Dataset Viewer
Auto-converted to Parquet Duplicate
id
string
image
image
description
string
2401.02456_3
This visualization presents a state-level heat map of US states with significant wildfire in 2022 alongside two national time series tracking the total number of acres burned in the US between 1985 and 2022 and the total number of wildfire occurrences in the US throughout the years 1985 to 2022. Spatially, wildfire act...
2401.04996_2
The three panels illustrate the performance of various optimization methods across nine network topologies—geant, abilene, dtelekom, ER, HC, SW, grid, BT, and star—measured by aggregate utility, infeasibility, and estimation error. Aggregate utility varies widely by network, peaking on ER, HC, and SW where most methods...
2401.05413_6
This heatmap illustrates the comparison of operational costs for integrated scheduling, where rows represent electricity load forecasting methods and columns denote wind forecasting methods. The entries display the additional costs compared to the best in percentage value, with darker cells indicating smaller penalties...
2401.08375_4
These four heatmaps display the correlation matrices of the 28 most influential stocks, specifically those with an index weight larger than 0.6%, comparing pairwise return correlations across four distinct PCA-based treatments. In the initial state where there is no removed PC, the matrix reveals a broadly positive cor...
2401.10806_7
The heatmap displays the binding funnel landscapes of scoring functions, where the corresponding blocks indicate the Spearman correlation coefficient between the RMSD values and the binding scores calculated by scoring functions for all ligand poses within specific ranges. Crucially, the ticks on the x-axis refer to th...
2401.11144_5
This visualization compares six continual-learning methods—finetuning, LwF, SI, PackNet, replay, and MAS—across three distinct task settings, with each sub-figure utilizing box plots to display mean, median, and quartile data for accuracy and forgetting. In the first setting, where the X-axis represents a specific orde...
2401.11675_7
The quantitative assessment of various image fusion approaches across 20 image pairs from the RoadScene dataset reveals distinct performance patterns across eight quality metrics, with the average for all metrics displayed in each panel's legend. The red curve representing our method consistently maintains a leading po...
2401.12507_4
The chart illustrates the distribution of confidence scores for close-set and open-set samples across four distinct methods, with the AUROC of each method marked above each panel to indicate overall performance. In the Baseline method, which achieves an AUROC of 0.517, the confidence scores of close-set and open-set sa...
2401.12872_12
The heatmap illustrates the activation time in seconds for Group 1 participants across 18 attempts, where color intensity encodes the activation time and reveals a trend of decreasing activation time as learning progresses, demonstrated in lighter colors from left to right for each line/participant. Group 1 adopts the ...
2401.14256_37
This chart compares the performance of all the simulated architectures in each of the ID and OOD sets across four key metrics: Accuracy, F1-score, Bray–Curtis dissimilarity, and normalized mean absolute error (NMAE), with distinct markers differentiating overall performance from performance restricted to OOD cells. Acr...
2401.17787_10
The three panels compare the normalized demands of one random retailer in August and September across 30 periods, contrasting real-life data represented by gray bars with synthetic data structures depicted by black lines representing Random, Trend, or Both patterns. Compared to the synthetic data, the real-life data ha...
2401.17985_10
The chart illustrates the distribution of junipers by size across different altitudes, comparing results from photo-interpreted (PI) data samples, the model’s deployment output trained and configured with PI data, field-work (FW) data samples, and the model’s deployment output trained on PI data but configured with FW ...
2402.00293_6
The chart compares ground truth versus model prediction timelines for two lab protocols, highlighting major failure cases where the model generally captures the overall sequencing but struggles with specific short, adjacent steps. In Protocol 2 (lysis and recovery), the upper timeline reveals that MS-TCN++ exhibited mi...
2402.00299_7
The charts display the relative importance of node features for the best-performing proposed model, GAT-LSTM-ATT, and the best-performing baseline model, XGB, alongside a detailed breakdown of how specific feature values influence predictions. As seen in the relative importance view, the presence of overdue payments ho...
2402.00351_4
