Data visualization in the form of charts plays a pivotal role in data analysis, offering critical insights and aiding in informed decision-making. Automatic chart understanding has witnessed significant advancements with the rise of large foundation models in recent years. Foundation models, such as large language models (LLMs), have revolutionized various natural language processing (NLP) tasks and are increasingly being applied to chart understanding tasks. This survey paper provides a comprehensive overview of the recent developments, challenges, and future directions in chart understanding within the context of these foundation models. The paper begins by defining chart understanding, outlining problem formulations, and discussing fundamental building blocks crucial for studying chart understanding tasks. In the section on tasks and datasets, we explore various tasks within chart understanding and discuss their evaluation metrics and sources of both charts and textual inputs. Modeling strategies are then examined, encompassing both classification-based and generation-based approaches, along with tool augmentation techniques that enhance chart understanding performance. Furthermore, we discuss the state-of-the-art performance of each task and discuss how we can improve the performance. Challenges and future directions are addressed in a dedicated section, highlighting issues such as domain-specific charts, lack of efforts in evaluation, and agent-oriented settings. This survey paper serves to provide valuable insights and directions for future research in chart understanding leveraging large foundation models. The studies mentioned in this paper, along with emerging new research, will be continually updated at: https://github.com/khuangaf/Awesome-Chart-Understanding.
The increasing demand for personalized interactions with large language models (LLMs) calls for the development of methodologies capable of accurately and efficiently identifying user opinions and preferences. Retrieval augmentation emerges as an effective strategy, as it can accommodate a vast number of users without the costs from fine-tuning. Existing research, however, has largely focused on enhancing the retrieval stage and devoted limited exploration toward optimizing the representation of the database, a crucial aspect for tasks such as personalization. In this work, we examine the problem from a novel angle, focusing on how data can be better represented for more efficient retrieval in the context of LLM customization. To tackle this challenge, we introduce Persona-DB, a simple yet effective framework consisting of a hierarchical construction process to improve generalization across task contexts and collaborative refinement to effectively bridge knowledge gaps among users. In the task of response forecasting, Persona-DB demonstrates superior efficiency in maintaining accuracy with a significantly reduced retrieval size, a critical advantage in scenarios with extensive histories or limited context windows. Our experiments also indicate a marked improvement of over 15% under cold-start scenarios, when users have extremely sparse data. Furthermore, our analysis reveals the increasing importance of collaborative knowledge as the retrieval capacity expands.
Fact-checking research has extensively explored verification but less so the generation of natural-language explanations, crucial for user trust. While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in text generation, their capability for producing faithful explanations in fact-checking remains underexamined. Our study investigates LLMs' ability to generate such explanations, finding that zero-shot prompts often result in unfaithfulness. To address these challenges, we propose the Multi-Agent Debate Refinement (MADR) framework, leveraging multiple LLMs as agents with diverse roles in an iterative refining process aimed at enhancing faithfulness in generated explanations. MADR ensures that the final explanation undergoes rigorous validation, significantly reducing the likelihood of unfaithful elements and aligning closely with the provided evidence. Experimental results demonstrate that MADR significantly improves the faithfulness of LLM-generated explanations to the evidence, advancing the credibility and trustworthiness of these explanations.
Recent advancements in large vision-language models (LVLMs) have led to significant progress in generating natural language descriptions for visual content and thus enhancing various applications. One issue with these powerful models is that they sometimes produce texts that are factually inconsistent with the visual input. While there has been some effort to mitigate such inconsistencies in natural image captioning, the factuality of generated captions for structured document images, such as charts, has not received as much scrutiny, posing a potential threat to information reliability in critical applications. This work delves into the factuality aspect by introducing a comprehensive typology of factual errors in generated chart captions. A large-scale human annotation effort provides insight into the error patterns and frequencies in captions crafted by various chart captioning models, ultimately forming the foundation of a novel dataset, CHOCOLATE. Our analysis reveals that even state-of-the-art models, including GPT-4V, frequently produce captions laced with factual inaccuracies. In response to this challenge, we establish the new task of Chart Caption Factual Error Correction and introduce CHARTVE, a model for visual entailment that outperforms proprietary and open-source LVLMs in evaluating factual consistency. Furthermore, we propose C2TFEC, an interpretable two-stage framework that excels at correcting factual errors. This work inaugurates a new domain in factual error correction for chart captions, presenting a novel evaluation mechanism, and demonstrating an effective approach to ensuring the factuality of generated chart captions.
Argument generation is a challenging task in natural language processing, which requires rigorous reasoning and proper content organization. Inspired by recent chain-of-thought prompting that breaks down a complex task into intermediate steps, we propose Americano, a novel framework with agent interaction for argument generation. Our approach decomposes the generation process into sequential actions grounded on argumentation theory, which first executes actions sequentially to generate argumentative discourse components, and then produces a final argument conditioned on the components. To further mimic the human writing process and improve the left-to-right generation paradigm of current autoregressive language models, we introduce an argument refinement module which automatically evaluates and refines argument drafts based on feedback received. We evaluate our framework on the task of counterargument generation using a subset of Reddit/CMV dataset. The results show that our method outperforms both end-to-end and chain-of-thought prompting methods and can generate more coherent and persuasive arguments with diverse and rich contents.
