Anatomy of a failure: When, how, and why deep vision fails in scientific domains
Authors: Ji-Hun Oh, Dou Hoon Kwark, Kianoush Falahkheirkhah, Kevin Yeh, John Cheville, Volodymyr Kindratenko, Rohit Bhargava
Abstract
Mirroring its ubiquity in popular media and all human activities, the use of deep learning (DL) is rapidly growing in scientific imaging modalities. However, unlike everyday RGB pictures, pixels encode precise physicochemical properties in scientific imaging across potentially thousands of channels. While DL is well validated on human-centric RGB perceptual tasks, its effectiveness for scientific imaging remains uncertain. Here, we show that the naive application of DL frameworks to scientific images can lead to critical failures. We evaluate the use of DL for pathology, comparing RGB images of stained tissue with the quantitative and information-rich biochemical signatures of infrared (IR) imaging. Despite this informational advantage, DL models trained on IR data paradoxically underperform. We investigate this discrepancy to find that IR data priors interact poorly with the simplicity bias of DL, causing models to collapse to one-dimensional predictions. This constitutes a catastrophic DL failure because the model's representational capacity remains largely unused, while furthermore raising AI safety concerns and undermining the advantages of such scientific modalities. Notably, this problem persists even with state-of-the-art DL robustification strategies, which are primarily designed and validated for RGB imagery and thus inherit the same prior-bias mismatch. This work establishes a framework for understanding the limitations of generic DL in science and advocates for the study of modality-specific failure modes to guide the development of specialized, safe AI algorithms.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have achieved impressive performance on visual perception and reasoning tasks with RGB imagery, yet they remain fragile under common degradations, such as fog, blur, or low-light conditions. Infrared (IR) imaging, a well-established complement to RGB, offers inherent robustness in these conditions, but its integration into MLLMs remains underexplored. To bridge this gap, we propose DUALVISION, a lightweight fusion module that efficiently incorporates IR-RGB information into MLLMs via patch-level localized cross-attention. To support training and evaluation and to facilitate future research, we also introduce DV-204K, a dataset of ~25K publicly available aligned IR-RGB image pairs with 204K modality-specific QA annotations, and DV-500, a benchmark of 500 IR-RGB image pairs with 500 QA pairs designed for evaluating cross-modal reasoning. Leveraging these datasets, we benchmark both open- and closed-source MLLMs and demonstrate that DUALVISION delivers strong empirical performance under a wide range of visual degradations. Our code and dataset are available at https://abrarmajeedi.github.io/dualvision.
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 \textbf{S}cientific \textbf{I}mage \textbf{U}tility and \textbf{U}pgradability \textbf{A}ssessment (\textbf{SIU2A}) framework, which introduces two complementary dimensions for scientific image evaluation. \textbf{Utility} encompasses \textit{error detection} (identifying scientific inaccuracies) and \textit{correction feasibility} (assessing whether errors can be reliably repaired). \textbf{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 SIU2A-Benchmark, a dataset with expert annotations for error identification and repair. The framework implements a two-stage evaluation protocol: the \textit{Utility} stage evaluates error detection capability and repair instruction generation, while the \textit{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.
We introduce SPUR, a comprehensive benchmark for scientific experimental image perception, understanding, and reasoning, comprising 4,264 question-answering (QA) pairs derived from 1,084 expert-curated images. SPUR features three key innovations: (1) Panel-Level Fine-Grained Perception: evaluating the visual perception of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) across three dimensions (numerical, morphological, and information localization) on six fine-grained panel types; (2) Cross-Panel Relation Understanding: utilizing complex images with an average of 14.3 panels per sample to evaluate MLLMs' ability to decipher intricate cross-panel relations; (3) Expert-Level Reasoning: assessment of qualitative and quantitative reasoning across five experimental paradigms to determine if models can infer conclusions from evidence as human experts do. Comprehensive evaluation of 20 MLLMs and four multimodal Chain-of-Thought (MCoT) methods reveals that current models fall significantly short of the expert-level requirements for scientific image interpretation, underscoring a critical bottleneck in AI for Science (AI4S) research.