The t-SNE analysis of the CLIP embedding vectors for generated and ground truth images across Diffusion Models, VQ-GAN, and MAE reveals distinct patterns in how unlearned representations align with their respective target distributions. In the Diffusion Models panel, the forget set (red squares) and retain set (blue sq...
2402.00397_5
The provided bar charts present a comprehensive evaluation of five spatiotemporal forecasting models—STFGNN, DSTAGNN, FOGS, DCRNN, and GWN—comparing their performance under the Reptile meta-learning approach versus the Multi-Scale Traffic Pattern Bank (MTPB) framework. Performance is measured via RMSE, MAE, and MAPE ac...
2402.00422_12
The charts present a comprehensive comparison of edge-detection models in terms of running efficiency (inference speed on an NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti), memory storage (the number of parameters), and detection performance (ODS F-measure). A distinct efficiency–accuracy tradeoff is visible, with the PiDiNet family delivering t...
2402.00422_17
This chart illustrates the pattern-frequency distributions across Bi-PDC layers 1, 5, and 12, comparing the statistics of the 2^p (= 256) patterns before training in the top row against the statistics of the patterns after training in the bottom row, with all patterns sorted according to the frequencies. In the pre-tra...
2402.00654_14
The figure presents a summary plot of absolute SHAP values and swarm plots of each mode choice using the SHAP game theory approach to explain feature influences on the overall RF model. The initial panel displays the ratio of SHAP values across all five modes by measuring the mean absolute SHAP values for each feature ...
2402.00732_4
The charts track the frequency with which different model families were utilized for multiple trajectory and mobility-related tasks across the years 2018 through 2023. While the overall mix of architectures broadens over time, usage is consistently concentrated in a few key models, most notably showing the prevalent us...
2402.00738_6
The nine heatmaps display the payoff tables for three distinct workloads—Wimblepong, MPE, and RoboMaster—across small, large, and full buffer configurations, mapping the performance relationships between models saved at different training phases. Taking the Wimblepong panels as an example, the axes track the interactio...
2402.01095_18
The figure compares how several uncertainty or selection signals relate to ImageNet-1K top-1 accuracy across a range of model families, where the points represent the estimated mean values and the lines indicate the 1%-99% confidence intervals. The analysis is stratified into two regimes: a larger sample size of 100 an...
2402.01354_1
The figure presents a comprehensive analysis of energy market dynamics from January 2010 to December 2022, tracking Crude Oil (CL), Natural Gas (NG), and Gasoline (RBOB). The left column displays the realized volatilities for each commodity, revealing a low-to-moderate baseline punctuated by sharp, event-driven spikes,...
2402.01514_5
The visualization compares three reconstruction-related metrics across five datasets—CelebA, CIFAR-10, dSprites, FashionMNIST, and MNIST—for three model families: β-VAE, INFO, and WAE. The data demonstrates how training affects landscape norms differentially, depending on model and dataset choices, and specifically hig...
2402.01685_4
The chart illustrates F1 scores for various matching approaches, which feature different types of datasets based on four table-splitting strategies: Unionable, View-Unionable, Joinable, and Semantic-Joinable. A dominant pattern reveals that data-oriented methods did a better job than the schema-based methods, as eviden...
2402.01714_6
This visualization consists of five heatmaps comparing mean BLEU and ROUGE-L scores under two conditions, +K and 0K, across a sequence of twenty distinct (I + D) settings, with each panel representing an increasing value of t^r_kappa from 0.00 to 1.00. Across all values of t^r_kappa, providing a trigger input dramatica...
2402.01739_7
This multi-series radar plot compares 13 language variants across 32 categories labeled E_0 through E_31, where the distance from the center indicates higher values and reveals that there is a relatively clear specialization among different experts. While most languages follow a broadly similar shape with moderate disp...
2402.02105_2
The chart illustrates the node-wise relative importance of ZC proxies (Synflow, GradNorm, and Fisher), with values plotted on a logarithmic scale spanning several orders of magnitude. The findings reveal that node-wise ZC statistics significantly vary in their contributions to performance, establishing a dominant patte...
2402.02833_6
