arXiv AI By Yanjie Zhang, Yafei Li, Rui Sheng, Zixin Chen, Yanna Lin, Huamin Qu, Lei Chen, Yushi Sun

Navigating the Mirage: A Dual-Path Agentic Framework for Robust Misleading Chart Question Answering

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2603. 28583v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Despite the success of Vision-Language Models (VLMs), misleading charts remain a significant challenge due to their deceptive visual structures and distorted data representations.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Jul 28

Chart Deception in Vision-Language Models: From Vulnerability to Mitigation

arXiv:2607. 22600v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Information visualizations are widely used to communicate patterns, trends, and outliers, yet deceptive design choices-such as truncated or inverted axes, distorted aspect ratios, inappropriate encodings, and misleading color mappings-can systematically alter interpretation while preserving the underlying data.

By Ridwan Mahbub, Mohammed Saidul Islam, Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Mizanur Rahman, Mir Tafseer Nayeem, Enamul Hoque
arXiv AI
Jun 10

ChartAgent: A Multimodal Agent for Visually Grounded Reasoning in Complex Chart Question Answering

arXiv:2510. 04514v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent multimodal LLMs have shown promise in chart-based visual question answering, but their performance declines sharply on unannotated charts-those requiring precise visual interpretation rather than relying on textual shortcuts.

By Rachneet Kaur, Nishan Srishankar, Zhen Zeng, Sumitra Ganesh, Manuela Veloso
arXiv AI
Aug 26

Seeing vs. Believing: Evaluating the Language Bias of Open-Source MLLMs in Counter-Intuitive Scenes

The paper introduces CAIT, a benchmark of 400 synthetic scenes featuring counter‑intuitive actions that challenge multimodal large language models (MLLMs). Human participants and proprietary models like Claude and Gemini perform well, but standard open‑source instruction‑tuned MLLMs fail, largely due to a strong language prior that overrides contradictory visual evidence. The study shows that Chain‑of‑Thought reasoning can help but introduces new issues, while targeted fine‑tuning and structured prompting can reduce reliance on language priors and improve visual grounding.

By Chen Ling, Tongwei Zhang, Hanqian Li, Nai Ding