Modern multimodal generators can now produce scientific figures at near-publishable quality, creating a new challenge for visual forensics and research integrity. Unlike conventional AI-generated natural images, scientific figures are structured, text-dense, and tightly aligned with scholarly semantics, making them a distinct and difficult detection target. However, existing AI-generated image detection benchmarks and methods are almost entirely developed for open-domain imagery, leaving this setting largely unexplored. We present the first benchmark for AI-generated scientific figure detection. To construct it, we develop an agent-based data pipeline that retrieves licensed source papers, performs multimodal understanding of paper text and figures, builds structured prompts, synthesizes candidate figures, and filters them through a review-driven refinement loop. The resulting benchmark covers multiple figure categories, multiple generation sources and aligned real--synthetic pairs. We benchmark representative detectors under zero-shot, cross-generator, and degraded-image settings. Results show that current methods fail dramatically in zero-shot transfer, exhibit strong generator-specific overfitting, and remain fragile under common post-processing corruptions. These findings reveal a substantial gap between existing AIGI detection capabilities and the emerging distribution of high-quality scientific figures. We hope this benchmark can serve as a foundation for future research on robust and generalizable scientific-figure forensics. The dataset is available at https://github.com/Joyce-yoyo/SciFigDetect.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Overview of our benchmark. Representative real–synthetic examples from three figure categories: Illustration , Overview , and Experimental Figures . For each case, we show the real figure, the prompt, and synthetic counterparts generated by Nano Banana and GPT .
Dataset
Image Content
Generator Source
Public Availability
Real Images
Fake Images
Resolution
Structured / Text-Dense
Paper-Context Aware
UADFV ( Yang et al., 2019 )
Face
GAN
×
241
252
Varied
×
×
FakeSpotter ( Wang et al., 2021 )
Face
GAN
×
6,000
5,000
Varied
×
×
DFFD ( Dang et al., 2020 )
Face
GAN
✓
58,703
240,336
Varied
×
×
APFDD ( Gandhi and Jain, 2020 )
Face
GAN
×
5,000
5,000
Varied
×
×
ForgeryNet ( He et al., 2021 )
Face
GAN
✓
1,438,201
1,457,861
Varied
×
×
DeepArt ( Wang et al., 2023 )
Art
Diffusion
✓
64,479
73,411
Varied
×
×
Table 1. Comparison with representative AI-generated image detection datasets. Our benchmark differs from prior work by focusing on structured, text-dense scientific figures and by explicitly preserving figure-related paper context.
Figure 2. Overview of the data construction pipeline. From licensed source papers and figure-related context, our framework performs multimodal understanding, prompt planning, and iterative generation–review refinement to construct benchmark samples z=(c,freal,fsyn,a) .
Figure 3. Dataset statistics. Left: per-category sample counts for real, Nano Banana, and GPT-generated figures. Right: topic distribution of the collected diagrams. Together, they show both the scale and diversity of our benchmark.
All Figures
Illustrations
Overviews
Experimental Figures
Method
Acc real
Acc fake
AvgAcc
AP
Acc real
Acc fake
AvgAcc
AP
Acc real
Acc fake
AvgAcc
AP
Acc real
Acc fake
AvgAcc
AP
CNNSpot ( Wang et al., 2020 )
99.60
2.74
35.03
72.19
100.00
1.20
34.13
72.12
100.00
1.22
34.14
74.80
99.49
3.17
35.28
72.23
PatchFor ( Chai et al., 2020 )
99.94
0.16
33.42
67.29
100.00
0.11
33.41
67.40
99.85
0.08
33.33
66.47
99.95
0.18
33.44
67.61
UniFD ( Ojha et al., 2023 )
89.00
7.80
48.40
49.11
96.73
2.07
49.40
49.15
97.57
1.90
49.73
46.41
86.19
8.39
47.29
45.40
LGrad ( Tan et al., 2023 )
98.89
8.48
53.68
65.30
99.78
8.17
53.98
75.40
99.39
11.17
55.28
80.87
98.72
8.09
53.40
61.81
NPR ( Tan et al., 2024b )
94.92
13.24
40.47
75.33
98.26
11.76
40.60
80.27
99.24
13.07
41.79
84.34
93.81
13.44
40.23
73.76
Table 2. Zero-shot performance of existing AI-generated image detectors on SciFigDetect. Models are evaluated without any adaptation to scientific figures. Accreal denotes accuracy on real figures, and Accfake summarizes accuracy on synthetic figures. AvgAcc is the unweighted mean of Accreal , AccGPT , and AccBanana . Best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underline, respectively.