This chart illustrates the task allocation over the mission runtime when using a full team consisting of two Huskys and a Bebop, tracking the sequence of three activities—Explore, Identify, and Decontaminate—across a timeline spanning roughly 3,800 seconds. The activities are distributed among four agents or modes: Auc...
2402.03190_6
The figure compares F1 scores across four model-and-task settings—I2T(GPT-4V), I2T(Gemini), T2I(GPT-4V), and T2I(Gemini)—contrasting the performance of Self-Check (2-shot) against UNiHD across four categories, where the labels “O”, “A”, “S” and “F” refer to object, attribute, scene-text, and fact, respectively. Overall...
2402.03741_12
The four heatmaps compare how two outcomes, CR and CF, respond to changes in uncertainty rate and observable range, where the vertical coordinate represents the limitation set in the training phase and the horizontal coordinate represents the limitation set in the testing phase. In the uncertainty panels, a distinct re...
2402.04216_5
The figure illustrates clients’ participation eligibility and number of selections in 400 edge rounds, contrasting potential availability against realized selection patterns under three settings of the parameter |Ub|. Regarding eligibility, the data reveals that while most client indices show near-maximum availability,...
2402.06662_8
The visualization presents an estimated PDF of Ranks alongside node number versus molecule count histograms of filtered Enzyme and Protein datasets to analyze embedding performance and structural heterogeneity. The left panel, where histograms are normalized to densities for better viewability, demonstrates that all gr...
2402.09134_11
The charts display per hour day-ahead and balancing prices together with the six-month moving average and standard deviation for balancing price calculated using one hour incremental rolling backwards in time for NO1 and NO3 from 2016 to November 2022, while the lower panel details the price difference (balancing minus...
2402.09464_2
The two heatmaps illustrate model similarity when grouped by frequency band versus measure, revealing that frequency-band aggregation fosters strong, coherent clusters while measure-based grouping introduces fragmentation and trade-offs. In the frequency-band view, most models exhibit broad positive alignment, particul...
2402.13384_4
This sunburst visualization summarizes the taxonomic composition of the operational taxonomic units (OTUs) found and their relative abundance, utilizing the posterior mean of the marginal occurrence probabilities of each species as the measure of abundance. The chart demonstrates how observations are split first betwee...
2402.14390_7
This colormap of the parameter estimates for the dataset illustrates the relationship between four environmental predictors—Latitude, Longitude, Depth, and Temperature—and the abundance of 30 species through three distinct panels: regression coefficients on the left, covariance parameters in the center, and correspondi...
2402.14476_5
The charts display the predicted uncertainty Var(y_hat) of the Combined approach alongside variations omitting model averaging (No Averaging), using a single output layer (Single Output), and using returns only (Returns-only) for BTC/USDT and Chevron. A critical comparison of the methods reveals that the Combined (blue...
2403.02054_14
The chart illustrates the convergence behavior of the LEO and LEO-Rnd methods for both the mean and the median of the exploit pool, alongside the distributional evolution of their underlying parameters. At the start of the optimization, the rate of convergence exhibited by LEO is much higher than that of LEO-Rnd; LEO d...
2403.02292_7
The visualization details the distribution of themes for the top 10 countries contributing the most privacy reviews, comparing the cumulative ratio of privacy-related issues across different markets. Indonesia stands out with the largest overall volume, followed by Türkiye and Pakistan, while the United States and the ...
2403.02682_5
The figure compares real test sequences (blue) against generated samples (red) across four domains—Air Quality, ECG, Electricity, and Traffic—evaluating both time-series alignment and distributional fit for the Time Weaver model versus a GAN baseline. The top two rows display the quality and realism of the time series ...
2403.03230_11
This heatmap displays the item difficulty correlation among LLMs and human experts, utilizing Spearman correlation coefficients to quantify the relationships. The data reveals a fundamental dichotomy in alignment: LLMs have an average correlation of 0.75 (±0.08) with one another, whereas human experts have an average o...
2403.03394_7
The chart displays the time-series 3D position error of the positioning solution obtained using the proposed method and RTKLIB (represented as Conventional RTK) over a 700-second duration. While the proposed method stays tightly clustered near zero for the majority of the timeline, the Conventional RTK approach exhibit...
