Visual Sketchpad: Sketching as a Visual Chain of Thought for Multimodal Language Models

Humans draw to facilitate reasoning: we draw auxiliary lines when solving geometry problems; we mark and circle when reasoning on maps; we use sketches to amplify our ideas and relieve our limited-capacity working memory. However, such actions are missing in current multimodal language models (LMs). Current chain-of-thought and tool-use paradigms only use text as intermediate reasoning steps. In this work, we introduce Sketchpad, a framework that gives multimodal LMs a visual sketchpad and tools to draw on the sketchpad. The LM conducts planning and reasoning according to the visual artifacts it has drawn. Different from prior work, which uses text-to-image models to enable LMs to draw, Sketchpad enables LMs to draw with lines, boxes, marks, etc., which is closer to human sketching and better facilitates reasoning. Sketchpad can also use specialist vision models during the sketching process (e.g., draw bounding boxes with object detection models, draw masks with segmentation models), to further enhance visual perception and reasoning. We experiment with a wide range of math tasks (including geometry, functions, graphs, and chess) and complex visual reasoning tasks. Sketchpad substantially improves performance on all tasks over strong base models with no sketching, yielding an average gain of 12.7% on math tasks, and 8.6% on vision tasks. GPT-4o with Sketchpad sets a new state of the art on all tasks, including V*Bench (80.3%), BLINK spatial reasoning (83.9%), and visual correspondence (80.8%). All codes and data are in https://visualsketchpad.github.io/.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer jSat5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-09

Summary

This paper proposes visual sketchpad that aims to aid the existing multimodal language models (MLMs). Specifically, the visual sketchpad serves as a task-specific prompting technique that calls tools to draw sketches for the input problem as additional context to help solve the problem. This prompt technique is like a chain of thought but in a visual way, and the tools include code generation as image drawer as well as vision specialist models. Benchmarks show that the proposed visual sketchpad frameworks can significantly boost the performance of base models (e.g., GPT-4o and LLAVA-Next) on multiple math and vision tasks.

Strengths

1. This paper proposes an interesting and effective framework (i.e., visual sketchpad) to assist the MLMs through chain of thought. Compared with text-only chain-of-thought prompts with external tools, the proposed visual sketchpad further expands the thought generation in a visual fashion, which is particularly suitable for certain scenarios like the geometry-based reasoning for math problems. 2. The authors design multiple tools that enables visual sketchpad for various tasks: code generation to draw diagram/figure for math problems, and visual specialists (including depth generation / sliding window / zoom-in / crop / overlay images) for visual reasoning tasks. The rich tools provide multiple combinations to analyze the input problem and generate suitable sketches for problem solving. 3. The proposed visual sketchpad does not need any training or finetuning, making it easy to integrate with existing MLMs. In the evalution, the GPT-4o / GPT-4 Turbo w/ visual sketchpad got significant improvement on geometry, graph, math, and game problems. In addition, the sketchpad also brings decent performance gain and achieves SOTA on several complex visual reasoning tasks. 4. The paper is well written and easy to comprehend.

Weaknesses

1. As the proposed visual sketchpad attempts to generate code to draw the images. I wonder if it is possible that sometimes code has issues and cannot generate images properly. If so, how to deal with such issues. 2. For the geometry problem, can the visual sketchpad support geometry image (e.g., in jpg) as input? If so, how does the visual sketchpad overlay lines on the image? 3. Currently, the visual sketchpad is a set of different prompts that tackle specific problems with a corresponding set of tools. Can the visual sketchpad be a single prompt to call tools and tackle all the problems listed in the evaluation? If so, that would be useful as the prompt can be integrated into the system prompt for MLMs as an enhanced version. 4. The evaluation misses an important set of comparisions: There is no comparison between the proposed approach and the existing chain-of-thought frameworks. 5. Although most benchmarks in the evaluation show that the additional context from visual sketchpad brings benefits, I wonder if there are some cases that the additional context introduces noises and causes errors compared with the baseline model. 6. Typos Line 64: jigwaw -> jigsaw

Questions

Please see Weaknesses section for the questions.

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

Yes, the author discusses some limitations in Section 7.

Reviewer 2LyD5/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-11

Summary

This work proposes Visual SKETCHPAD, a framework designed to incorporate visual reasoning into chain-of-thought and tool-use paradigms. Specifically, a multimodal LLM (Large Language Model) addresses a query by (1) generating a plan, (2) executing an action, (3) updating the current context with the result of the action, and (4) iterating until sufficient information is gathered to answer the query. The plan can include various types of visual reasoning, such as visual program generation via matplotlib and networkx, leveraging specialist vision models like object detectors, segmentation models, and depth estimation models. It also includes the use of specialized tools such as image overlay or a chess drawing Python library. The main contribution of Visual SKETCHPAD lies in the reuse of intermediate visual outputs as additional observations, which enable effective chain-of-thought reasoning. SKETCHPAD demonstrates significant performance improvements compared to text-only chain-of-thought LLMs across multiple tasks.

Strengths

- *Originality:* Incorporation of visual intermediate steps is a natural extension of chain-of-thought reasoning for multimodal LLMs. - *Quality:* SKETCHPAD is a generalized framework for extending chain-of-thourgh reasoning with visual artefacts produced by vision models, program execution, etc. A comprehensive evaluation on existing closed-source and open-source LLMs is provided. Authors additionally conduct a human study on the discrepancy between LLM and human made plans. - *Clarity:* The manuscript is of high quality and easy to follow and the proposed idea is simple to grasp. Authors include prompt examples on supp that clarify the practical form of the proposed framework - *Significance:* Authors demonstrate a strong performance increase for LLMs prompted via SKETCHPAD compared to text-only chain-of-thought reasoning. The proposed framework does not require any training or tuning and existing LLMs can directly be used with SKETCHPAD style prompts to solve problems that require the described type of visual reasoning.

