While Vision Foundation Models (VFMs) excel at predictive tasks on satellite imagery, their performance can arise from visual correlations rather than underlying structural invariants, making even perception-based out-of-distribution accuracy a poor proxy for scientific utility. As a result, models may look correct without reasoning correctly, a discrepancy we term the Perception-Physics Paradox. To address this gap, we introduce scientific alignment as an implicit objective for representation learning in scientific domains. We study a principled, testable aspect of scientific alignment through structural isomorphism, which requires latent representations to uniquely identify physical systems up to a linear reparameterization. This perspective induces a hierarchy of necessary conditions and yields a systematic probing protocol for physical and causal interpretability. To operationalize this framework, we release TC-Bench, a global, reproducible benchmark dataset with an automated construction pipeline for tropical cyclone research, and show that current VFMs rely on visual shortcuts that collapse in intense regimes, indicating that scientific alignment does not arise as a natural byproduct of scaling alone.
Existing vision-language model (VLM) benchmarks emphasize perception and reasoning accuracy (how well VLMs describe and reason about what they see in an image), with limited attention to behavioral reliability under uncertainty (how they behave when visual evidence is missing or misleading). We introduce SciFigBench, a diagnostic VLM benchmark for scientific figure understanding that jointly evaluates perception, reasoning, and behavioral reliability under uncertainty. It contains 250 figures with high-quality human annotations across three evaluation aspects, totaling 600+ hours of annotation effort. We further extend these figures via image transformations, reasoning questions, resistance probes, caption-bias probes, and confirmed selective-blur targets, producing over 34,000 evaluation setups for stress testing. We further propose the Admittance-Resistance-Inductance (A-R-I) framework to evaluate whether models acknowledge insufficient evidence, resist misleading context, and infer cautiously from partial information. Our results reveal substantial behavioral differences among models. GPT-5.2 achieves the highest description quality (MQM 91.6) with strong reasoning accuracy (78.4%), yet hallucinates unreadable content in 96% of cases, whereas Gemini 3.1 Pro, a comparably capable model (MQM 90.2, reasoning 81.0%), admits uncertainty in 71% of such cases and achieves the strongest resistance score (0.91). These findings show that high perception and reasoning accuracy alone do not guarantee behavioral reliability, a dimension critical for deployment in scientific workflows.
Paul Osemudiame Oamen, Owusu-Banahene Osei, Ananya Mukherjee +4
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.
Large language models frequently violate fundamental scientific principles when generating technical content, undermining their reliability in scientific applications. We introduce Scientific Feasibility Control SFC, a graph-structured conformal prediction framework that provides statistical guarantees for scientific reasoning validity through progressive absolute-coherent-factuality validation. Our approach decomposes scientific reasoning into atomic absolute-coherent-factuality units requiring both individual correctness against physical laws and logical substantiation from preceding context, addressing the cascade effect where early scientific errors contaminate subsequent reasoning steps. Unlike independence-based methods that treat claims in isolation, SFC models logical dependencies as approximate deducibility graphs and operates through real-time validation with dynamic branching when scientific violations are detected, the system branches to alternative generation paths using verified context as foundation. We demonstrate SFC across established scientific reasoning benchmarks including PhyX multimodal physics, MATH, ScienceQA, and ARC Challenge, achieving 50.1 percent accuracy on PhyX physics reasoning, substantially outperforming recent reasoning models including DeepSeek-R1 49.8 percent and GPT-4 45.8 percent while providing 91.7 percent scientific validity with formal conformal coverage guarantees at alpha equals 0.10 confidence level and reducing scientific law violations by 73 percent across multiple model architectures.