2403.03419_5
The figure compares harmlessness score distributions for the training data versus model generations at mid-training and at the end of training, contrasting two training approaches, D²O and DPO. In the training set, the harmlessness reward distributions display a bimodal structure with substantial mass in a low-harmless...
2403.04161_4
The heatmap displays the Spearman coefficients of all metrics on one task with one given search space, illustrating how a set of methods performs across multiple benchmarks including TNB101, NB201, and NB301. The results clearly demonstrate the exceptional predictive capability of SWAP-Scores across diverse types of se...
2403.04398_7
The provided charts compare six methods across metrics for overall correlation, average forgetting, and forward transfer, having varied the number of replayed samples per session from 3 to 11. While overall correlation generally rises or stabilizes with more samples for most methods, the proposed method, identified as ...
2403.04742_4
These heatmaps visualize the boarding and alighting counts at all stops over one week from Monday to Friday, with the left panel showing boarding flows and the right panel presenting alighting flows. The x-axis represents the order of bus arrivals, effectively serving as a proxy for time, while the y-axis represents th...
2403.04924_9
The figure compares correlation structures among visual perturbations and acoustic perturbations, revealing that while both heatmaps show uniformly high positive relationships, they exhibit noticeably different degrees of clustering. In the visual panel, several instances of high correlations are evident, with most pai...
2403.05441_9
The four panels illustrate the forecasting accuracy of OMP and LASSO models compared to a live IDFull benchmark, measuring Mean Absolute Error (MAE) across delivery hours and varying lags to delivery. In scenarios (a) through (d), the difference of the MAE between the forecast and the live IDFull is shown, revealing th...
2403.07137_3
The correlation matrix illustrates the relationships between body weight, measurements taken from images, productivity metrics calculated after the PET, and structure scores, revealing a clear separation between morphological dimensions and performance traits. Strong positive correlations are observed between certain m...
2403.09967_26
The simulated and measured beam patterns generated from NR-Surface using 1-bit GPIO outputs are illustrated as heatmaps that map the desired main-lobe angle on the vertical axis against the measured angle on the horizontal axis, with color indicating signal strength. These power simulation and measurement results are a...
2403.10581_5
This visualization illustrates the contribution of each lead for feature reweighting across all 12-lead features for different populations, specifically UKB-HYP and UKB-MI, by comparing pairwise relationships among ECG leads for low-risk versus high-risk groups. In both cohorts, the low- and high-risk matrices share a ...
2403.15500_5
This heatmap illustrates the F1 performance of nine algorithms—comprising PC, GES, and seven other Gene Regulatory Network Inference (GRNI) specific state-of-the-art methods—across ten colored column blocks representing six synthetic (LI, LL, CY, BF, BFC, TF) and four curated (mCAD, VSC, HSC, GSD) datasets. Each block ...
2403.15700_11
The residual energy of all 100 nodes in WSNs is compared among seven algorithms across four distinct scenarios, illustrating how each approach preserves node energy and manages load distribution. In panel (a), most methods are clustered high between 0.85 and 1.0 J, indicating broadly balanced energy usage, though k-mea...
2404.00226_3
This radar chart compares the performance of six training strategies—Random Initialization, ImageNet Pretraining, GLoRIA, MRM, MGCA, and the proposed method—across ViT and ResNet backbones, evaluated on classification accuracy for BUSI and AUITD, segmentation Dice for BUSI and DDTI, and detection AP for BUSI and DDTI. ...
2404.00230_5
The radar chart presents a comprehensive evaluation of multiple watermarking methods across two primary themes: Image Quality, captured by SSIM, NIQE, PIQE, and FID, and Robustness, measured by BitACC and TPR under constructive, reconstructive, and destructive attacks. This visualization serves to illustrate the trade-...
2404.00684_5
The figure presents an example of alignment matrix comparisons between a short passage and a query, contrasting MVDR in the document-to-query direction with GR in the query-to-document direction. In the MVDR panel, we observe a pronounced phenomenon of exact matches, characterized by a distinct diagonal structure where...
2404.00790_2