Weaknesses

- *Clarity:* The reviewer found the title and general positioning of this work slightly misleading. Visual SKETCHPAD naturally would refer to chain of thought framework with that includes generalised sketching capabilities. Troughout this work sketching soley refers to drawing of auxiliary lines for geometric problems and is only one of the multiple tools that the proposed framework makes use of for visual artefact generation. - *Originality:* The main concern of the reviewer is with the extent of the novelty of this work. The single differentiating factor compared to standard pipelines is the incorporation of visual artefacts on intermediate CoT steps. Incoorporation of visual reasoning information for LLM reasoning cannot be considered a purely novel proposition (for example [a] or [60]). Even though the proposed approach departs from these methods by iteratively updating the context with newly formed visual artefacts, the reviewer is still skeptical w.r.t the extent of the contribution for NeurIPS standards. [a] See, Think, Confirm: Interactive Prompting Between Vision and Language Models for Knowledge-based Visual Reasoning. Zhenfang Chen, Qinhong Zhou, Yikang Shen, Yining Hong, Hao Zhang, Chuang Gan

Questions

- Could the authors elaborate further on the extent of their contribution and how their work is different from [a] and [60]? - Authors could include more details about baselines reported on Table 1. Where these follow a similar text-based CoT pipeline?

Rating

5

Confidence

3

Soundness

4

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

The limitations were properly addressed by the authors.

Reviewer nzNU5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-12

Summary

This paper studies the problem of using language models to generate code to draw for intermediate reasoning. Particularly, the idea of chain-of-thought is applied to facilitate the reasoning process, such that the auxiliary "drawings" enhance the LM's reasoning ability. The proposed method is tested both on math and vision tasks, showing promising results.

Strengths

- Chain-of-thought (CoT) is introduced in the reasoning process. Moreover, visual elements, such as lines, boxes, marks, and segmentation maps, are used for intermediate reasoning steps. In contrast, most previous works only use text. - The overall pipeline is reasonable, and good results are achieved on different problems, including math and vision tasks. - The paper is well-organized and written.

Weaknesses

- The overall idea of using LM to generate code to manipulate images is not new. As the authors pointed out, VisProg is one of the most similar works. Personally, this work could be an incremental work based on VisProg by introducing chain-of-thought and applying multimodal reasoning. - It is very confusing to use the word "sketches" since the drawings are straight lines, boxes, or marks, which are in fact irrelevant to sketches from my view.

Questions

- Is there any evidence that LMs can change the plan given the intermediate visual outcomes during reasoning? - Is there an in-context learning for LM-based code generator? - Is that possible to equipt CoT to VisProg (using the same specialist vision models of this work), thus achieving similar performances on math and vision problems? - To solve the geometry problem, the proposed model is going to generate auxiliary lines. Is there GT that can be used to quantitatively assess the correctness of the lines? - In Table 3, VisProg performs poorly and the reason claimed is the errors from vision modules. Why Sketchpad did not suffer from this issue?

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

Adequately discussed.

Reviewer BpTp7/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-28

Summary

The Visual SKETCHPAD framework integrates sketching capabilities into multimodal language models, enabling them to iteratively draw, plan, and reason using visual artifacts - similar to how humans leverage sketching to facilitate problem-solving. Unlike prior approaches that relied on text-to-image models, Visual SKETCHPAD allows language models to directly create visual elements like lines, boxes, and marks, and can even incorporate specialized vision models to enhance the sketching process. Experiments across a range of math and complex visual reasoning tasks demonstrated that Visual SKETCHPAD substantially improves performance.

Strengths

1. Comprehensive Experiment: Evaluated on a wide range of math and complex visual reasoning tasks and achives decent results, which is good. 2. Good Idea: Demonstrates the value of integrating sketching and visual reasoning capabilities into multimodal language models. Brings language models closer to how humans naturally think and solve problems using a combination of language and visual artifacts. 3. Well delivery. The paper is well-written.

Weaknesses

More discussion about the robustness (repeatibility) is needed, since a common problem for these commercial LVLMs is the instability. Does the method alleviate the invalid responces? How robust is it? Does multiple re-try helps to improve the performance?

Questions

More explaination about the human evaluation is needed. I noticed the author have included the user study. How exactly the user study is conducted? The author is suggested to elablorate this.

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

Yes

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-11

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our paper! If you have any additional questions for discussion, we would be more than happy to address them. We will make every effort to revise our paper based on the reviewer's feedback and suggestions.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-11

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our paper! If you have any additional questions for discussion, we would be more than happy to address them. We will make every effort to revise our paper based on the reviewer's feedback and suggestions.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-11

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our paper! If you have any additional questions for discussion, we would be more than happy to address them. We will make every effort to revise our paper based on the reviewer's feedback and suggestions.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-11

Thank you very much for your time and effort in reviewing our paper! If you have any additional questions for discussion, we would be more than happy to address them. We will make every effort to revise our paper based on the reviewer's feedback and suggestions.

Reviewer jSat2024-08-13

Thank you for the rebuttal

Thank you for the rebuttal. I think the rebuttal has addressed most of my concerns.

Reviewer 2LyD2024-08-13

Answer to author rebuttal

Thanks for the rebuttal. The reviewer still disagrees with the general positioning of the paper and the amount of the technical novelty. However, as pointed out in the review, this paper showcases some important insights that can help the community in re-iterating over it. The reviewer maintains the initial rating of 5.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC