Organizations: Walmart USA · University of Arkansas USA
Abstract
Vision-language models (VLMs) are powerful for chart question answering, but invoking a VLM for every query can be unnecessarily expensive when many questions are answerable from OCR text and lightweight language reasoning. We demonstrate SAFE-Cascade, an interactive system for cost-adaptive chart question answering. Given a chart image and a natural-language question, SAFE-Cascade first extracts chart text with OCR, obtains a provisional answer from a text-only language model, and then uses a learned router to decide whether to accept the text answer or escalate to a VLM. The demo exposes this decision process to users: OCR evidence, text-only answer, routing probability, escalation decision, final answer, estimated cost, and estimated latency are shown side by side. SAFE-Cascade is designed as a transparent interface for understanding when visual grounding is actually needed. Users can upload or select charts, ask questions, inspect the evidence used by each pathway, compare text-only and VLM answers, and adjust the escalation threshold to explore the accuracy-cost frontier. The system is implemented with Azure Document Intelligence for OCR, gpt-5-mini as the text-only model, gemini-2.5-flash-image as the VLM, and a Random Forest router trained on inference-time features. On a held-out ChartQA test split of 375 examples from a 2,500-example experiment, SAFE-Cascade achieves 69.1% unified accuracy with 73.1% VLM invocation, compared with 67.7% accuracy and 100% VLM invocation for the full-VLM baseline. The observed +1.4 percentage-point difference is statistically uncertain, so we interpret SAFE-Cascade as matching full-VLM performance while reducing VLM calls by 26.9% and estimated cost by 9.3%. The demonstration shows how selective modality routing can make multimodal knowledge systems more transparent, tunable, and cost-aware.
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.
Advanced chart question answering requires both precise perception of small visual elements and multi-step reasoning across several subplots. While existing MLLMs are strong at understanding single plots, they often struggle with multi-step reasoning across multiple subplots. We propose HierVA, a hierarchical visual agent framework for chart reasoning that iteratively constructs and updates a working context in a joint image--text space. A high-level manager generates plans and maintains a compact context containing only key information, while specialized workers perform reasoning, gather evidence, and return results. In particular, the agent maintains separate visual and textual contexts, using a zoom-in tool to restrict the visual context. Experiments on the CharXiv reasoning subset demonstrate consistent improvements over strong multimodal baselines, and ablation studies verify that hierarchical architecture, scoped visual context, and distilled context contribute complementary gains.
Multimodal retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds a generator in evidence drawn from heterogeneous modalities -- text, tables, and images. The dominant deployment choice is binary and made before the model has tried to answer: either run a cheap text(+table) pipeline, or pay for an expensive vision-language model (VLM) over every image. Recent adaptive systems improve on this by selecting the modality or fidelity pre-retrieval, from a question-conditioned predictor of which modality will be needed. We show that this is the wrong decision point. Through an oracle headroom analysis on MultiModalQA, we find that the relevance of a modality to a question is a weak predictor of whether that modality is actually needed to answer correctly: a large fraction of questions whose gold support includes an image are nonetheless answerable from text and tables alone, and a pre-retrieval router that escalates on apparent visual relevance over-escalates substantially relative to an oracle. We propose \textbf{post-hoc selective modality escalation}: answer cheaply from text and tables, run a verifier on the (query, draft answer, evidence) tuple that localizes which modality is missing, and pay for VLM evidence only there. A calibrated value-of-escalation router then decides whether the expected accuracy gain justifies the visual cost. On MultiModalQA, our router recovers the accuracy of an always-on VLM pipeline while issuing far fewer visual calls, and closes most of the gap to the oracle escalation rate. The result extends a routing-signal hierarchy established for retrieval depth and reasoning hops to a third axis -- modality -- under a single cost-aware selective-escalation view.