This lower-triangular heatmap visualizes the task matching weight distribution, where darker cells and larger values indicate stronger pairwise reuse relationships between task modules. The data reveals a clear temporal dependency where subsequent tasks tend to reuse modules of previous tasks, resulting in a sparse reu...
2404.01120_5
The joint distribution of initial PSNR and correction PSNR illustrates the performance of this method across one aligned view, Shift-0, and three misaligned views, Shift-4, Shift-6, and Shift-8, under a selected sequence. The horizontal axis represents the initial PSNR computed by the blur view and the first latent fra...
2404.01340_2
This visualization presents the t-SNE embeddings of channel and prototype embeddings within the ETTh1 and ETTh2 datasets, where each point represents a channel within a sample and varying colors indicate different channels. In the ETTh1 dataset, the embedding separates into two clearly distinct lobes that reveal a stra...
2404.01509_3
This correlation heatmap illustrates the relationships between various ImageNet-related measures, SIN, and PGD, revealing that performance on many ImageNet benchmarks is moderate to strongly correlated while highlighting the existence of clear outliers. Overall, the IN family is strongly interrelated, with ImageNet acc...
2404.01754_2
The chart presents a comparative analysis of code element distributions and edit actions across four distinct problems, revealing a clear evolution in the nature of software defects and repair strategies. In Prob. 1, the activity is heavily output-centric, where specifically 109 (58%) of the bugs are about outputs, wit...
2404.01805_2
The figure compares two confusion matrices for a seven-class emotion classifier, illustrating the shift in predictive patterns from a Baseline model to an Ordinal variant. A structural analysis reveals that the baseline confusion matrix makes more severe misclassifications that are far from the main diagonal, indicatin...
2404.01833_11
The chart compares attack success rates across a range of prompt categories under different backtrack-step settings, demonstrating that the effectiveness of backtracking steps is highly task-dependent. Performance often saturates near the top end for categories such as Election, Climate, Intimacy, and Denial, which rem...
2404.01833_8
The chart presents the success rates of each model on all tasks, demonstrating that performance is highly category-dependent rather than consistently dominated by a single model. The task with the highest success rate, where all models consistently reach 100% attack success rate, is the Denial task. Additionally, all m...
2404.01849_9
The visualization illustrates the performance of selected algorithms in comparison to the charging and discharging prices, presenting a dual-panel analysis of economic signals and resulting power flows. The top chart displays time-varying electricity rates where discharge prices consistently exceed charge prices, creat...
2404.02093_3
The figure compares heatmaps of the population-level covariance estimates from SparseSample (left) and SparseCovReg (right), detailing inferred pairwise relationships among genes organized into pathway blocks such as p53, calcium, PI3K/MTOR, and Ras-Raf/MEK-ERK. In these displays, positive values are shown in red and n...
2404.02127_6
The figure illustrates the difference to the baseline for the model on LegalBench and MMLU across various tasks, visualizing performance shifts where bars extending to the right indicate gains and those to the left denote regressions. On the LegalBench benchmark, the model outperforms the baseline in most LegalBench ta...
2404.02415_2
This heatmap visualizes the cosine similarity between target tasks across a wide set of vision-language benchmarks, where deeper reds indicate stronger positive alignment and blues indicate negative alignment. Overall, most tasks move together, forming a broad positively correlated block, particularly clustering around...
2404.02810_7
The four heatmaps illustrate the variation in Macro-F1 scores across the ACM, DBLP, Aminer, and Freebase datasets as the hyperparameters lambda_Intra and lambda_Inter are adjusted within the range of 0.2 to 1.0. A structural distinction is evident where the axes on the left, belonging to the ACM and DBLP datasets, disp...
2404.03152_2
The posterior traceplots for Model 3 illustrate the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling behavior for parameters θ1 and θ2 over approximately 4,000 iterations, with red horizontal lines indicating reference values near 10 and 20, respectively. The chain for θ1 mixes quite well, remaining tightly centered around the...
2404.03734_6
