CharTool: Tool-Integrated Visual Reasoning for Chart Understanding
Authors: Situo Zhang, Yifan Zhang, Zichen Zhu, Da Ma, Lei Pan, Danyang Zhang, Zihan Zhao, Lu Chen, Kai Yu
Organizations: X-LANCE Lab, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · East China Normal University, Shanghai, China · Shanghai Innovation Institution, Shanghai, China · Jiangsu Key Lab of Language Computing, Suzhou, China
Charts are ubiquitous in scientific and financial literature for presenting structured data. However, chart reasoning remains challenging for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) due to the lack of high-quality training data, as well as the need for fine-grained visual grounding and precise numerical computation. To address these challenges, we first propose DuoChart, a scalable dual-source data pipeline that combines synthesized charts with real-world charts to construct diverse, high-quality chart training data. We then introduce CharTool, which equips MLLMs with external tools, including image cropping for localized visual perception and code-based computation for accurate numerical reasoning. Through agentic reinforcement learning on DuoChart, CharTool learns tool-integrated reasoning grounded in chart content. Extensive experiments on six chart benchmarks show that our method consistently improves over strong MLLM baselines across model scales. Notably, CharTool-7B outperforms the base model by +8.0% on CharXiv (Reasoning) and +9.78% on ChartQAPro, while achieving competitive performance with substantially larger or proprietary models. Moreover, CharTool demonstrates positive generalization to out-of-domain visual math reasoning benchmarks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Motivation for our method. (Left) Chart reasoning requires fine-grained visual perception and numerical reasoning. (Middle) Existing synthetic chart datasets often lack diversity and visual quality. (Right) Purely text-based reasoning leads to errors on complex layouts, while explicit tool grounding (e.g., image cropping) enables more accurate, localized analysis. An introductory figure explaining our motivation.
Figure 2. Data synthesis pipeline of DuoChart . (A) Dual-source chart image construction. (B) High-quality QA generation and validation. (C) Cold-start trajectory synthesis.
Figure 3. Data statistics of the charts (Left) and QAs (Right) in DuoChart .
Figure 4. Comparison of synthesized dataset quality.
Method
Param.
CharXiv
ChartQA
ChartQAPro
ChartBench
ChartX
ReachQA
Avg.
Reas.
Desc.
Avg.
Overall
NQA
Binary
QA
Reas.
Recog.
Proprietary and General Model
GPT-4o
–
47.10
84.45
85.70
37.67
52.88
81.03
58.33
39.70
66.80
61.52
Claude Sonnet 3.5
–
60.20
84.30
90.80
43.58
48.29
76.72
42.71
51.70
74.30
63.62
InternVL3-8B
8B
39.50
75.33
82.72
37.78
45.95
84.18
54.60
30.50
59.40
56.66
Qwen3-VL-8B
8B
46.40
83.00
84.44
42.65
57.86
76.83
59.72
47.70
70.70
63.26
Table 1. Performance comparison across diverse chart benchmarks. The best result in each column is highlighted in bold , the second-best result is underlined , and relative improvements over the base model ( Δ ) are shown in red .
Method
MathVista
WeMath
MathVerse
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
62.30
49.77
34.30
CharTool -3B
60.50
58.45
37.80
Δ ( vs Base)
-1.80
+8.68
+3.50
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
68.20
64.94
45.50
CharTool -7B
70.10
67.13
47.10
Δ ( vs Base)
+1.90
+2.19
+1.60
Table 2. Results on out-of-domain visual reasoning benchmarks.
Model
CharXiv
ChartQAPro
ReachQA
Reas.
Desc.
Overall
Reas.
Recog.
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
31.30
58.60
30.28
26.80
59.20
+ CoT prompt
32.40
52.00
30.64
29.70
53.30
+ Text-only RL
36.00
60.38
30.69
26.70
61.60
+ CharTool
41.40
74.75
42.54
36.70
61.40
Table 3. Ablation study on the effectiveness of tool-integrated reinforcement learning.
