\n ## Bar Chart: Accuracy Improvements of Different Models ### Overview This bar chart compares the improvements in accuracy (%) for three different models – MiniCPM-V2.6-8B, InternVL3-8B, and InternVL3-78B – across four categories: Overall, Plane Geometry, Functions, and Others. The chart uses colored bars to represent each category for each model, allowing for a visual comparison of performance. ### Components/Axes * **X-axis:** Model Names - MiniCPM-V2.6-8B, InternVL3-8B, InternVL3-78B * **Y-axis:** Improvements of accuracy (%) - Scale ranges from 0 to 10, with increments of 2. * **Legend:** Located at the top-right corner of the chart. * Overall (Orange) * Plane Geometry (Blue) * Functions (Green) * Others (Yellow) ### Detailed Analysis The chart consists of 12 bars, grouped by model and category. **MiniCPM-V2.6-8B:** * Overall: Approximately 6.2% improvement. (Orange bar) * Plane Geometry: Approximately 9.2% improvement. (Blue bar) * Functions: Approximately 5.4% improvement. (Green bar) * Others: Approximately 1.4% improvement. (Yellow bar) **InternVL3-8B:** * Overall: Approximately 6.2% improvement. (Orange bar) * Plane Geometry: Approximately 6.4% improvement. (Blue bar) * Functions: Approximately 0.4% improvement. (Green bar) * Others: Approximately 3.2% improvement. (Yellow bar) **InternVL3-78B:** * Overall: Approximately 3.6% improvement. (Orange bar) * Plane Geometry: Approximately 6.2% improvement. (Blue bar) * Functions: Approximately 5.8% improvement. (Green bar) * Others: Approximately 1.2% improvement. (Yellow bar) ### Key Observations * **Plane Geometry** consistently shows the highest improvement across all three models, ranging from approximately 6.2% to 9.2%. * **Functions** shows a significant difference in performance between models. MiniCPM-V2.6-8B and InternVL3-78B show improvements around 5.4% and 5.8% respectively, while InternVL3-8B shows a very low improvement of approximately 0.4%. * **Others** consistently shows the lowest improvement across all models, ranging from approximately 1.2% to 3.2%. * InternVL3-78B has the lowest overall improvement at approximately 3.6%. * MiniCPM-V2.6-8B and InternVL3-8B have the same overall improvement at approximately 6.2%. ### Interpretation The data suggests that all three models demonstrate improvements in accuracy, but the extent of these improvements varies significantly depending on the category. The consistent high performance in "Plane Geometry" indicates that these models are particularly effective at tasks related to this domain. The large variation in "Functions" performance suggests that this category is more sensitive to model architecture or training data. The relatively low improvements in "Others" suggest that this category represents more challenging or diverse tasks. The lower overall improvement of InternVL3-78B, despite its larger size, is an interesting observation. This could indicate that model size alone is not sufficient for achieving higher accuracy, and other factors such as training data quality or model architecture play a crucial role. The fact that InternVL3-8B and MiniCPM-V2.6-8B have the same overall improvement suggests that they are comparable in overall performance, despite potentially different architectures. The chart provides a comparative analysis of model performance across different task categories, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of each model. This information can be valuable for selecting the most appropriate model for a specific application or for guiding further model development efforts.