生成。结果表明,大量观察到的错误源于推理流程;优化该流程无需重新训练,也能改善冻结的 VLM。
关键要点
- 01问题:科学图表问答中的许多错误源于回答不精确,而非模型能力不足。
- 02方法:冻结模型参数,围绕推理程序及其代码进行自主进化搜索。
- 03流程:LLM 评审代码和训练失败案例,并基于候选池生成改进程序。
- 04结果:3 个 VLMs、4 个基准的平均准确率由 16.6% 提升至 41.3%。
- 05附带收益:进化程序运行速度快 3.8 倍,最大准确率增幅达 55.2 个百分点。
解读
尚无解读。
原始英文摘要
arXiv:2610.35077v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Understanding and operating with scientific charts is a standard approach in data analysis, and while humans are good at interpreting such charts, open vision-language models (VLMs) are known to perform poorly when it comes to question answering based on such data types. Motivated by an initial observation that many of their errors are due to inexact answering, we raise the following natural question: how much accuracy can we recover without changing the model at all? In this paper, we study this question by searching over inference programs and the code around a "frozen" version of the model. Using ideas from autonomous evolution (famously used in AlphaEvolve), we first start from a baseline inference program, and in each round we show an LLM judge the code together with a few failures on training questions, and ask for an improving evolutionary move. As usual in autonomous evolution approaches, the candidate programs are kept in a small pool ranked by training accuracy, and the next edit is performed on top-scorers from this pool. We run this approach on three VLMs and four popular benchmarks on scientific charts, and we measure the fraction of descriptive questions whose answer exactly matches the ground truth. The accuracy improves in all experimental settings. On average, it rises from 16.6% with the starting program to 41.3% with the evolved one, and the largest single increase is 55.2 percentage points. As a side benefit, our evolved program is 3.8x faster than the starting program, because short answers are easier to grade and faster to generate. Our results demonstrate that a large part of the observed errors arise due to the inference pipeline, and that optimizing it can improve the "frozen" VLM without the need to retrain it.