SciFigQual-Bench: A Benchmark for Scientific Figure Quality Assessment with Full-Manuscript Context

Scientific figure assessment in peer review differs fundamentally from general image quality evaluation: a figure must be visually legible, faithfully support the manuscript's claims, and communicate evidence with a clear visual hierarchy. However, if we apply traditional image assessment methods to scientific figure quality assessment, limitations emerge: classic IQA models capture perceptual quality or aesthetics but cannot judge whether a figure serves the paper's scientific argument; CLIP-based methods assess generic image-text correspondence, yet lack understanding of manuscript context; and zero-shot LLM/VLM judges, when repurposed for figure scoring, often yield overly concentrated scores with limited fusion of visual and textual evidence. We introduce an annotated dataset of 3,857 scientific figures from peer-reviewed conference papers, each rated along four peer-review-oriented dimensions: Clarity, Relevance, Informativeness, and Structure. We propose SciFigAlign, a fine-tuned multimodal scorer that grounds figure quality assessment in manuscript evidence. Given a figure crop, caption, citing paragraphs, and light paper context, SciFigAlign fine-tunes CLIP and SciBERT end-to-end with per-modality cross-attention and CubeMLP fusion, jointly optimizing SmoothL1 regression with a within-paper ranking hinge loss. Under paper-level splits, SciFigAlign achieves a macro MAE of 0.3524 and a within-paper pairwise accuracy of 81.64% on the test set with n = 396, a 59% relative error reduction over the best LLM-as-judge baseline with MAE 0.864. Ablations confirm that manuscript-grounded inputs, citing-context denoising, and ranking supervision are all critical, showing that scientific figure assessment requires learned alignment between visual content and manuscript evidence rather than prompting alone, even with state-of-the-art VLMs.

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.

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{SIU$^2$A}) 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 SIU$^2$A-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.