These box plots compare efficiency performance metrics—Path Irregularity Index (PI), Distance to Goal (D2G), and Total Acceleration—across five methods using two different human models, interactive (IBR Human) and non-interactive (Optimal Control Human), with robot and human distributions shown side by side. Across all...
2404.04990_6
The provided heatmaps illustrate the Fluency Performance of MEMIT and StableKE on different source and edit languages on the Vicuna and Qwen models, comparing cross-language transfer outcomes across English (EN), German (DE), French (FR), Japanese (JA), and Chinese (ZH). A dominant pattern emerges where knowledge editi...
2404.05169_4
The figure compares training dynamics and distributional behavior for correctly labeled samples versus two types of mislabeled data, Mis-H and Mis-L, initially examining a setting with 50 percent Mis-H before introducing an additional 15 percent Mis-L. In the initial comparison, loss for correctly labeled data declines...
2404.05169_5
The figure presents a comparison of the correct sample AUC on the top and a visualization of the joint uncertainty-loss distribution on the bottom, evaluating four methods under 50% Mis-H + 15% Mis-L and 80% Mis-H + 15% Mis-L noise rates. In the upper panels, QMix maintains a high AUC of separating Correct throughout t...
2404.05884_10
The chart displays violin plots where each column is the distribution of the residuals on a line, specifically detailing the paired-point registration for calibrations on each line. Across the entire dataset, the mean error of all lines is 1.12 ± 0.38 mm, though this aggregate figure masks significant variation between...
2404.05884_9
The figure compares FLE distributions before and after pose correction across eight lines, alongside the magnitude of the applied correction expressed as a percentage. Pre-correction mean FLE values range from approximately 0.63 mm to 0.93 mm, with Line 5 exhibiting the highest mean (0.9285 mm) and Line 8 the lowest (0...
2404.12974_4
The charts illustrate H2 pipeline flows (top) and H2 storage (salt cavern) trajectory (bottom) for the low (left) and high (right) storage cost scenarios, revealing how seasonal demand variations are met by either significant storage expansion or more extensive pipeline infrastructure within Europe and from the exporti...
2404.13163_7
The heatmap visualizes the coverage trends for various fields of study (2-digit CIP titles) across five time periods from 2000–2003 to 2016–2017, revealing a broad, systemwide decline where many high-coverage fields fade from the mid-50% range to the low-40s or high-30s. Despite this general erosion, fields such as Eng...
2405.00269_6
This set of plots presents the experimental results of attitude trajectories, comparing the performance of AISMC, SMC, and PID controllers against a step reference trajectory over an 80-second duration. The top panel tracks the pitch angle θ, where it is observed that the AISMC successfully executed a rapid ascent from...
2405.00301_4
The provided heatmaps compare cross-dataset transfer performance for five models—Llama2-chat-7B, Llama2-chat-13B, Vicuna-7B, GPT2-Large, and GPT2-XL—where the y-axis corresponds to the training dataset and the x-axis corresponds to the test dataset. Each cell represents the performance, meaning diagonal cells sit at ze...
2405.00341_2
This plot combines feature importance with feature effects to illustrate which variables most influence the model’s predictions regarding students' help-seeking behaviors. Each dot represents an observation’s contribution, and as feature values increased, the color of the dot tended to become redder, while as feature v...
2405.00568_11
The heatmap presents an analysis of the activated frequency for each expert across 16 distinct Expert IDs under four experimental conditions, where the value denotes the frequency and 1.0 means the expert is activated in every SQL query. A clear separation exists between the sparse activation patterns observed when the...
2405.01035_2
The heatmap summarizes the pairwise average returns among LOQA, POLA, MFOS, and a Random benchmark, utilizing AC for Always Cooperate and AD for Always Defect as reference points. Greener cells indicate higher positive rewards, while redder cells indicate negative returns. In terms of cooperative potential, a fully coo...
2405.02437_4
The provided heatmaps display the AUC values for SuLloyd and FastLloyd on synthetic datasets, alongside a third panel illustrating the percentage of reduction in AUC of FastLloyd over that of SuLloyd. Across the performance heatmaps, the values increase strongly with the number of dimensions for both methods; however, ...
2405.03427_19
The charts display the latent vectors in the reduced t-SNE space across five different projection methods, revealing distinct clustering behaviors between training and test distributions. In the Parametric encoding, the latent vector of the second test set is located differently from other sets, appearing as tight, iso...
