A Multimodal Reasoning Typology for Grounding Chart-Image Coherence in Science Communication
2026-07-06 • Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
AI summaryⓘ
The authors study how charts, images, and captions work together in scientific papers, especially how hard it is to understand their combined message. They create a system with five levels (R1 to R5) that describe different ways these elements relate and the thinking needed to connect them. Using examples from brain injury research, they show this system helps spot when readers agree or disagree about the meaning, depending on background knowledge. Their work aims to help make scientific figures clearer for both experts and non-experts.
multimodal communicationchart-image coherencecaptionscientific visualizationreasoning gapsgrounding theoryvision-language modelstraumatic brain injuryinterpretationdomain expertise
Authors
Avina Nakarmi, Sohom Sen, Xun Song, Sreyashi Samaddar, Aritra Dasgupta
Abstract
Charts and images appear together throughout scientific publications, yet most computational work does not characterize their coherence. We argue that a chart, its accompanying image, and the caption that links them form a multimodal unit, and that the inferential work required to read it varies systematically. To capture this variation, we develop a typology of reasoning gaps, R1 through R5, that characterizes how chart, image, and text jointly convey a scientific claim, and the interpretive work this demands of the reader. Some pairs restate the same data, while in other pairs, charts are used to quantify a structure the image localizes, project image content onto an external variable, audit an image-based claim, or jointly construct a frame that neither panel can establish alone. The typology is anchored in the grounding theory of communication and was derived bottom-up, with a neuroscience expert, from a corpus of 79 traumatic brain injury papers and 32 chart-image pairs. Crucially, the levels provide a systematic mechanism for identifying where grounding succeeds or breaks down, rather than leaving it to subjective inference. We show this in a study in which a domain expert and three non-experts judge vision-language model (VLM) descriptions of 25 pairs: the level predicts where their judgments align and where they diverge, isolating the points at which contextual knowledge, not the figure, carries coherence. This typology thus offers figure designers a systematic way to balance text against chart-image pairs, bridging the expert-to-non-expert divide in reading a scientific takeaway.