Do MLLMs See What We See? Analyzing Visualization Literacy Barriers in AI Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12585v1
• Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 21:08:23 GMT
• Title: Do MLLMs See What We See? Analyzing Visualization Literacy Barriers in AI Systems
• Abstract summary: We present the first systematic analysis of barriers to visualization literacy in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs)<n>We open-coded 309 erroneous responses from four state-of-the-art models with a barrier-centric strategy adapted from human visualization literacy research.<n>Results show that models perform well on simple charts but struggle with color-intensive, segment-based visualizations.
• Score: 23.262619529784185
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly used to interpret visualizations, yet little is known about why they fail. We present the first systematic analysis of barriers to visualization literacy in MLLMs. Using the regenerated Visualization Literacy Assessment Test (reVLAT) benchmark with synthetic data, we open-coded 309 erroneous responses from four state-of-the-art models with a barrier-centric strategy adapted from human visualization literacy research. Our analysis yields a taxonomy of MLLM failures, revealing two machine-specific barriers that extend prior human-participation frameworks. Results show that models perform well on simple charts but struggle with color-intensive, segment-based visualizations, often failing to form consistent comparative reasoning. Our findings inform future evaluation and design of reliable AI-driven visualization assistants.

Related papers

• Benchmarking Large Vision-Language Models on Fine-Grained Image Tasks: From Evaluation to Diagnosis [63.49939245944781]
  We introduce FG-BMK, a comprehensive fine-grained evaluation benchmark containing 1.01 million questions and 0.28 million images.<n>We find that current LVLMs remain inadequate fine-grained recognizers, with failures arising from intertwined bottlenecks in visual representations, semantic grounding, modality alignment, and category-level knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T13:23:26Z)
• Predictive Regularization Against Visual Representation Degradation in Multimodal Large Language Models [84.94288033791346]
  We conduct a detailed diagnostic analysis to unveil a pervasive issue: visual representation degradation in MLLMs.<n>We attribute this phenomenon to a visual sacrifice driven by the singular text-generation objective, where the model compromises its visual fidelity to optimize for answer generation.<n>We propose Predictive Regularization to force degraded intermediate features to predict initial visual features, thereby maintaining the inherent visual attributes of the MLLM's internal representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-21T13:10:37Z)
• Do MLLMs Really See It: Reinforcing Visual Attention in Multimodal LLMs [55.61018839017648]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning has substantially improved multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on complex reasoning tasks.<n>Existing approaches largely rely on long textual reasoning trajectories and provide limited mechanisms for learning stable visual attention policies.<n>We propose SAYO, a visual reasoning model trained with a reinforcement learning framework that introduces a region-level visual attention-based reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:33:23Z)
• AMVICC: A Novel Benchmark for Cross-Modal Failure Mode Profiling for VLMs and IGMs [2.357397994148727]
  multimodal large language models (MLLMs) and image generation models (IGMs) were investigated.<n>We created a novel benchmark to compare failure modes across image-to-text and text-to-image tasks.<n>Our results show that failure modes are often shared between models and modalities, but certain failures are model-specific and modality-specific.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T00:06:58Z)
• 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)
• Investigate the Low-level Visual Perception in Vision-Language based Image Quality Assessment [7.969076042774561]
  We introduce a low-level distortion perception task that requires models to classify specific distortion types.<n>Our analysis shows that although MLLMs are structurally capable of representing such distortions, they tend to overfit training templates.<n>We show that improving the alignment of the vision encoder dramatically enhances distortion recognition accuracy, increasing it from 14.92% to 84.43%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-10T12:06:47Z)
• Unleashing the Intrinsic Visual Representation Capability of Multimodal Large Language Models [58.91911788912665]
  We propose Latent Visual Reconstruction (LaVer), a novel training framework that facilitates MLLMs in learning more discrimi visual representations.<n>Our method offers direct visual activation to MLLMs, which exhibit increased visual attention allocation, indicating enhanced utilization of visual information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-06T04:20:13Z)
• LTD-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models by Letting Them Draw [57.237152905238084]
  LTD-Bench is a breakthrough benchmark for large language models (LLMs)<n>It transforms LLM evaluation from abstract scores to directly observable visual outputs by requiring models to generate drawings through dot matrices or executable code.<n> LTD-Bench's visual outputs enable powerful diagnostic analysis, offering a potential approach to investigate model similarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T08:11:23Z)
• Multimodal Behavioral Patterns Analysis with Eye-Tracking and LLM-Based Reasoning [12.054910727620154]
  Eye-tracking data reveals valuable insights into users' cognitive states but is difficult to analyze due to its structured, non-linguistic nature.<n>This paper presents a multimodal human-AI collaborative framework designed to enhance cognitive pattern extraction from eye-tracking signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-24T09:49:53Z)
• MLLMs are Deeply Affected by Modality Bias [158.64371871084478]
  Recent advances in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown promising results in integrating diverse modalities such as texts and images.<n>MLLMs are heavily influenced by modality bias, often relying on language while under-utilizing other modalities like visual inputs.<n>This paper argues that MLLMs are deeply affected by modality bias, highlighting its manifestations across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T11:49:31Z)
• VisuLogic: A Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Reasoning in Multi-modal Large Language Models [121.03333569013148]
  We introduce VisuLogic: a benchmark of 1,000 human-verified problems across six categories.<n>These types of questions can be evaluated to assess the visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs from multiple perspectives.<n>Most models score below 30% accuracy-only slightly above the 25% random baseline and far below the 51.4% achieved by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T17:59:53Z)
• Multimodal LLM Augmented Reasoning for Interpretable Visual Perception Analysis [19.032828729570458]
  We use established principles and explanations from psychology and cognitive science related to complexity in human visual perception.<n>Our study aims to benchmark MLLMs across various explainability principles relevant to visual perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T22:14:27Z)
• VOILA: Evaluation of MLLMs For Perceptual Understanding and Analogical Reasoning [63.0285363282581]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have become a powerful tool for integrating visual and textual information.<n>We introduce VOILA, a benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' perceptual understanding and abstract relational reasoning.<n>We reveal that current MLLMs struggle to comprehend inter-image relationships and exhibit limited capabilities in high-level relational reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T23:36:19Z)
• Human Cognitive Benchmarks Reveal Foundational Visual Gaps in MLLMs [65.93003087656754]
  VisFactor is a benchmark that digitizes 20 vision-centric subtests from a well-established cognitive psychology assessment.<n>We evaluate 20 frontier Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) from GPT, Gemini, Claude, LLaMA, Qwen, and SEED families.<n>The best-performing model achieves a score of only 25.19 out of 100, with consistent failures on tasks such as mental rotation, spatial relation inference, and figure-ground discrimination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-23T04:21:32Z)
• Visualization Literacy of Multimodal Large Language Models: A Comparative Study [12.367399155606162]
  multimodal large language models (MLLMs) combine the inherent power of large language models (LLMs) with the renewed capabilities to reason about the multimodal context. Many recent works in visualization have demonstrated MLLMs' capability to understand and interpret visualization results and explain the content of the visualization to users in natural language. In this work, we aim to fill the gap by utilizing the concept of visualization literacy to evaluate MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T17:52:16Z)
• Behind the Magic, MERLIM: Multi-modal Evaluation Benchmark for Large Image-Language Models [50.653838482083614]
  This paper introduces a scalable test-bed to assess the capabilities of IT-LVLMs on fundamental computer vision tasks.<n> MERLIM contains over 300K image-question pairs and has a strong focus on detecting cross-modal "hallucination" events in IT-LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-03T16:39:36Z)

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.