SciLens: Multi-modal Scientific Claim Verification with Agentic Entailment and Grounding

Multimodal Scientific Claim Verification (MSCV) requires models to verify scientific claims using visually grounded evidence from papers, including figures, tables, charts, and textual context. However, existing methods often fail because they struggle to locate decisive visual evidence, accurately read structured scientific visuals, and integrate multimodal observations into reliable reasoning. We introduce ToolSciVer, the first tool-augmented framework for MSCV to our knowledge. ToolSciVer equips a VLM with three type-aware visual tools, table row/column focus, chart-to-structure parsing, and high-resolution region zoom, which convert dense scientific visuals into explicit, claim-facing evidence, and trains the policy with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) under a composite reward of answer correctness, format validity, length control, tool-use efficiency, and tool-validity penalties. Experiments on SciVer and MuSciClaims datasets on five VLMs from three model families (Qwen, InternVL, Gemma) demonstrate that our method achieves superior performance compared to four competitive baselines including prompting-based and RL-based tool-use methods, highlighting the effectiveness of learned, type-aware tool use for scientific claim verification.

Misalignment between claims and their cited evidence is a common failure mode in reports generated by large language models, limiting their reliability in scientific and other high-stakes settings. We present DeepSciVerify, a two-stage pipeline for scientific claim-citation verification that combines abstract-level reasoning with selective escalation to passage-level evidence. The system first verifies claims using the abstract and defers uncertain cases, retrieving and analyzing full-text passages only when necessary. This design leverages complementary behaviors across LLMs, as some models are more conservative while others are more decisive under uncertainty. On the SCitance benchmark, DeepSciVerify achieves 86.7 Micro-F1, outperforming strong abstract-only baselines by +4.5 points while resolving 67% of instances without full-text retrieval. These results suggest that selective evidence escalation improves both accuracy and efficiency in claim-citation verification.

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