Abstract
Understanding and operating with scientific charts is a standard approach in data analysis, and while humans are good at interpreting such charts, open vision-language models (VLMs) are known to perform poorly when it comes to question answering based on such data types. Motivated by an initial observation that many of their errors are due to inexact answering, we raise the following natural question: how much accuracy can we recover without changing the model at all? In this paper, we study this question by searching over inference programs and the code around a "frozen" version of the model. Using ideas from autonomous evolution (famously used in AlphaEvolve), we first start from a baseline inference program, and in each round we show an LLM judge the code together with a few failures on training questions, and ask for an improving evolutionary move. As usual in autonomous evolution approaches, the candidate programs are kept in a small pool ranked by training accuracy, and the next edit is performed on top-scorers from this pool. We run this approach on three VLMs and four popular benchmarks on scientific charts, and we measure the fraction of descriptive questions whose answer exactly matches the ground truth. The accuracy improves in all experimental settings. On average, it rises from 16.6% with the starting program to 41.3% with the evolved one, and the largest single increase is 55.2 percentage points. As a side benefit, our evolved program is 3.8x faster than the starting program, because short answers are easier to grade and faster to generate. Our results demonstrate that a large part of the observed errors arise due to the inference pipeline, and that optimizing it can improve the "frozen" VLM without the need to retrain it.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.35077
