Vision-language models (VLMs) are achieving increasingly strong performance on multimodal tasks. However, reasoning capabilities remain limited particularly for smaller VLMs, while those of large-language models (LLMs) have seen numerous improvements. We pro-pose a technique to transfer capabilities from LLMs to VLMs. On the recently introduced ChartQA, our method obtains state-of-the-artperformance when applied on the PaLI3-5B VLM by Chen et al. (2023c), while also enabling much better performance on PlotQA and FigureQA.We first improve the chart representation by continuing the pre-training stage using an improved version of the chart-to-table translation task by Liu et al. (2023a). We then propose constructing a 20x larger dataset than the original training set. To improve general reasoning capabilities and improve numerical operations, we synthesize reasoning traces using the table representation of charts. Lastly, our model is fine-tuned using the multitask loss introduced by Hsieh et al. (2023).Our variant ChartPaLI-5B outperforms even 10x larger models such as PaLIX-55B without using an upstream OCR system, while keeping inference time constant compared to the PaLI3-5B baseline. When rationales are further refined with a simple program-of-thought prompt (Chen et al., 2023a), our model outperforms the recently introduced Gemini Ultra and GPT-4V.

Despite recent advances, evaluating how well large language models (LLMs) follow user instructions remains an open problem. While evaluation methods of language models have seen a rise in prompt-based approaches, limited work on the correctness of these methods has been conducted. In this work, we perform a meta-evaluation of a variety of metrics to quantify how accurately they measure the instruction-following abilities of LLMs. Our investigation is performed on grounded query-based summarization by collecting a new short-form, real-world dataset riSum, containing 300 document-instruction pairs with 3 answers each. All 900 answers are rated by 3 human annotators. Using riSum, we analyze the agreement between evaluation methods and human judgment. Finally, we propose new LLM-based reference-free evaluation methods that improve upon established baselines and perform on par with costly reference-based metrics that require high-quality summaries.

The task of summarisation is notoriously difficult to evaluate, with agreement even between expert raters unlikely to be perfect. One technique for summary evaluation relies on collecting comparison data by presenting annotators with generated summaries and tasking them with selecting the best one. This paradigm is currently being exploited in reinforcement learning using human feedback, whereby a reward function is trained using pairwise choice data. Comparisons are an easier way to elicit human feedback for summarisation, however, such decisions can be bottle necked by the usability of the annotator interface. In this paper, we present the results of a pilot study exploring how the user interface impacts annotator agreement when judging summary quality.