Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Dongguk University · Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Dongguk University
Large vision-language models (LVLMs) struggle to reliably detect visual primitives in charts and align them with semantic representations, which severely limits their performance on complex visual reasoning. This lack of perceptual grounding constitutes a major bottleneck for chart-based reasoning. We propose VisDoT, a framework that enhances visual reasoning through human-like interpretation grounding. We formalize four perceptual tasks based on the theory of graphical perception, including position and length. Building on this foundation, we introduce Decomposition-of-Thought (DoT) prompting, which sequentially separates questions into visual perception sub-questions and logic sub-questions. Fine-tuning InternVL with VisDoT achieves a +11.2% improvement on ChartQA and surpasses GPT-4o on the more challenging ChartQAPro benchmark. On the newly introduced VisDoTQA benchmark, the model improves by +33.2%. Furthermore, consistent zero-shot gains on diverse open-domain VQA benchmarks confirm the generalizability of the perception-logic separation strategy for visual question answering. VisDoT leverages human-like perception to enhance visual grounding, achieving state-of-the-art chart understanding and interpretable visual reasoning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of visual reasoning between existing LVLMs and VisDoT. While LVLMs fail to visual perception in spatial structure, VisDoT leverages decomposition-of-thought (DoT) to accurately infer answers through sequential visual analysis.
Figure 2: An overview of our framework.
Task
Description
Position
Compares object positions along a common scale (e.g., x- or y-axis) to determine relative order. As the most accurate perceptual channel for conveying quantitative information, it plays a critical role in effective visual communication.
Length
A distortion-free visual attribute across visualized data types Stevens (2017) , used as a secondary cue to position.
Pattern
Links pattern cues to legends and data to distinguish categories. Assesses visual label mapping ability.
Extract
Reads explicitly shown values. Evaluates numerical recognition similar to standard QA tasks.
Table 1: Core perceptual tasks derived from graphical perception theory, designed to align LVLM attention with structured visual features for visualized data reasoning. A detailed description of each task is provided in Appendix A.1
Figure 3: Perception-following QA examples for the four task types in Table 1 . Each question is decomposed into perception and logic sub-questions using the DoT prompt, enabling structured and interpretable chart reasoning.
Figure 4: The model is guided to decompose a complex visual question into perception and logic sub-questions (Question Decomposition) and generate intermediate reasoning steps sequentially (Problem Solving), enabling structured and interpretable visual inference.
Task Type
# QA Pairs
Position
66,617
Length
31,614
Pattern
61,268
Extract
174,411
Total
331,969
Table 2: Distribution of QA pairs across the four perceptual reasoning tasks in the VisDoTQA dataset.
Model
Param
ChartQA
ChartQAPro
VisDoTQA
Mac.
Hum.
Avg.
Factoid
Multi.
Conv.
Check.
Hypo.
Avg.
Pos.
Len.
Pat.
Ext.
Avg.
GPT-4o
–
–
–
85.7
35.76
46.72
34.75
45.49
28.91
37.67
74.57
55.00
36.33
57.03
57.14
Gemini-Flash-2.0
–
90.00
80.24
85.12
43.43
60.28
40.25
67.62
24.47
46.85
77.71
73.75
41.57
50.95
61.96
ChartGemma
3B
90.80
69.52
80.16
6.86
0.00
16.00
1.22
6.53
24.86
6.84
24.86
47.92
27.72
30.8
InternVL
2B
83.52
64.80
74.16
13.86
10.74
14.02
45.90
18.92
17.81
44.29
54.17
19.10
17.87
34.20
InternVL
4B
84.00
66.16
75.08
25.81
10.98
15.85
47.13
25.07
32.11
58.00
59.17
25.47
27.38
43.30
Table 3: Comparison of baseline and VisDoT-tuned models across ChartQA, ChartQAPro, and VisDoTQA. VisDoT models leverage perception-following datasets and DoT-based supervision. For entries reported as default / short-answer † , the value after “/” is obtained under the short-answer (final-answer-only) setting. Abbreviations: Mac. = Machine, Hum. = Human, Avg. = Average, Multi. = Multi-choice, Conv. = Conversational, Check. = Fact-checking, Hypo. = Hypothetical, Pos. = Position, Len. = Length, Pat. = Pattern, Ext. = Extract.
Method
# QA
ChartQA
ChartQAPro
VisDoTQA
ChartGemma
163K
83.96
36.61
26.79
ECD
320K
75.24
17.24
58.30
VisDoT (Ours)
7.4K
84.08
34.02
70.00
Table 4: Comparison of chart distillation/data-synthesis pipelines using publicly released instruction data: ChartGemma Masry et al. (2025b) and ECD Yang et al. (2025) . All methods are fine-tuned on the same backbone (InternVL2.5-4B) and evaluated on ChartQA, ChartQAPro, and VisDoTQA. # QA denotes the number of QA pairs used for fine-tuning; for VisDoT, we randomly sample 7.4K QA pairs for this comparison, while Table 3 reports results using the full VisDoTQA training set (331,969 QA pairs).
