# Chartography: A Benchmark for Professional Chart Understanding

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.10677 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.10677/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 15 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [ChartQA: A Benchmark for Question Answering about Charts with Visual and Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.10244/) (2022)
- [DVQA: Understanding Data Visualizations via Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.08163/) (2018)
- [PlotQA: Reasoning over Scientific Plots](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.00997/) (2019)
- [FigureQA: An Annotated Figure Dataset for Visual Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.07300/) (2017)
- [CharXiv: Charting Gaps in Realistic Chart Understanding in Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18521/) (2024)
- [DePlot: One-shot visual language reasoning by plot-to-table translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10505/) (2022)
- [MatCha: Enhancing Visual Language Pretraining with Math Reasoning and Chart Derendering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09662/) (2022)
- [ChartBench: A Benchmark for Complex Visual Reasoning in Charts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.15915/) (2023)
- [ChartQAPro: A More Diverse and Challenging Benchmark for Chart Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05506/) (2025)
- [ChartMuseum: Testing Visual Reasoning Capabilities of Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13444/) (2025)
- [ParseBench: A Document Parsing Benchmark for AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.08538/) (2026)
- [Riemann-Bench: A Benchmark for Moonshot Mathematics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.06802/) (2026)
- [GDP.pdf: Benchmarking Grounded Multimodal Reasoning over Professional PDF Documents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.11192/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Professionals across medicine, engineering, finance, manufacturing, and the sciences often make consequential decisions from charts. Existing chart benchmarks do not sufficiently measure this ability: they are dominated by bar, line, and pie formats, rely on shorter reasoning chains, and are nearing saturation, with frontier models already scoring 80-90%. We introduce Chartography, a benchmark of 100 tasks that pair charts drawn from professional practice, in domain-specific formats that standard chart benchmarks rarely include, with questions written by professionals who read these charts for a living and independently verified by three additional experts. In an evaluation of 30 frontier-model configurations (20 scored trials per task), the best configuration reaches only 45.0% mean pass@1; the remainder span 9.0-39.5%. Failures concentrate in visual perception: models can miss nuanced features, misread values along sparsely labeled axes, mishandle projected 3D geometry, and violate domain conventions encoded in the chart. We release all tasks, images, provenance metadata, and evaluation code.