Automatic response forecasting for news media plays a crucial role in enabling content producers to efficiently predict the impact of news releases and prevent unexpected negative outcomes such as social conflict and moral injury. To effectively forecast responses, it is essential to develop measures that leverage the social dynamics and contextual information surrounding individuals, especially in cases where explicit profiles or historical actions of the users are limited (referred to as lurkers). As shown in a previous study, 97% of all tweets are produced by only the most active 25% of users. However, existing approaches have limited exploration of how to best process and utilize these important features. To address this gap, we propose a novel framework, named SocialSense, that leverages a large language model to induce a belief-centered graph on top of an existent social network, along with graph-based propagation to capture social dynamics. We hypothesize that the induced graph that bridges the gap between distant users who share similar beliefs allows the model to effectively capture the response patterns. Our method surpasses existing state-of-the-art in experimental evaluations for both zero-shot and supervised settings, demonstrating its effectiveness in response forecasting. Moreover, the analysis reveals the framework's capability to effectively handle unseen user and lurker scenarios, further highlighting its robustness and practical applicability.
Predicting how a user responds to news events enables important applications such as allowing intelligent agents or content producers to estimate the effect on different communities and revise unreleased messages to prevent unexpected bad outcomes such as social conflict and moral injury. We present a new task, Response Forecasting on Personas for News Media, to estimate the response a persona (characterizing an individual or a group) might have upon seeing a news message. Compared to the previous efforts which only predict generic comments to news, the proposed task not only introduces personalization in the modeling but also predicts the sentiment polarity and intensity of each response. This enables more accurate and comprehensive inference on the mental state of the persona. Meanwhile, the generated sentiment dimensions make the evaluation and application more reliable. We create the first benchmark dataset, which consists of 13,357 responses to 3,847 news headlines from Twitter. We further evaluate the SOTA neural language models with our dataset. The empirical results suggest that the included persona attributes are helpful for the performance of all response dimensions. Our analysis shows that the best-performing models are capable of predicting responses that are consistent with the personas, and as a byproduct, the task formulation also enables many interesting applications in the analysis of social network groups and their opinions, such as the discovery of extreme opinion groups.
Opinions in the scientific domain can be divergent, leading to controversy or consensus among reviewers. However, current opinion summarization datasets mostly focus on product review domains, which do not account for this variability under the assumption that the input opinions are non-controversial. To address this gap, we propose the task of scientific opinion summarization, where research paper reviews are synthesized into meta-reviews. To facilitate this task, we introduce a new ORSUM dataset covering 10,989 paper meta-reviews and 40,903 paper reviews from 39 conferences. Furthermore, we propose the Checklist-guided Iterative Introspection (CGI$^2$) approach, which breaks down the task into several stages and iteratively refines the summary under the guidance of questions from a checklist. We conclude that (1) human-written summaries are not always reliable since many do not follow the guideline, and (2) the combination of task decomposition and iterative self-refinement shows promising discussion involvement ability and can be applied to other complex text generation using black-box LLM.
Existing factual consistency evaluation approaches for text summarization provide binary predictions and limited insights into the weakness of summarization systems. Therefore, we propose the task of fine-grained inconsistency detection, the goal of which is to predict the fine-grained types of factual errors in a summary. Motivated by how humans inspect factual inconsistency in summaries, we propose an interpretable fine-grained inconsistency detection model, FineGrainFact, which explicitly represents the facts in the documents and summaries with semantic frames extracted by semantic role labeling, and highlights the related semantic frames to predict inconsistency. The highlighted semantic frames help verify predicted error types and correct inconsistent summaries. Experiment results demonstrate that our model outperforms strong baselines and provides evidence to support or refute the summary.
Considerable advancements have been made to tackle the misrepresentation of information derived from reference articles in the domains of fact-checking and faithful summarization. However, an unaddressed aspect remains - the identification of social media posts that manipulate information within associated news articles. This task presents a significant challenge, primarily due to the prevalence of personal opinions in such posts. We present a novel task, identifying manipulation of news on social media, which aims to detect manipulation in social media posts and identify manipulated or inserted information. To study this task, we have proposed a data collection schema and curated a dataset called ManiTweet, consisting of 3.6K pairs of tweets and corresponding articles. Our analysis demonstrates that this task is highly challenging, with large language models (LLMs) yielding unsatisfactory performance. Additionally, we have developed a simple yet effective basic model that outperforms LLMs significantly on the ManiTweet dataset. Finally, we have conducted an exploratory analysis of human-written tweets, unveiling intriguing connections between manipulation and the domain and factuality of news articles, as well as revealing that manipulated sentences are more likely to encapsulate the main story or consequences of a news outlet.