GENFIG1: Visual Summaries of Scholarly Work as a Challenge for Vision-Language Models
Organizations: Johns Hopkins University
Abstract
In many science papers, "Figure 1" serves as the primary visual summary of the core research idea. These figures are visually simple yet conceptually rich, often requiring significant effort and iteration by human authors to get right, highlighting the difficulty of science visual communication. With this intuition, we introduce GENFIG1, a benchmark for generative AI models (e.g., Vision-Language Models). GENFIG1 evaluates models for their ability to produce figures that clearly express and motivate the central idea of a paper (title, abstract, introduction, and figure caption) as input. Solving GENFIG1 requires more than producing visually appealing graphics: the task entails reasoning for text-to-image generation that couples scientific understanding with visual synthesis. Specifically, models must (i) comprehend and grasp the technical concepts of the paper, (ii) identify the most salient ones, and (iii) design a coherent and aesthetically effective graphic that conveys those concepts visually and is faithful to the input. We curate the benchmark from papers published at top deep-learning conferences, apply stringent quality control, and introduce an automatic evaluation metric that correlates well with expert human judgments. We evaluate a suite of representative models on GENFIG1 and demonstrate that the task presents significant challenges, even for the best-performing systems. We hope this benchmark serves as a foundation for future progress in multimodal AI.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Paper Contents Included | Source | Excluded Quant. Figures | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figure | Caption | Paper Text | |||
| FigureSeer Siegel et al. (2016) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | CiteSeerX | ✗ |
| DVQA Kafle et al. (2018) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | synthetic | ✗ |
| FigureQA Kahou et al. (2018) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | synthetic | ✗ |
| FigCAP Chen et al. (2019) | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | synthetic | ✗ |
| SciCap Hsu et al. (2021) | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | arXiv | ✗ |
| Domain | Venue | # Papers | Domain Share (%) | Total Share (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NLP | ACL | 686 | 29.0 | 6.9 |
| NAACL | 199 | 8.4 | 2.0 | |
| EMNLP | 1,484 | 62.6 | 14.9 | |
| Subtotal | 2,369 | 100.0 | 23.7 | |
| CV | CVPR | 3,148 | 100.0 | 31.6 |
| AI/ML | ICLR | 2,121 | 47.6 | 21.3 |
| Approaches to construct figures | VLM-as-a-Judge | Text-Rich Catastrophic Neglect Score | DINOv2 Score | Human Preference MRR | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarity | Faithfulness | Info. Density | Interestingness | Legibility | Aesthetic | ||||
| Text-to-Image | |||||||||
| Zero-shot | 77.7 | 85.2 | 75.0 | 68.6 | 87.6 | 76.3 | 65.6 | 55.5 | 45.3 |
| CoT | 70.1 | 79.5 | 68.6 | 61.7 | 83.8 | 70.9 | 52.4 | 51.4 | 40.1 |
| CoI | 68.9 | 77.5 | 64.3 | 63.2 | 89.5 | 74.2 | 58.5 | 50.9 | 40.5 |
| Text-to-SVG | |||||||||
| Metrics | VLM-as-a-Judge | Text-Rich Catastrophic Neglect Score | DINOv2 Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarity | Faithfulness | Info. Density | Interestingness | Legibility | Aesthetic | |||
| Kendall’s | 0.68 | 0.59 | 0.71 | 0.68 | 0.30 | 0.63 | 0.55 | 0.36 |
| Spearman’s | 0.77 | 0.67 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.35 | 0.71 | 0.64 | 0.44 |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Venue | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACL | 120 | 74 | 183 | 142 | 167 | — |
| NAACL | — | 54 | 69 | — | 76 | — |
| EMNLP | 221 | 231 | 263 | 319 | 450 | — |
| CVPR | 256 | 308 | 378 | 381 | 949 | 876 |
| ICLR | 116 | 159 | 199 | 308 | 498 | 841 |
| NeurIPS | 302 | 345 | 193 | 596 | 902 | — |
| Venue | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw | Filt | Rate | Raw | Filt | Rate | Raw | Filt | Rate | Raw | Filt | Rate | Raw | Filt | Rate | Raw | Filt | Rate | |
| ACL | 157 | 120 | 76.4 | 94 | 74 | 78.7 | 212 | 183 | 86.3 | 166 | 142 | 85.5 | 194 | 167 | 86.1 | — | — | — |
| NAACL | — | — | — | 66 | 54 | 81.8 | 85 | 69 | 81.2 | — | — | — | 103 | 76 | 73.8 | — | — | — |
| EMNLP | 259 | 221 | 85.3 | 268 | 231 | 86.2 | 312 | 263 | 84.3 | 397 | 319 | 80.4 | 530 | 450 | 84.9 | — | — | — |
| CVPR | 285 | 256 | 89.8 | 333 | 308 | 92.5 | 424 | 378 | 89.2 | 428 | 381 | 89.0 | 1044 | 949 | 90.9 | 969 | 876 | 90.4 |
| ICLR | 141 | 116 | 82.3 | 200 | 159 | 79.5 | 235 | 199 | 84.7 | 358 | 308 | 86.0 | 575 | 498 | 86.6 | 1010 | 841 | 83.3 |
| Venue | Title | Abstract | Intro | Caption | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Char. / | Words | Char. / | Words | Char. / | Words | Char. / | Words | ||
| ACL | 686 | 68.3 / | 9.3 | 963.3 / | 157.1 | 3325.1 / | 564.7 | 219.9 / | 38.5 |
| NAACL | 199 | 69.5 / | 9.9 | 937.3 / | 154.1 | 3223.0 / | 551.4 | 223.1 / | 39.9 |
| EMNLP | 1484 | 70.3 / | 9.7 | 971.1 / | 158.2 | 3321.2 / | 563.3 | 231.9 / | 40.8 |
| CVPR | 3148 | 65.7 / | 8.9 | 1126.4 / | 180.2 | 3969.5 / | 666.2 | 331.3 / | 56.5 |
| ICLR | 2121 | 64.5 / | 8.8 | 1140.6 / | 183.5 | 3925.4 / | 661.0 | 347.3 / | 61.3 |
| Baseline | Legibility Score | Aesthetic Predictor Score |
|---|---|---|
| CoT | 0.80 | 3.27 |
| Zero-shot SVG | 0.34 | 3.30 |
| CoT SVG | 0.42 | 3.62 |
| CoI | 0.87 | 3.49 |
| Zero-shot | 0.86 | 3.35 |
| Humans | 0.75 | 3.41 |
T2I Generation Evaluation
Text-to-image generation evaluation measures how accurately, safely, and consistently image models turn prompts into images.
See all 157 papers