Format Matters: The Robustness of Multimodal LLMs in Reviewing Evidence from Tables and Charts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.10075v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 01:30:34 GMT
• Title: Format Matters: The Robustness of Multimodal LLMs in Reviewing Evidence from Tables and Charts
• Authors: Xanh Ho, Yun-Ang Wu, Sunisth Kumar, Florian Boudin, Atsuhiro Takasu, Akiko Aizawa,
• Abstract summary: We design and conduct experiments to assess the ability of multimodal large language models to verify scientific claims using both tables and charts as evidence.<n>Using this adapted dataset, we evaluate 12 multimodal LLMs and find that current models perform better with table-based evidence while struggling with chart-based evidence.<n>Our analysis also reveals that smaller multimodal LLMs (under 8B) show weak correlation in performance between table-based and chart-based tasks, indicating limited cross-modal generalization.
• Score: 19.571644726057666
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: With the growing number of submitted scientific papers, there is an increasing demand for systems that can assist reviewers in evaluating research claims. Experimental results are a core component of scientific work, often presented in varying formats such as tables or charts. Understanding how robust current multimodal large language models (multimodal LLMs) are at verifying scientific claims across different evidence formats remains an important and underexplored challenge. In this paper, we design and conduct a series of experiments to assess the ability of multimodal LLMs to verify scientific claims using both tables and charts as evidence. To enable this evaluation, we adapt two existing datasets of scientific papers by incorporating annotations and structures necessary for a multimodal claim verification task. Using this adapted dataset, we evaluate 12 multimodal LLMs and find that current models perform better with table-based evidence while struggling with chart-based evidence. We further conduct human evaluations and observe that humans maintain strong performance across both formats, unlike the models. Our analysis also reveals that smaller multimodal LLMs (under 8B) show weak correlation in performance between table-based and chart-based tasks, indicating limited cross-modal generalization. These findings highlight a critical gap in current models' multimodal reasoning capabilities. We suggest that future multimodal LLMs should place greater emphasis on improving chart understanding to better support scientific claim verification.

Related papers

• PENDULUM: A Benchmark for Assessing Sycophancy in Multimodal Large Language Models [43.767942065379366]
  Sycophancy is a tendency of AI models to agree with user input at the expense of factual accuracy or in contradiction of visual evidence.<n>We introduce a comprehensive evaluation benchmark, textitPENDULUM, comprising approximately 2,000 human-curated Visual Question Answering pairs.<n>We observe substantial variability in model robustness and a pronounced susceptibility to sycophantic and hallucinatory behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T12:49:12Z)
• Scaling Beyond Context: A Survey of Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Document Understanding [61.36285696607487]
  Document understanding is critical for applications from financial analysis to scientific discovery.<n>Current approaches, whether OCR-based pipelines feeding Large Language Models (LLMs) or native Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) face key limitations.<n>Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) helps ground models in external data, but documents' multimodal nature, combining text, tables, charts, and layout, demands a more advanced paradigm: Multimodal RAG.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T02:33:16Z)
• Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Multi-Modal Contexts [56.7225771305861]
  This paper introduces Multi-Modal Retrieval-Augmented Generation (M$2$RAG), a benchmark designed to evaluate the effectiveness of Multi-modal Large Language Models.<n>The benchmark comprises four tasks: image captioning, multi-modal question answering, multi-modal fact verification, and image reranking.<n>To enhance the context utilization capabilities of MLLMs, we also introduce Multi-Modal Retrieval-Augmented Instruction Tuning (MM-RAIT)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T16:25:25Z)
• A Survey on Mechanistic Interpretability for Multi-Modal Foundation Models [74.48084001058672]
  The rise of foundation models has transformed machine learning research.<n> multimodal foundation models (MMFMs) pose unique interpretability challenges beyond unimodal frameworks.<n>This survey explores two key aspects: (1) the adaptation of LLM interpretability methods to multimodal models and (2) understanding the mechanistic differences between unimodal language models and crossmodal systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T20:55:26Z)
• Multi-modal Retrieval Augmented Multi-modal Generation: Datasets, Evaluation Metrics and Strong Baselines [63.22096609916707]
  Multi-modal Retrieval Augmented Multi-modal Generation (M$2$RAG) is a novel task that enables foundation models to process multi-modal web content.<n>Despite its potential impact, M$2$RAG remains understudied, lacking comprehensive analysis and high-quality data resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T13:20:19Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs)<n>MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts.<n>It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• Assessing Modality Bias in Video Question Answering Benchmarks with Multimodal Large Language Models [12.841405829775852]
  We introduce the modality importance score (MIS) to identify bias inVidQA benchmarks and datasets.<n>We also propose an innovative method using state-of-the-art MLLMs to estimate the modality importance.<n>Our results indicate that current models do not effectively integrate information due to modality imbalance in existing datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T23:32:42Z)
• MetaSumPerceiver: Multimodal Multi-Document Evidence Summarization for Fact-Checking [0.283600654802951]
  We present a summarization model designed to generate claim-specific summaries useful for fact-checking from multimodal datasets. We introduce a dynamic perceiver-based model that can handle inputs from multiple modalities of arbitrary lengths. Our approach outperforms the SOTA approach by 4.6% in the claim verification task on the MOCHEG dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-18T01:33:20Z)
• MMSci: A Dataset for Graduate-Level Multi-Discipline Multimodal Scientific Understanding [59.41495657570397]
  We present a comprehensive dataset compiled from Nature Communications articles covering 72 scientific fields.<n>We evaluated 19 proprietary and open-source models on two benchmark tasks, figure captioning and multiple-choice, and conducted human expert annotation.<n>Fine-tuning Qwen2-VL-7B with our task-specific data achieved better performance than GPT-4o and even human experts in multiple-choice evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-06T00:40:53Z)
• mPLUG-PaperOwl: Scientific Diagram Analysis with the Multimodal Large Language Model [73.38800189095173]
  This work focuses on strengthening the multi-modal diagram analysis ability of Multimodal LLMs. By parsing Latex source files of high-quality papers, we carefully build a multi-modal diagram understanding dataset M-Paper. M-Paper is the first dataset to support joint comprehension of multiple scientific diagrams, including figures and tables in the format of images or Latex codes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T04:43:26Z)
• MM-BigBench: Evaluating Multimodal Models on Multimodal Content Comprehension Tasks [56.60050181186531]
  We introduce MM-BigBench, which incorporates a diverse range of metrics to offer an extensive evaluation of the performance of various models and instructions. Our paper evaluates a total of 20 language models (14 MLLMs) on 14 multimodal datasets spanning 6 tasks, with 10 instructions for each task, and derives novel insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T11:57:04Z)
• Logically at the Factify 2022: Multimodal Fact Verification [2.8914815569249823]
  This paper describes our participant system for the multi-modal fact verification (Factify) challenge at AAAI 2022. Two baseline approaches are proposed and explored including an ensemble model and a multi-modal attention network. Our best model is ranked first in leaderboard which obtains a weighted average F-measure of 0.77 on both validation and test set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-16T23:34:07Z)
• MELINDA: A Multimodal Dataset for Biomedical Experiment Method Classification [14.820951153262685]
  We introduce a new dataset, MELINDA, for Multimodal biomEdicaL experImeNt methoD clAssification. The dataset is collected in a fully automated distant supervision manner, where the labels are obtained from an existing curated database. We benchmark various state-of-the-art NLP and computer vision models, including unimodal models which only take either caption texts or images as inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-16T19:11:36Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.