2405.03667_8
The figure presents a comparative analysis of the Area Under the Curve (AUC) values for three estimation approaches—the RIV method, a correlation-based method, and an RMSE-based method—across six distinct system types. The heatmaps quantify performance across a grid where sample size (n) ranges from 50 to 5000 and targ...
2405.03959_8
These six heatmaps illustrate the Equal Error Rate (EER) matrix under different degrees of relative rigid transformation. The genuine matches are divided into 16 subsets based on the value of relative rotation θ (rows) and translation T (columns), which are segmented evenly into Small (S), Medium (M), Large (L), and Hu...
2405.03987_3
The figure compares how the distribution of plogP evolves over time t across five methods, generally illustrating that the molecular property plogP distribution shifts following the latent flow path. While the Random method shows a broad, drifting distribution that gradually moves from very low plogp values, it ultimat...
2405.04517_4
This heatmap presents the results given by the scaled accuracy of different models at solving formal language tasks, of which some require state tracking, with values scaled between 0 (random) and 1 (perfect). The different tasks are grouped by the Chomsky hierarchy—Context Sensitive, Deterministic Context Free, and Re...
2405.05378_2
These heatmaps illustrate the frequency of different threat types across multiple language models, segmented by two demographic dimensions—caste and race—and further divided by four occupations: doctor, nurse, software developer, and teacher. The heatmaps are ordered based on the LLMs that generated the least to most C...
2405.05506_2
This chart compares demographic subgroup rank according to real-world prevalence, the Pile co-occurrence counts, and Llama3 logits for 15 diseases where real-world prevalence is available, utilizing a scale where 1 represents the most prevalent and 5 the least prevalent. The visualization highlights discrepancies and a...
2405.06061_5
The plot visualizes the progression of GPTCoach’s dialogue states by turn index for 16 participants, revealing a consistent narrative arc that moves from initial framing to action-oriented planning. The interaction begins with brief Onboarding (8.8%) and Program (5.2%) phases, where the chatbot spends no more than 1-2 ...
2405.06061_6
The chart maps internal motivational interviewing strategies across agent turns for 16 participants, with black tick marks indicating tool calls. Most of the conversation is spent asking questions, as most of GPTCoach’s responses are Questions, covering 65.7% of the entire conversation across all participants, which es...
2405.06979_4
The visualization of the confusion matrices across epochs 50, 250, and 450 illustrates that after applying GV-SM, the model can utilize the open-set data set with higher pseudo-labeling accuracy on the seen classes. This progression marks a clear shift from early-stage uncertainty toward stronger class separation, part...
2405.07001_6
The provided visualization utilizes heatmaps to demonstrate the percentage change in performance across different chart types and task types when chart elements are varied, while accompanying bar charts summarize the overall effect of these fifteen chart variants. Analysis of the chart types panel indicates that most c...
2405.07088_5
This SHAP summary plot illustrates the feature importance and impact on the model's Situation Awareness (SA) predictions, where the y-axis shows the importance ranking of the features, ranging from the most to the least significant, and the x-axis is determined by the SHAP value, where every point on the plot represent...
2405.07680_5
The visualization presents a comparative analysis of real and generated time-series data, showcasing the latent space representation on the left and the original series space on the right. The dataset comprises five real samples and four generated samples: the real set of data is represented by blue points, while a dis...
2405.07680_7
The figure presents the latent space representation of real samples (in blue) and generated samples (in green and in black), alongside a comparison of their original series space. The points in green represent generated samples that are similar to real samples in blue, while the points in black represent outliers in th...
2405.08183_6
The chart illustrates the test accuracy of three approaches—HeteroFL, ScaleFL, and DR-FL—in various non-IID scenarios with different numbers of devices, all within specified energy constraints. Across the six panels representing CIFAR10, Fashion-MNIST, and SVHN with an alpha of 0.1, accuracy generally rises with commun...
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio

