Data visualizations are powerful tools for communicating patterns in quantitative data. Yet understanding any data visualization is no small feat -- succeeding requires jointly making sense of visual, numerical, and linguistic inputs arranged in a conventionalized format one has previously learned to parse. Recently developed vision-language models are, in principle, promising candidates for developing computational models of these cognitive operations. However, it is currently unclear to what degree these models emulate human behavior on tasks that involve reasoning about data visualizations. This gap reflects limitations in prior work that has evaluated data visualization understanding in artificial systems using measures that differ from those typically used to assess these abilities in humans. Here we evaluated eight vision-language models on six data visualization literacy assessments designed for humans and compared model responses to those of human participants. We found that these models performed worse than human participants on average, and this performance gap persisted even when using relatively lenient criteria to assess model performance. Moreover, while relative performance across items was somewhat correlated between models and humans, all models produced patterns of errors that were reliably distinct from those produced by human participants. Taken together, these findings suggest significant opportunities for further development of artificial systems that might serve as useful models of how humans reason about data visualizations. All code and data needed to reproduce these results are available at: https://osf.io/e25mu/?view_only=399daff5a14d4b16b09473cf19043f18.

Recent developments in multimodal large language models (MLLM) have equipped language models to reason about vision and language jointly. This permits MLLMs to both perceive and answer questions about data visualization across a variety of designs and tasks. Applying MLLMs to a broad range of visualization tasks requires us to properly evaluate their capabilities, and the most common way to conduct evaluation is through measuring a model's visualization reasoning capability, analogous to how we would evaluate human understanding of visualizations (e.g., visualization literacy). However, we found that in the context of visualization question answering (VisQA), how an MLLM perceives and reasons about visualizations can be fundamentally different from how humans approach the same problem. During the evaluation, even without visualization, the model could correctly answer a substantial portion of the visualization test questions, regardless of whether any selection options were provided. We hypothesize that the vast amount of knowledge encoded in the language model permits factual recall that supersedes the need to seek information from the visual signal. It raises concerns that the current VisQA evaluation may not fully capture the models' visualization reasoning capabilities. To address this, we propose a comprehensive sanity check framework that integrates a rule-based decision tree and a sanity check table to disentangle the effects of "seeing" (visual processing) and "recall" (reliance on prior knowledge). This validates VisQA datasets for evaluation, highlighting where models are truly "seeing", positively or negatively affected by the factual recall, or relying on inductive biases for question answering. Our study underscores the need for careful consideration in designing future visualization understanding studies when utilizing MLLMs.

The recent introduction of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) combine the inherent power of large language models (LLMs) with the renewed capabilities to reason about the multimodal context. The potential usage scenarios for MLLMs significantly outpace their text-only counterparts. Many recent works in visualization have demonstrated MLLMs' capability to understand and interpret visualization results and explain the content of the visualization to users in natural language. In the machine learning community, the general vision capabilities of MLLMs have been evaluated and tested through various visual understanding benchmarks. However, the ability of MLLMs to accomplish specific visualization tasks based on visual perception has not been properly explored and evaluated, particularly, from a visualization-centric perspective. In this work, we aim to fill the gap by utilizing the concept of visualization literacy to evaluate MLLMs. We assess MLLMs' performance over two popular visualization literacy evaluation datasets (VLAT and mini-VLAT). Under the framework of visualization literacy, we develop a general setup to compare different multimodal large language models (e.g., GPT4-o, Claude 3 Opus, Gemini 1.5 Pro) as well as against existing human baselines. Our study demonstrates MLLMs' competitive performance in visualization literacy, where they outperform humans in certain tasks such as identifying correlations, clusters, and hierarchical structures.