Method
ChartQA
VisDoTQA
Machine
Human
Avg.
Extract
Position
Length
Pattern
Avg.
Base
84.00
66.16
75.08
58.00
59.17
25.47
27.38
43.30
CoT-trained model
73.96 / 87.68 †
63.92
68.94 / 75.8 †
57.14
52.50
30.34
56.27
49.55
Perceptual-trained model
91.20
72.56
81.88
65.43
62.92
22.10
28.14
45.80
DoT-trained model
89.68 / 91.28 †
76.24
82.96 / 83.76 †
68.86
66.25
51.31
66.54
63.57
Perceptual + DoT (Ours)
83.44 / 91.20 †
76.96
80.20 / 84.08 †
78.57
65.83
61.42
71.10
70.00
Table 5: Performance comparison of training strategies on ChartQA and VisDoTQA using InternVL2.5-4B as the base model. † denotes short-answer evaluation (final-answer-only).
Model
Pos.
Len.
Pat.
Ext.
Avg.
All
83.43%
63.33%
63.30%
74.90%
72.32%
w/o Position
73.43%
66.25%
63.30%
72.24%
69.20%
w/o Length
85.14%
65.83%
64.04%
70.34%
72.50%
w/o Pattern
84.00%
64.58%
57.68%
69.96%
70.27%
Table 6: Performance across four perceptual tasks under ablation settings. For brevity, we denote Position as Pos. , Length as Len. , Pattern as Pat. , Extract as Ext. , and Average as Avg. .
Dataset
Direct
CoT
Ours (DoT)
POPE
84.29%
84.64%
86.07%
MMMU
17.7%
35.5%
37.7%
Table 7: Zero-shot performance comparison on POPE and MMMU benchmarks using Direct prompting, CoT, and our proposed DoT strategy.
Appendix figures & tables25 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Epoch
Learning Rate
Batch Size
Hours
InternVL-2B
1
4e-5
16
10
InternVL-4B
1
4e-5
10
12
Gemma3-4B
1
2e-4
4
20
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
1
2e-4
64
29
Appendix
Table 8: Training configurations used for different LVLM backbones, including number of epochs, learning rate, batch size, and training time.
System Prompt: Question Generation - Position Prompt
You are an AI assistant that generates location-based analytical questions from structured visual data, such as charts and tables. Your task is to analyze the image and generate questions that extract values based on their spatial position .
How to Generate Questions
- Use the relative position of elements instead of direct category names as the primary reference.
- However, also include the actual name/label in parentheses after each positional reference for clarity.
- Example:
- Rows (Vertical Order) : "third region from the top (South America)", "second from the bottom (Europe)"
Appendix
Table 10: Perception-following Question Generation - Position Prompt
System Prompt: Perception-following Question Generation - Length Prompt
System Prompt
You are an expert in analyzing data visualizations and generating insightful questions.
Based on a given chart image, generate appropriate questions.
Required Operations
- extract : Ask for the value of a specific category.
- ranking : Identify the item, year, or group with the highest, 2nd, 3rd,… lowest value.
System Prompt: Perception-following Question Generation - Pattern Prompt
You are an AI assistant that generates analytical questions based on recurring visual patterns in charts. Your task is to create complex, meaningful questions that require pattern recognition and reasoning over visual groupings such as colors, legends, markers, or labeled categories, rather than simple label-based lookup.
Required Operations (use each at least twice across 20 questions):
- Pattern Counting : Identifying how many elements share a common visual pattern (e.g., “How many wedges are in shades of blue?”).
- Color/Legend Matching : Comparing values between categories based on shared legend color or visual symbol.
- Pattern-based Addition & Subtraction : Summing or comparing values across elements sharing the same visual style (e.g., line types, bar textures).
- Ratio : Determining the proportional relationship between visually grouped categories.
System Prompt: Perception-following Question Generation - Extract Prompt
You are an AI assistant that generates analytical questions based on numerical data in charts. Your task is to create complex, meaningful questions that require reasoning and analysis rather than simple data lookup.
Required Operations (use each at least twice across 20 questions):
- Counting : Identifying how many items meet a specific numerical condition (e.g., "How many regions exceed 20%?").
- Addition & Subtraction : Summing or finding differences between multiple values.
You are an AI assistant that analyzes chart images and constructs the reasoning process to derive answers when given question–answer pairs.