Training Data
CharXiv
ChartX
ChartBench
ReachQA
ChartQA
ChartQAPro
Avg.
Reas.
Recog.
NQA
Binary
Reas.
Recog.
Avg.
Overall
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
31.30
58.60
53.91
48.10
77.26
26.80
59.20
76.64
30.28
51.34
ReachQA
35.00
72.10
54.51
48.24
83.81
37.40
59.90
79.52
40.83
56.81
ECD
36.00
74.40
53.82
50.43
78.17
36.00
60.20
79.80
38.97
56.42
DuoChart
41.40
74.75
55.38
51.71
84.51
36.70
61.40
81.68
42.54
58.90
Table 4. Performance comparison using different training data sources.
Data Source
CharXiv
ReachQA
arXiv
LLM-Syn
Reas.
Desc.
Reas.
Recog.
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
31.30
58.60
26.80
59.20
✓
37.50
76.05
33.50
57.40
✓
37.80
72.85
35.70
59.50
✓
✓
41.40
74.75
36.70
61.40
Table 5. Ablation study on the training data source.
Tool Usage
ChartBench
ReachQA
CharXiv
Avg.
Crop
Code
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
48.10
26.80
31.30
35.40
✓
51.95
32.20
37.90
40.68
✓
45.52
35.60
40.20
40.44
✓
✓
51.71
36.70
41.40
43.27
Table 6. Tool usage ablation.
Figure 5. Distribution of tool calls under different benchmarks.
Figure 6. A case study example of CharTool on the CharXiv ( Wang et al., 2024 ) benchmark.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
3B
7B
num_train_epochs
3
3
train_batch_size
64
64
per_device_train_batch_size
2
1
gradient_accumulation_steps
4
8
learning_rate
1e-5
1e-5
warmup_ratio
0.05
0.05
Appendix
Table 7. Detailed hyperparameter configuration for the Cold-Start SFT stage.
Hyperparameter
3B
7B
trainer.total_epochs
1
1
data.train_batch_size
128
128
actor_rollout_ref.actor.ppo_mini_batch_size
128
128
actor_rollout_ref.actor.optim.lr
1e-6
1e-6
data.max_prompt_length
8192
8192
data.max_response_length
16384
16384
Appendix
Table 8. Hyperparameters used for GRPO RL training. We report parameters for both model scales.
Model
CharXiv
ChartQAPro
ReachQA
Avg.
Reas.
Desc.
Overall
Reas.
Recog.
3B Scale
Qwen2.5-VL-3B
31.30
58.60
30.28
26.80
59.20
41.24
Cold-start SFT
33.80
72.10
41.64
33.40
55.20
47.23
CharTool -3B
41.40
74.75
42.54
36.70
61.40
51.36
7B Scale
Appendix
Table 9. Effect of different training stages. Results are reported for the baseline, cold-start SFT, and CharTool at both 3B and 7B model scales.
Tool Type
CharXiv
ChartQA
ChartQA
Chart
ChartX
ReachQA
Math
We
Math
Reas.
Desc.
Pro
Bench
Vista
Math
Verse
Code Computation
18.31
13.08
60.43
60.29
26.10
54.98
56.98
77.17
80.46
80.46
Image Crop
81.69
86.92
39.57
39.71
73.90
45.02
43.02
22.83
19.54
19.54
Appendix
Table 10. Distribution of tool usage across different benchmarks. The values represent the percentage (%) of calls for Code Computation versus Image Cropping . The order is arranged from perception-heavy tasks (left) to computation-heavy tasks (right), illustrating the model’s adaptive strategy.
Source
Share (%)
Count
LLM-code
52.08
8691
arXiv
47.92
7997
Total
16688
Appendix
Table 11. Distribution of Chart Sources.
Category
Share (%)
Count
One-plot
51.32
8565
Line chart
15.17
2531
Bar chart
6.75
1126
Area chart
5.13
856
Scatter chart
5.08
848
Box chart
4.46
744
Appendix
Table 12. Distribution of Chart Types (Figure Level).
