Recent advances in multimodal models show remarkable performance in real-world benchmarks for chart and figure understanding like ChartQA that involve interpreting trends, comparing data points, and extracting insights from visuals.In this paper, we investigate the extent to which these models truly comprehend the underlying information in charts by posing direct, elementary questions about simple features such as axes ranges and values to examine their fundamental visual understanding abilities in the context of charts.Our questions are applied to two sets of figures: synthetic and real-world.The empirical evaluation of 5 popular multimodal models on our dataset reveals shortfalls in understanding charts and figures, contrary to what their performance on complex benchmarks might suggest.For instance, Gemini Pro Vision only achieves 57.9% accuracy on our elementary set of questions on real-world plots, while other popular multimodal models showed similar or less performance.This work highlights an important limitation of current multimodal models, and cautions against overly optimistic interpretations of their abilities based on results of canonical evaluations.

To process novel sentences, language models (LMs) must generalize compositionally—combine familiar elements in new ways. What aspects of a model’s structure promote compositional generalization? Focusing on transformers, we test the hypothesis, motivated by theoretical and empirical work, that deeper transformers generalize more compositionally. Simply adding layers increases the total number of parameters; to address this confound between depth and size, we construct three classes of models which trade off depth for width such that the total number of parameters is kept constant (41M, 134M and 374M parameters). We pretrain all models as LMs and fine-tune them on tasks that test for compositional generalization. We report three main conclusions: (1) after fine-tuning, deeper models generalize more compositionally than shallower models do, but the benefit of additional layers diminishes rapidly; (2) within each family, deeper models show better language modeling performance, but returns are similarly diminishing; (3) the benefits of depth for compositional generalization cannot be attributed solely to better performance on language modeling. Because model latency is approximately linear in the number of layers, these results lead us to the recommendation that, with a given total parameter budget, transformers can be made shallower than is typical without sacrificing performance.

A central component of rational behavior is logical inference: the process of determining which conclusions follow from a set of premises. Psychologists have documented several ways in which humans’ inferences deviate from the rules of logic. Do language models, which are trained on text generated by humans, replicate such human biases, or are they able to overcome them? Focusing on the case of syllogisms—inferences from two simple premises—we show that, within the PaLM 2 family of transformer language models, larger models are more logical than smaller ones, and also more logical than humans. At the same time, even the largest models make systematic errors, some of which mirror human reasoning biases: they show sensitivity to the (irrelevant) ordering of the variables in the syllogism, and draw confident but incorrect inferences from particular syllogisms (syllogistic fallacies). Overall, we find that language models often mimic the human biases included in their training data, but are able to overcome them in some cases.

Language Models (LMs) can perform new tasks by adapting to a few in-context examples. For humans, explanations that connect examples to task principles can improve learning. We therefore investigate whether explanations of few-shot examples can help LMs. We annotate questions from 40 challenging tasks with answer explanations, and various matched control explanations. We evaluate how different types of explanations, instructions, and controls affect zero- and few-shot performance. We analyze these results using statistical multilevel modeling techniques that account for the nested dependencies among conditions, tasks, prompts, and models. We find that explanations can improve performance—even without tuning. Furthermore, explanations hand-tuned for performance on a small validation set offer substantially larger benefits, and building a prompt by selecting examples and explanations together substantially improves performance over selecting examples alone. Finally, even untuned explanations outperform carefully matched controls, suggesting that the benefits are due to the link between an example and its explanation, rather than lower-level features. However, only large models benefit. In summary, explanations can support the in-context learning of large LMs on challenging tasks.