Unifying Scientific Communication: Fine-Grained Correspondence Across Scientific Media

Many recent document embedding models are trained on document-as-image representations, embedding rendered pages as images rather than the underlying source. Meanwhile, existing benchmarks for scientific document retrieval, such as ArXivQA and ViDoRe, treat documents as images of pages, implicitly favoring such representations. In this work, we argue that this paradigm is not well-suited for text-rich multimodal scientific documents, where critical evidence is distributed across structured sources, including text, tables, and figures. To study this setting, we introduce ArXivDoc, a new benchmark constructed from the underlying LaTeX sources of scientific papers. Unlike PDF or image-based representations, LaTeX provides direct access to structured elements (e.g., sections, tables, figures, equations), enabling controlled query construction grounded in specific evidence types. We systematically compare text-only, image-based, and multimodal representations across both single-vector and multi-vector retrieval models. Our results show that: (1) document-as-image representations are consistently suboptimal, especially as document length increases; (2) text-based representations are most effective, even for figure-based queries, by leveraging captions and surrounding context; and (3) interleaved text+image representations outperform document-as-image approaches without requiring specialized training.

Charts and images appear together throughout scientific publications, yet most computational work does not characterize their coherence. We argue that a chart, its accompanying image, and the caption that links them form a multimodal unit, and that the inferential work required to read it varies systematically. To capture this variation, we develop a typology of reasoning gaps, R1 through R5, that characterizes how chart, image, and text jointly convey a scientific claim, and the interpretive work this demands of the reader. Some pairs restate the same data, while in other pairs, charts are used to quantify a structure the image localizes, project image content onto an external variable, audit an image-based claim, or jointly construct a frame that neither panel can establish alone. The typology is anchored in the grounding theory of communication and was derived bottom-up, with a neuroscience expert, from a corpus of 79 traumatic brain injury papers and 32 chart-image pairs. Crucially, the levels provide a systematic mechanism for identifying where grounding succeeds or breaks down, rather than leaving it to subjective inference. We show this in a study in which a domain expert and three non-experts judge vision-language model (VLM) descriptions of 25 pairs: the level predicts where their judgments align and where they diverge, isolating the points at which contextual knowledge, not the figure, carries coherence. This typology thus offers figure designers a systematic way to balance text against chart-image pairs, bridging the expert-to-non-expert divide in reading a scientific takeaway.

Autonomous research agents are increasingly expected to search the literature, analyze experimental evidence, and generate scientific hypotheses. These capabilities require multi-step evidence grounded reasoning that progressively acquires, integrates, and verifies evidence before reaching a conclusion. Existing multimodal benchmarks, however, largely evaluate final-answer accuracy, leaving open whether predictions are actually supported by traceable scientific evidence. We introduce Sci-MMR, a benchmark for multi-step evidence-grounded scientific reasoning built on structured argument graphs linking scientific claims, citation-grounded knowledge, visual evidence, and supporting regions. Sci-MMR comprises 235 multi-hop reasoning tasks spanning four scientific disciplines, with an average of nine figure panels per task. Evaluating eight frontier multimodal models, we find that answer accuracy consistently exceeds complete-evidence recovery rate by more than 20%, revealing a substantial gap that answer-only evaluation is structurally unable to capture. Through controlled interventions, we identify two fundamental bottlenecks. First, evidence acquisition: models struggle to extract complete structured evidence from scientific figures, accounting for 57.2% of failures. While cropping tools yield modest gains (+4.5 points), providing gold evidence improves accuracy by up to 37.0 points, indicating difficulty in assembling complete multi-region evidence. Second, evidence integration: models struggle to translate available evidence into correct conclusions, accounting for 31.8% of failures, while even with gold evidence the strongest model achieves only 69.1% accuracy on the hardest tasks. These findings indicate that current answer-centric benchmarks substantially overestimate the evidence-grounded reasoning capabilities of multimodal research agents