Train on Banana
Train on GPT
Train on Banana+GPT
Method
Acc real
Acc GPT
Acc Banana
AvgAcc
Acc real
Acc GPT
Acc Banana
AvgAcc
Acc real
Acc GPT
Acc Banana
AvgAcc
CNNSpot ( Wang et al., 2020 )
98.67
40.04
78.46
72.39
97.93
77.95
11.11
62.33
94.84
78.75
73.85
82.48
PatchFor ( Chai et al., 2020 )
90.27
6.03
53.28
49.86
96.28
98.92
8.38
67.86
98.17
95.14
11.58
68.30
UniFD ( Ojha et al., 2023 )
88.70
67.00
81.00
78.90
90.10
66.40
42.50
66.33
93.20
66.30
66.70
75.40
LGrad ( Tan et al., 2023 )
95.28
50.68
82.92
76.29
96.95
89.89
23.89
70.24
94.84
94.45
86.74
92.01
NPR ( Tan et al., 2024b )
65.80
87.69
98.93
84.14
81.41
96.96
51.21
76.53
93.75
93.43
94.69
93.96
Table 3. Cross-generator image classification under three training protocols. Models are evaluated on real, GPT-generated, and Nano Banana-generated scientific figures. AvgAcc denotes the unweighted mean of Accreal , AccGPT , and AccBanana , so that each subset contributes equally regardless of its size. All reported numbers are averaged over the 10 paper-level folds.
JPEG Compression
WebP Compression
Gaussian Blur
Gaussian Noise
Method
Clean
q=95
q=75
q=50
q=30
q=95
q=75
q=50
q=30
σ =0.5
σ =1.0
σ =2.0
σ =5
σ =10
σ =20
CNNSpot ( Wang et al., 2020 )
82.50
80.78
79.56
78.17
75.74
77.80
77.07
75.41
72.78
80.99
80.92
83.45
56.74
55.28
56.12
UniFD ( Ojha et al., 2023 )
75.40
55.73
63.47
61.00
61.27
74.00
71.66
70.33
71.33
69.00
68.27
66.20
66.33
60.73
53.00
NPR ( Tan et al., 2024b )
93.96
87.38
81.51
78.76
75.94
83.29
78.22
73.04
66.86
91.65
89.54
79.13
69.05
65.45
50.49
Effort ( Yan et al., 2025b )
95.58
71.60
70.80
71.16
71.02
69.69
69.33
69.08
68.25
70.34
68.41
67.40
66.75
66.75
66.71
Table 4. Robustness under image degradation. Classification accuracy (%) on degraded test sets. Models are trained on clean Banana+GPT data and evaluated under JPEG/WebP compression, Gaussian blur, and Gaussian noise.
Figure 4. Cross-generator generalization gap. Averaged across detectors, models trained on one generator perform much better on the seen generator than on the unseen one. This large in-domain vs. cross-generator gap indicates strong generator-specific overfitting and a clear domain gap between Banana- and GPT-generated scientific figures.
AI-generated image detection identifies synthetic or AI-edited images and develops methods that generalize across generators, domains, and image transformations.
Text-to-image and multimodal generative models are increasingly used to produce scientific figures such as mechanism diagrams, experimental-design schematics, conceptual frameworks, and graphical abstracts. Yet existing image-generation benchmarks (e.g., GenEval, T2I-CompBench, DPG-Bench) evaluate natural images and measure compositionality, object counting, or photorealism. None of them measure what makes a generated scientific figure usable: correct and legible text labels, faithful depiction of entities and their relations, coherent diagrammatic structure, and adherence to disciplinary drawing conventions. We introduce SciDraw-Bench, a benchmark of 32 structured scientific-figure generation tasks spanning eight figure types and ten disciplines, where each task pairs a natural-language prompt with a machine-checkable specification of required labels, relations, components, conventions, and negative constraints. We propose a four-dimensional evaluation protocol: Text Fidelity (OCR-based label recall and character error rate), Semantic Correctness (vision-language-model judging against the specification), Structural Quality, and Convention Adherence, together with a meta-evaluation protocol and a preliminary inter-judge reliability analysis (human-rating validation is ongoing). We evaluate a domain-specific system, SciDraw AI, against representative general-purpose text-to-image models, and outline a code-to-figure baseline as a planned extension. In a pilot over all eight figure types, the domain-specific system substantially outperforms the general-purpose baselines on every dimension and figure type, with the largest gaps on semantic correctness and convention adherence; text fidelity remains the hardest dimension for all systems.
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.
Scientific figures often encode the visual evidence behind scientific findings, yet figure plagiarism remains underexplored as a benchmarked multimodal evaluation problem. We present SciFigPlag-Bench, a benchmark for provenance-aware reasoning over scientific figures in scholarly documents. Unlike general image-similarity or image-forensics benchmarks, SciFigPlag-Bench evaluates whether a suspicious figure reuses evidence from a specific source figure, how the reused content has been transformed, and where the reused evidence appears. We introduce a factorized taxonomy that separates what is reused from how it is transformed, covering material-preserving reuse, such as full-figure and subfigure reuse, as well as abstract-content reuse, such as data re-expression and structural redraw. Guided by this taxonomy, we construct a hybrid benchmark with 2,582 positive pairs and 2,541 negative pairs, combining documented real-world cases, taxonomy-guided synthetic examples, and visually similar negatives. The benchmark supports four diagnostic tasks: pairwise detection, source attribution, hierarchical reuse-type classification, and reuse correspondence localization. Experiments with diverse vision-language models establish initial baselines and reveal persistent challenges in fine-grained provenance reasoning, reuse-type understanding, and spatial evidence grounding.
Zhiying Cui, Minghao Yang, Linlin Gao +2
1Ningbo University · 2Hokkaido University · 3IBM Research