Building strong chart-to-code systems increasingly relies on reinforcement learning, whose effectiveness depends critically on the quality of the reward signal. Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) play a natural critical role in jointly assessing chart visual appearance and task requirements. They are therefore increasingly used as visual critics and reward models, yet their reliability as judges remains largely unexplored. To this end, we introduce ChartJudgeBench, a diagnostic vision-language benchmark for assessing LMM judges in chart-to-code workflows. It includes 1,003 Chart Perception Alignment (CPA) instances for pairwise chart comparison and 650 Chart Reasoning Judgment (CRJ) instances for binary Accept/Reject verification in Chart Reproduction and Chart Editing. Together, these tasks emulate the core judging decisions required in agentic refinement and RL-based chart optimization. Our evaluation of strong LMMs reveals four systematic limitations: (i) positional bias in pairwise comparison, (ii) a strong tendency to overpredict Accept, (iii) difficulty in matching visual styles and aesthetics, and (iv) an unexpected leniency bias in RL-trained models. These findings show that current LMM judges require explicit reliability validation before being used as critics or reward models in chart-to-code optimization. The code and data are available on ChartJudgeBench.
Annotations are essential to communicative visualization, helping explain data, emphasize key findings, and guide attention. While multimodal large language models (MLLMs) offer new opportunities for automatic chart annotation authoring, their capabilities in this task remain underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce ChartAnno, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating MLLMs on chart annotation generation. ChartAnno contains 1,200 real-world charts with paired annotated and unannotated executable code, along with 3,600 annotation instructions spanning three levels of specificity. We also develop a multidimensional evaluation framework combining rule-based and LLM-judged metrics to assess execution, structural compliance, semantic consistency, and design effectiveness. We evaluate 10 representative MLLMs under two primary chart input settings: (1) chart code alone and (2) both code and chart image. Results reveal that proprietary models lead overall, though open-source models narrow the gap. While higher instruction specificity improves annotation quality, inferring abstract communicative intent remains difficult across all models. Providing chart images yields marginal benefit when code is available. We also examine the effect of chart code through an image-only ablation and analyze the effects of multiple task complexity indicators and instruction-level transitions. Further analyses characterize common failure modes and validate the reliability of the LLM-based judge. Experiments with D3 and SVG demonstrate the generalizability of ChartAnno beyond its primary Python setting.
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.
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.