Evaluation dossier
CharXiv
Can models interpret research charts?
CROSS-REPORT MONITORING
PUBLISHED EVIDENCE
CharXiv · Verbalized evaluation awareness
Published measurements across source reports. Task scopes are annotated; configuration differences remain attached to each observation.
4 observations · 2 dated
2 observations lack a verified model release date. They remain in Data and Systems.
Select a point or table row to inspect its conditions and provenance.
4 observations
| System / model | Result | Condition status | Task / conditions | Evaluator / report | Dates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33.7%Verbalized evaluation awareness | Incomplete | CharXiv chart withheldCharXiv grounding— | Neo ResearchEvaluating Kimi K3 for Misalignment Risks | Release 2026-07-16Report 2026-09-11 | |
| 19.3%Verbalized evaluation awareness | Incomplete | CharXiv chart withheldCharXiv grounding— | Neo ResearchEvaluating Kimi K3 for Misalignment Risks | Release —Report 2026-09-11 | |
| 36.5%Verbalized evaluation awareness | Incomplete | CharXiv chart withheldCharXiv no grounding— | Neo ResearchEvaluating Kimi K3 for Misalignment Risks | Release 2026-07-16Report 2026-09-11 | |
| 10.6%Verbalized evaluation awareness | Incomplete | CharXiv chart withheldCharXiv no grounding— | Neo ResearchEvaluating Kimi K3 for Misalignment Risks | Release —Report 2026-09-11 |
Compare results within the stated task and configuration.
METR Time Horizon 1.1: the source is no longer actively updated (last update: 8 September 2026). Estimates above 16 hours exceed its reliable measurement range.
Protocol, configurations and original evidence →Task and measurement
Benchmark protocol profile
- Task / subject
- The model or agent in the stated task configuration.
- Measurement target
- Tests understanding and reasoning over charts. Neo’s withheld-image adaptation measures attempts without the required input.
- Scoring / outcome
- Attempted answer with image withheld · Tests understanding and reasoning over charts. Neo’s withheld-image adaptation measures attempts without the required input.
- Interpretation boundary
- The original visual capability benchmark and the missing-image behavioral test measure different constructs.
Tests understanding and reasoning over charts. Neo’s withheld-image adaptation measures attempts without the required input.
A reported evaluation
The source evaluates Kimi K3 · CharXiv with images withheld.
Reported measurement: Attempted answer with image withheld · 88.7%.
Tests understanding and reasoning over charts. Neo’s withheld-image adaptation measures attempts without the required input. Withheld-image CharXiv questions; attempts include correct and incorrect guesses.
Source-reported measurements in §1.1.1; Figure 1. Transcription is not independent experimental replication.
Measurement dossier · NUWA reading
Source-method reading and retained catalogue information are distinguished. Publication does not establish independent evidence or bilingual editorial review.
- Measurement construct
- How well do multimodal models understand naturally occurring scientific charts?
- Task population
- 2,323 expert-curated arXiv charts support over 10,000 descriptive/reasoning questions, split into 1,000 validation charts and a held-answer test set.
- Scoring and failure modes
- Separate descriptive/reasoning accuracy; validation and held-answer test populations differ.
- System conditions
- 2,323 charts; 1,000 validation charts and remainder for test.
- Statistical meaning
- Source-reported result statements; this does not establish trial counts, denominators or an estimator: The paper reports GPT-4o reasoning accuracy of 47.1%. Human reasoning/descriptive accuracy was 80.5%/92.1%, and the authors flag grading or participant error as possible contributors.
- Validity and interpretation
- Human errors and automated grading uncertainty limit ceiling claims; chart curation is expensive and scientific-paper coverage is selective.
- Appropriate research use
- Model recommendation: distinguish descriptive from reasoning questions and validation from held-out test results.
- CharXiv · AbstractSelected original resource https://arxiv.org/html/2406.18521; sha256:5d25e15e0ce1e63c2a5dca2d34c10b62b82cb45702f4071b8e870bd903cc5d30; archived source capture; exact capture time not independently established
- CharXiv · §3 CharXiv: A Real-World and Challenging Chart Understanding BenchmarkSelected original resource https://arxiv.org/html/2406.18521; sha256:5d25e15e0ce1e63c2a5dca2d34c10b62b82cb45702f4071b8e870bd903cc5d30; archived source capture; exact capture time not independently established
- CharXiv · §4.2 Experimental ResultsSelected original resource https://arxiv.org/html/2406.18521; sha256:5d25e15e0ce1e63c2a5dca2d34c10b62b82cb45702f4071b8e870bd903cc5d30; archived source capture; exact capture time not independently established
- CharXiv · §5 Conclusion: LimitationsSelected original resource https://arxiv.org/html/2406.18521; sha256:5d25e15e0ce1e63c2a5dca2d34c10b62b82cb45702f4071b8e870bd903cc5d30; archived source capture; exact capture time not independently established
Evidence across reports
The same benchmark name can cover different tasks, scoring rules and system configurations. Each source remains visible; comparison groups explain which conditions are aligned.
Neo Research
Evaluating Kimi K3 for Misalignment Risks →
Actual evaluators: Neo Research
12 result records · 5 reported system names
Protocols and comparison decisions (5)
Original source charts and materials
CharXiv with images withheld
Original evaluator results · source order
Select systems
Attempted answer with image withheld
0–100%Tests understanding and reasoning over charts. Neo’s withheld-image adaptation measures attempts without the required input.
The original visual capability benchmark and the missing-image behavioral test measure different constructs. Report dates and original executor are shown with this assessment.
Evaluation conditions and system configurations
- Kimi K3
- Withheld-image CharXiv questions; attempts include correct and incorrect guesses. · CharXiv with images withheld
- modelVersion: not specified · harness: not specified · tools: not specified · budget: not specified
- GPT-5.6 Terra
- Withheld-image CharXiv questions; attempts include correct and incorrect guesses. · CharXiv with images withheld
- modelVersion: not specified · harness: not specified · tools: not specified · budget: not specified
- Claude Sonnet 5
- Withheld-image CharXiv questions; attempts include correct and incorrect guesses. · CharXiv with images withheld
- modelVersion: not specified · harness: not specified · tools: not specified · budget: not specified
- DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
- Withheld-image CharXiv questions; attempts include correct and incorrect guesses. · CharXiv with images withheld
- modelVersion: not specified · harness: not specified · tools: not specified · budget: not specified
| System / configuration | Attempted answer with image withheld | Publication / verification |
|---|---|---|
| 88.7% | Published2026-09-11 | |
| 21.3% | Published2026-09-11 | |
| 16.3% | Published2026-09-11 | |
| 48.2% | Published2026-09-11 |
Assessment provenance
Evaluating Kimi K3 for Misalignment Risks → · External report
Related research questions
References
- [1] Kimi Code — What’s New ; Kimi K3 · July 16, 2026
- [2] kimi-k3 developer model card ; Model Summary: Total Parameters; Activated Parameters
- [3] GPT-5.6 official general availability ; July 9, 2026: general availability following limited trusted-partner preview; Parameter counts not disclosed in reviewed launch article
- [4] Introducing Claude Sonnet 5 — Anthropic ; Publication date and availability section; Official launch article; parameter counts not disclosed
- [5] Evaluating Kimi K3 for Misalignment Risks. 2026-09-11. September 2026 ; §1.1.1; Figure 1; §1.1.1 Figure 1 p.8; §1.1.3 Table 1 p.11
- [6] CharXiv