Disentangling Visual and Factual Correctness in LVLMs' Visualization Literacy

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) show strong visualization interpretation, yet it is unclear whether their responses reflect genuine reasoning over visual evidence or factual priors learned during training. Current evaluations mix these two sources, obscuring when correct visual interpretation is overridden by memorized facts. We present a framework that isolates visual correctness from factual correctness, revealing validity limitations in existing visualization literacy assessments. Across three experiments with 15 state-of-the-art LVLMs: (1) several models reach human-level performance on standard tests (VLAT), but this may reflect factual recall rather than visual understanding, while randomized-data tests (reVLAT) underestimate literacy when correct visual interpretation is superseded by factual priors. (2) Using our Counterfactual Visualization Literacy Assessment Test (CVLAT) with capability-normalized arbitration metrics, we classify models by the sign of their visual-factual reliance index (VFRI), revealing a visualization-oriented majority and a factual knowledge-oriented minority, though several near-zero cases warrant caution. A human baseline (N=30) on the same counterfactual items confirms that people overwhelmingly follow the chart under conflict, providing a human reference point. (3) Prompt-based intervention can shift prioritization, but its effectiveness is highly model-dependent and direction-asymmetric, and high chart-reading capability does not predict prompt-controllability. Overall, high visualization accuracy is not sufficient evidence of faithful visual reasoning: reliable integration into visual analytics requires evaluating not only visualization literacy but also how models arbitrate between visual evidence and factual priors when the two diverge. Benchmark and code: https://github.com/JaeyoungKim-HCIL/CVLAT

MedOrchestra: A Hybrid Cloud-Local LLM Approach for Clinical Data Interpretation

Deploying large language models (LLMs) in clinical settings faces critical trade-offs: cloud LLMs, with their extensive parameters and superior performance, pose risks to sensitive clinical data privacy, while local LLMs preserve privacy but often fail at complex clinical interpretation tasks. We propose MedOrchestra, a hybrid framework where a cloud LLM decomposes complex clinical tasks into manageable subtasks and prompt generation, while a local LLM executes these subtasks in a privacy-preserving manner. Without accessing clinical data, the cloud LLM generates and validates subtask prompts using clinical guidelines and synthetic test cases. The local LLM executes subtasks locally and synthesizes outputs generated by the cloud LLM. We evaluate MedOrchestra on pancreatic cancer staging using 100 radiology reports under NCCN guidelines. On free-text reports, MedOrchestra achieves 70.21% accuracy, outperforming local model baselines (without guideline: 48.94%, with guideline: 56.59%) and board-certified clinicians (gastroenterologists: 59.57%, surgeons: 65.96%, radiologists: 55.32%). On structured reports, MedOrchestra reaches 85.42% accuracy, showing clear superiority across all settings.

Interactive Visualization for Exploring Information Fragments in Software Repositories

Software developers explore and inspect software repository data to obtain detailed information archived in the development history. However, developers who are not acquainted with the development context suffer from delving into the repositories with a handful of information; they have difficulty discovering and expanding information fragments considering the topological and sequential multi-dimensional structure of repositories. We introduce ExIF, an interactive visualization for exploring information fragments in software repositories. ExIF helps users discover new information fragments within clusters or topological neighbors and identify revisions incorporating user-collected fragments.