Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper benchmarks three LLM agent paradigms鈥攄omain-specific tool users, computer-use agents, and general-purpose coding agents鈥攐n scientific visualization tasks, evaluating their performance across metrics like visualization quality and computational cost. The study reveals that general-purpose coding agents achieve the highest task success but are computationally expensive, while domain-specific agents are more efficient but less flexible. The authors also find that persistent memory improves performance, but its effectiveness depends on the interaction mode and feedback quality, suggesting a hybrid approach is needed.
General-purpose coding agents may ace scientific visualization tasks, but their computational cost is a steep price compared to the efficiency of domain-specific agents, highlighting a crucial trade-off in LLM agent design.
This paper examines how different types of large language model (LLM) agents perform on scientific visualization (SciVis) tasks, where users generate visualization workflows from natural-language instructions. We compare three primary interaction paradigms, including domain-specific agents with structured tool use, computer-use agents, and general-purpose coding agents, by evaluating eight representative agents across 15 benchmark tasks and measuring visualization quality, efficiency, robustness, and computational cost. We further analyze interaction modalities, including code scripts and model context protocol (MCP) or API calls for structured tool use, as well as command-line interfaces (CLI) and graphical user interfaces (GUI) for more general interaction, while additionally studying the effect of persistent memory in selected agents. The results reveal clear tradeoffs across paradigms and modalities. General-purpose coding agents achieve the highest task success rates but are computationally expensive, while domain-specific agents are more efficient and stable but less flexible. Computer-use agents perform well on individual steps but struggle with longer multi-step workflows, indicating that long-horizon planning is their primary limitation. Across both CLI- and GUI-based settings, persistent memory improves performance over repeated trials, although its benefits depend on the underlying interaction mode and the quality of feedback. These findings suggest that no single approach is sufficient, and future SciVis systems should combine structured tool use, interactive capabilities, and adaptive memory mechanisms to balance performance, robustness, and flexibility.