ChartFI: Benchmarking Faithfulness and Insightfulness of Chart Descriptions from Multimodal Large Language Models

Chart descriptions are essential for accessibility, cross-modal retrieval, and assisting readers in extracting insights from complex visualizations. As multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly adopted for automated chart description generation, a critical question arises: how faithfully and insightfully do these models actually describe charts? Current benchmarks fall short on two fronts: existing datasets consist of simple, homogeneous charts paired with shallow, fact-enumerating descriptions; and prevailing metrics fail to capture the multi-faceted nature of description quality. To address these gaps, we present the Chart Faithfulness and Insightfulness Benchmark (ChartFI-Bench). We first summarize four dimensions that characterize high-quality chart descriptions: factual accuracy, salient feature emphasis, domain-informed guidance, and chart–text complementarity. Guided by these dimensions, we construct a high-quality benchmark comprising 896 chart--description pairs, which feature visually complex charts and semantically rich descriptions. Furthermore, we design four aligned evaluation metrics---Faithfulness, Coverage, Informativeness, and Acuity---to systematically assess the quality of descriptions across these dimensions. Experiments conducted on mainstream MLLMs demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework and reveal common weaknesses among existing models.

Overview of chart types in ChartFI-Bench

Dataset Statistics

  • Total: 896 chart images and 896 reference descriptions

Data Structure

Each record contains the following fields, in this order:

Field Type Description
id string Sample identifier derived from the original filename without its extension
image Image Chart image in its original resolution
description string Reference description of the chart's structural elements and key insights

Usage

Install the Hugging Face Datasets library:

pip install datasets

Load the benchmark:

from datasets import load_dataset

dataset = load_dataset("FenWang/ChartFI-Bench")
test_data = dataset["test"]

Paper

📄 Paper: ChartFI: Benchmarking Faithfulness and Insightfulness of Chart Descriptions from Multimodal Large Language Models

🌐 GitHub: ChartFI

Citation

If you use this dataset, please cite:

@article{wang2026chartfi,
  title={ChartFI: Benchmarking Faithfulness and Insightfulness of Chart Descriptions from Multimodal Large Language Models},
  author={Wang, Fen and Shao, Zekai and Kang, Qiman and Hu, Chunran and Zhang, Zhixuan and Xie, Lexu and Liu, Chao and Chen, Siming},
  journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23694},
  year={2026}
}

License

This dataset is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). You are free to share and adapt this dataset for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as you provide appropriate attribution by citing our paper.

Downloads last month
39

Paper for FenWang/ChartFI-Bench