aiqbench analysis
This research applies Vision Language Models to automate the extraction of diagnostic procedures from industrial flowcharts, addressing the labor-intensive nature of manual knowledge transfer. The study highlights critical trade-offs between layout sensitivity and semantic robustness when using different prompting strategies for machine interpretation. These findings offer practical guidance for deploying VLMs in shop-floor operator support systems where spatial context is essential for accurate troubleshooting.
Procedural Knowledge Extraction from Industrial Troubleshooting Guides Using Vision Language Models
arXiv:2601.22754v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Industrial troubleshooting guides encode diagnostic procedures in flowchart-like diagrams where spatial layout and technical language jointly convey meaning. To integrate this knowledge into operator support systems, which assist shop-floor personnel in diagnosing and resolving equipment issues, the information must first be extracted and structured for machine interpretation. However, when performed manually, this extraction is labor-intensive and error-prone. Vision Language Models offer potential to automate this process by jointly interpreting visual and textual meaning, yet their performance on such guides remains underexplored. This paper evaluates two VLMs on extracting structured knowledge, comparing two prompting strategies: standard instruction-guided versus an augmented approach that cues troubleshooting layout patterns. Results reveal model-specific trade-offs between layout sensitivity and semantic robustness, informing practical deployment decisions.
Abstract:Industrial troubleshooting guides encode diagnostic procedures in flowchart-like diagrams where spatial layout and technical language jointly convey meaning. To integrate this knowledge into operator support systems, which assist shop-floor personnel in diagnosing and resolving equipment issues, the information must first be extracted and structured for machine interpretation. However, when performed manually, this extraction is labor-intensive and error-prone. Vision Language Models offer potential to automate this process by jointly interpreting visual and textual meaning, yet their performance on such guides remains underexplored. This paper evaluates two VLMs on extracting structured knowledge, comparing two prompting strategies: standard instruction-guided versus an augmented approach that cues troubleshooting layout patterns. Results reveal model-specific trade-offs between layout sensitivity and semantic robustness, informing practical deployment decisions.
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2601.22754 [cs.CV]
(or arXiv:2601.22754v2 [cs.CV] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.22754 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 217 words
Related coverage

Modernizing and scaling support operations with generative AI on AWS
AWS · Sep 2, 2026
FlowExtract: Procedural Knowledge Extraction from Maintenance Flowcharts
arXiv · Aug 25, 2026

Build an AI-Powered Equipment Repair Assistant Using Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · Jun 10, 2026

Democratizing institutional knowledge: Building an AI-powered knowledge management system with AWS
AWS · Aug 24, 2026