Criteria-first, semantics-later: reproducible structure discovery in image-based sciences

Scientific figures and tables encode essential experimental evidence, yet remain difficult for digital libraries and multimodal AI systems to retrieve and interpret. The ALD/E-ImageMiner benchmark and ICDAR 2026 Competition on Information Extraction from Atomic Layer Deposition/Etching Scientific Figures provide 1,951 figures from 205 publications, expert-annotated for classification, data table extraction, summarization, and visual question answering. In these companion proceedings, we present a forward-looking perspective on how the benchmark can guide future scientific-image challenges. We examine how its tasks probe capabilities from visual and quantitative reading to domain-grounded reasoning and evidential justification, and how Bloom-informed question design can support deeper scientific understanding. We propose "scientific conceptual understanding from images" as a long-term benchmark objective, with future directions including broader domains and figure types, contextual and cross-document synthesis, hypothesis evaluation, provenance, uncertainty, counterfactual grounding, and open-ended multimodal research. This perspective connects the ICDAR 2026 challenge to a broader agenda for machine-actionable scientific visual knowledge and verifiable multimodal scientific AI.

Scientific images function as critical evidence in research communication, yet their integrity faces unprecedented threats from AI-generated content that introduces subtle but consequential errors. Existing evaluation paradigms prove inadequate: perceptual quality metrics poorly correlate with scientific validity, while language models lack domain-specific verification capabilities. To address this gap, we propose the Scientific Image Utility and Upgradability Assessment (\textbf{SIU$^2$A}) framework, which introduces two complementary dimensions for scientific image evaluation. Utility encompasses error detection (identifying scientific inaccuracies) and correction feasibility (assessing whether errors can be reliably repaired). Upgradability measures the quality of correction. We categorize scientific image corruption into four fundamental types: Detail Distortion, Incompleteness, False Content, and Entity Confusion. Based on this taxonomy, we construct SIU$^2$A-Benchmark, a dataset with expert annotations for error identification and repair. The framework implements a two-stage evaluation protocol: the Utility stage evaluates error detection capability and repair instruction generation, while the Upgradability stage assesses whether corrections faithfully restore scientific validity without compromising existing accurate information. Experiments reveal that current multimodal systems exhibit significant limitations in both scientific error assessment and faithful correction, exposing a fundamental gap between visual perception and scientific usability.

Scientific images fundamentally differ from natural and AI-generated images in that they encode structured domain knowledge rather than merely depict visual scenes. Assessing their quality therefore requires evaluating not only perceptual fidelity but also scientific correctness and logical completeness. However, existing image quality assessment (IQA) paradigms primarily focus on perceptual distortions or image-text alignment, implicitly assuming that depicted content is factually valid. This assumption breaks down in scientific contexts, where visually plausible figures may still contain conceptual errors or incomplete reasoning. To address this gap, we introduce Scientific Image Quality Assessment (SIQA), a framework that models scientific image quality along two complementary dimensions: Knowledge (Scientific Validity and Scientific Completeness) and Perception (Cognitive Clarity and Disciplinary Conformity). To operationalize this formulation, we design two evaluation protocols: SIQA-U (Understanding), which measures semantic comprehension of scientific content through multiple-choice tasks, and SIQA-S (Scoring), which evaluates alignment with expert quality judgments. We further construct the SIQA Challenge, consisting of an expert-annotated benchmark and a large-scale training set. Experiments across representative multimodal large language models (MLLMs) reveal a consistent discrepancy between scoring alignment and scientific understanding. While models can achieve strong agreement with expert ratings under SIQA-S, their performance on SIQA-U remains substantially lower. Fine-tuning improves both metrics, yet gains in scoring consistently outpace improvements in understanding. These results suggest that rating consistency alone may not reliably reflect scientific comprehension, underscoring the necessity of multidimensional evaluation for scientific image quality assessment.