You must follow a structured approach by decomposing the question into sub-questions and solving them systematically.
Response Format:
—
Let’s break down this problem.
Question Phase:
Appendix
Table 14: DoT Prompt
Category
Prompt Template
ChartQAPRO (fact checking)
You are a meticulous chart-analysis assistant. Based on the chart image, decide whether the following statement is true or false. Your final answer must be either ‘True’ or ‘False’.
ChartQAPRO (multi choice)
You are a meticulous chart-analysis assistant. Read the chart image and select the most appropriate answer from the multiple-choice options in the question, returning only the final answer as a single letter: A, B, C, or D.
ChartQAPRO (hypothetical, factoid)
You are a meticulous chart-analysis assistant. Analyze the chart image and answer the following question.
ChartQAPRO (conversational)
You are a meticulous chart-analysis assistant. Your goal is to read the multi-turn conversation carefully and provide the answer to the final question. Conversation: {conversation_text} Question: {final_question}
ChartQA, VisDoT
You are a meticulous chart-analysis assistant. Analyze the chart image and answer the following question.
Vision-language models (VLMs) remain unreliable on chart questions that require reasoning over visual quantities, and this weakness is usually attributed to a reasoning deficit and addressed with more reasoning supervision. We ask whether the difficulty lies in reasoning itself, or in the simpler skills that reasoning operates on: reading the plotted elements (perception), locating them and binding them to their labels (grounding), and performing single-step computations such as ranking, totals, and differences (simple reasoning). We introduce ChartProbe, a diagnostic framework whose probes are generated directly from the code that renders each chart, so every gold answer is exact by construction, needs no human annotation, and attributes each failure to a single skill. ChartProbe enables an intervention prior work does not attempt: instead of synthesizing complex-reasoning data, we withhold complex questions and reasoning traces entirely, fine-tune on one simple skill at a time, and measure transfer to held-out complex-reasoning questions. Across three open-weight VLMs, supervising the simpler skills alone produces large gains on complex-reasoning questions the model never trained on: where these skills are weak and the model can be taught to read the image, training them recovers much of complex reasoning at no reasoning-data cost. The gains hold across three out-of-distribution settings: an unseen chart type (pie charts), a human-written benchmark disjoint from our images and templates (ChartQA), and a non-chart visual domain (CLEVR). Complex visual reasoning can therefore improve without complex-reasoning supervision.
Mahsa Khoshnoodi, Sarah Adel Bargal
Department of Computer Science, Georgetown University
The recent advancements in Vision Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated progress toward true intelligence requiring robust reasoning capabilities. Beyond pattern recognition, linguistic reasoning must integrate with visual comprehension, particularly for Chart Question Answering (CQA) tasks involving complex data visualizations. Current VLMs face significant limitations in CQA, including imprecise numerical extraction, difficulty interpreting implicit visual relationships, and inadequate attention mechanisms for capturing spatial relationships in charts. In this work, we address these challenges by presenting Chart-RL, a novel reinforcement learning framework that enhances VLMs chart understanding through feedback-driven policy optimization of visual perception and logical inference. Our key innovation includes a comprehensive framework integrating Reinforcement Learning (RL) from Policy Optimization techniques along with adaptive reward functions, that demonstrates superior performance compared to baseline foundation models and competitive results against larger state-of-the-art architectures. We also integrated Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning through Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) in the RL framework that only requires single GPU configurations while preserving performance integrity. We conducted extensive benchmarking across open-source, proprietary, and state-of-the-art closed-source models utilizing the ChartQAPro dataset. The RL fine-tuned Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct model achieved an answer accuracy of 0.634, surpassing the 0.580 accuracy of the Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct foundation model despite utilizing half the parameter count, while simultaneously reducing inference latency from 31 seconds to 9 seconds.
Chart question-answering (QA) benchmarks aim to pose questions that require visual reasoning to correctly answer, but models can often reach solutions through shortcuts or prior familiarity with a chart based on their own background knowledge. To strictly evaluate visual reasoning, we propose counterfactual charts where the chart-question task remains fixed, but underlying chart and the corresponding answer are varied. We introduce Chartographer, a framework to reverse engineer charts into executable code, validate reconstruction fidelity, generate seed-controlled counterfactual variants, and derive new answers from executable QA logic. We apply this framework to existing chart QA datasets and evaluate proprietary and open-source vision-language models (VLMs), measuring variation sensitivity and generalizability. Counterfactual charts reveal failures hidden by single-chart performance: VLMs often fail to generalize after answering the original chart correctly. We find failures are most prevalent when updated charts require novel visual reasoning pathways.
Yifan Jiang, Dae Yon Hwang, Jesse C. Cresswell +1
University of Waterloo · Vector Institute · Layer 6 AI