Benchmarking Visual Language Models on Standardized Visualization Literacy Tests

Abstract The increasing integration of Visual Language Models (VLMs) into visualization systems demands a comprehensive understanding of their visual interpretation capabilities and constraints. While existing research has examined individual models, systematic comparisons of VLMs' visualization literacy remain unexplored. We bridge this gap through a rigorous, first‐of‐its‐kind evaluation of four leading VLMs (GPT‐4, Claude, Gemini, and Llama) using standardized assessments: the Visualization Literacy Assessment Test (VLAT) and Critical Thinking Assessment for Literacy in Visualizations (CALVI). Our methodology uniquely combines randomized trials with structured prompting techniques to control for order effects and response variability ‐ a critical consideration overlooked in many VLM evaluations. Our analysis reveals that while specific models demonstrate competence in basic chart interpretation (Claude achieving 67.9% accuracy on VLAT), all models exhibit substantial difficulties in identifying misleading visualization elements (maximum 30.0% accuracy on CALVI). We uncover distinct performance patterns: strong capabilities in interpreting conventional charts like line charts (76‐96% accuracy) and detecting hierarchical structures (80‐100% accuracy), but consistent difficulties with data‐dense visualizations involving multiple encodings (bubble charts: 18.6‐61.4%) and anomaly detection (25‐30% accuracy). Significantly, we observe distinct uncertainty management behavior across models, with Gemini displaying heightened caution (22.5% question omission) compared to others (7‐8%). These findings provide crucial insights for the visualization community by establishing reliable VLM evaluation benchmarks, identifying areas where current models fall short, and highlighting the need for targeted improvements in VLM architectures for visualization tasks. To promote reproducibility, encourage further research, and facilitate benchmarking of future VLMs, our complete evaluation framework, including code, prompts, and analysis scripts, is available at https://github.com/washuvis/VisLit‐VLM‐Eval .

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Computer Graphics Forum
Published
2025-05-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.70137
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Video Analysis and Summarization
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.38

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Benchmarking Visual Language Models on Standardized Visualization Literacy Tests

Saugat Pandey, Alvitta Ottley
5 citations
Computer Graphics Forum
Video Analysis and Summarization
6.38
article

Benchmarking Visual Language Models on Standardized Visualization Literacy Tests

Saugat Pandey, Alvitta Ottley
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Abstract The increasing integration of Visual Language Models (VLMs) into visualization systems demands a comprehensive understanding of their visual interpretation capabilities and constraints. While existing research has examined individual models, systematic comparisons of VLMs' visualization literacy remain unexplored. We bridge this gap through a rigorous, first‐of‐its‐kind evaluation of four leading VLMs (GPT‐4, Claude, Gemini, and Llama) using standardized assessments: the Visualization Literacy Assessment Test (VLAT) and Critical Thinking Assessment for Literacy in Visualizations (CALVI). Our methodology uniquely combines randomized trials with structured prompting techniques to control for order effects and response variability ‐ a critical consideration overlooked in many VLM evaluations. Our analysis reveals that while specific models demonstrate competence in basic chart interpretation (Claude achieving 67.9% accuracy on VLAT), all models exhibit substantial difficulties in identifying misleading visualization elements (maximum 30.0% accuracy on CALVI). We uncover distinct performance patterns: strong capabilities in interpreting conventional charts like line charts (76‐96% accuracy) and detecting hierarchical structures (80‐100% accuracy), but consistent difficulties with data‐dense visualizations involving multiple encodings (bubble charts: 18.6‐61.4%) and anomaly detection (25‐30% accuracy). Significantly, we observe distinct uncertainty management behavior across models, with Gemini displaying heightened caution (22.5% question omission) compared to others (7‐8%). These findings provide crucial insights for the visualization community by establishing reliable VLM evaluation benchmarks, identifying areas where current models fall short, and highlighting the need for targeted improvements in VLM architectures for visualization tasks. To promote reproducibility, encourage further research, and facilitate benchmarking of future VLMs, our complete evaluation framework, including code, prompts, and analysis scripts, is available at https://github.com/washuvis/VisLit‐VLM‐Eval .

Computer Graphics ForumVol. 44(3)
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
National Science Foundation
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Video Analysis and Summarization
6.38
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.