# Charts
Share (%)
Count
1
51.32
8565
2–4
29.61
4941
5–9
18.26
3047
9+
0.81
135
Average # Subplots
2.78
Appendix
Table 13. Distribution of the Number of Subplots per Figure.
Category
Share (%)
Count
Line chart
30.07
13954
Bar chart
20.37
9451
Scatter chart
11.45
5312
Heatmap
9.14
4240
Pie chart
8.14
3775
Area chart
4.59
2132
Appendix
Table 14. Distribution of Chart Types (Subplot Level).
Accurate chart comprehension represents a critical challenge in advancing multimodal learning systems, as extensive information is compressed into structured visual representations. However, existing vision-language models (VLMs) frequently struggle to generalize on unseen charts because it requires abstract, symbolic, and quantitative reasoning over structured visual representations. In this work, we introduce Chart-RL, an effective reinforcement learning (RL) method that employs mathematically verifiable rewards to enhance chart question answering in VLMs. Our experiments demonstrate that Chart-RL consistently outperforms supervised fine-tuning (SFT) across different chart understanding benchmarks, achieving relative improvements of 16.7% on MutlChartQA, and 11.5% on ChartInsights. We conduct robustness analysis, where Chart-RL achieves enhanced performance in 18 of 25 perturbed chart categories, demonstrating strong consistency and reasoning capability across visual variations. Furthermore, we demonstrate that task difficulty and inherent complexity are more critical than data quantity in RL training. For instance, Chart-RL trained on merely 10 complex chart-query examples significantly outperforms models trained on over 6,000 simple examples. Additionally, training on challenging reasoning tasks not only improves in-domain generalization relative to simpler tasks, but also facilitate strong transfer to out-of-domain visual mathematical problems.
Chart editing requires inferring and modifying visualization code from a reference chart image based on an editing instruction, challenging fine-grained visual reasoning, instruction following, and executable code synthesis capabilities of MLLMs. Large reasoning models (LRMs) with extended Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning are suitable for tackling such complex multimodal tasks. However, our preliminary study reveals an inverted-U'' relationship between reasoning length and chart-editing performance: Excessive reasoning often leads to overthinking,'' where models drift toward hallucinated visual details or get stuck in redundant reasoning loops. To address the gap, we introduce REChart, a two-stage training framework that provides process-level supervision over intermediate reasoning steps, improving both editing fidelity and reasoning efficiency. First, we synthesize 200k high-quality reasoning trajectories for supervised fine-tuning from a large image-instruction-code pool, using a role-specialized agentic Reason-Score-Refine workflow that iteratively refine the chart code toward higher quality. Second, we optimize the model via reinforcement learning with two complementary rewards: a fidelity reward evaluating code correctness, visual fidelity, and structural consistency, and an efficiency reward that assigns each rollout a random thinking budget, truncates the reasoning process, and credits the final reasoning segment according to its contribution to the output. On the ChartEdit and ChartMIMIC benchmarks, our model achieves state-of-the-art chart-editing performance among open-source models of comparable scale, while mitigating overthinking and reducing average reasoning token usage by 79.0% under a maximum thinking budget of 16,384 tokens compared with the base model.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are rapidly evolving with expanded context windows and stronger reasoning capabilities, enabling multi-chart understanding and multi-step inference. These abilities are increasingly important as MLLMs are adopted in complex agentic tasks. However, existing benchmarks largely emphasize single-chart perception, while simple chart-to-chart connections are insufficient to evaluate these capabilities. To capture multi-chart complexity while ensuring consistency and validity, we design a synthesis pipeline supported by latent graphs. Building on this pipeline, we introduce LongChart, a benchmark whose VQA sets contain an average of 6.5 images and 31.2 questions. We evaluate 10 state-of-the-art MLLMs and examine three factors that influence performance: reasoning patterns, auxiliary tools, and robustness to image perturbations. Our results show that MLLM accuracy decreases and varies substantially as computational complexity increases, highlighting directions for future research in multi-chart reasoning.