Organizations: Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · State Key Laboratory of AI Safety · School of Advanced Interdisciplinary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · National University of Singapore · School of Computer Science, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
Recent agents have demonstrated strong capabilities in generating images from textual prompts, motivating their utilization for scientific diagram generation. Scientific diagrams naturally span diverse types, each characterized by distinct visual structures and content organization. Consequently, during peer review and other scientific evaluation, human experts naturally consider type-specific criteria when assessing their quality. However, existing VLM-based evaluation benchmarks fail to reflect the above human evaluation practices for two main reasons: 1) benchmark datasets typically lack a systematic categorization of different diagram types and thus adopt the same generic criteria for all diagrams, and 2) their evaluation criteria are often designed heuristically, without explicit alignment to human evaluation preferences. Motivated by these limitations, we introduce SciDiagBench, which consists of a benchmark dataset that systematically categorizes scientific diagrams into 11 types and a human preference-guided evaluation method. Specifically, SciDiagBench contains 165 scientific diagrams across 10 broad domains, with types including graphical abstracts, technical roadmaps, and illustrative cases. Based on this dataset, SciDiagBench develops an evaluation method that leverages a preference-guided calibration process to incorporate human preferences into the generation of type-specific criteria. Ultimately, SciDiagBench enables more reliable automated evaluation that better aligns with human evaluation across diverse scientific diagrams.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the dynamic hierarchical evaluation framework, combining type-specific criteria generation with human preference alignment.
Agent
TL
LD
PE
AF
CSA
CF
TR
GA
ESD
IC
MD
Overall
Vanilla
0.4406
0.4168
0.5626
0.4670
0.4947
0.5820
0.5094
0.6228
0.5258
0.3740
0.4566
0.4957
PaperBanana
0.5272
0.4917
0.5975
0.5665
0.4926
0.5703
0.5361
0.6195
0.4610
0.4824
0.4985
0.5312
Paper2Figure
0.4714
0.4514
0.6060
0.4314
0.3337
0.4594
0.4057
0.6034
0.4555
0.4865
0.3241
0.4571
AutoFigure
0.2172
0.1162
0.1189
0.2132
0.2222
0.1919
0.2905
0.2956
0.1604
0.1476
0.2137
0.1989
Table 1: Results across different diagram types on SciDiagBench .
Method
Structure
Content
Aesthetics
VOL
LA
Weighted
VER
CA
Weighted
Vanilla
0.5083
0.4756
0.4909
0.5057
0.4650
0.4829
0.5393
PaperBanana
0.5412
0.5259
0.5326
0.5318
0.5158
0.5224
0.5544
Paper2Figure
0.4881
0.4092
0.4495
0.4916
0.3991
0.4433
0.5108
AutoFigure
0.2318
0.1892
0.2106
0.1549
0.1943
0.1808
0.2020
Table 2: Results across different evaluation dimensions on SciDiagBench .
Figure 2: Sensitivity of evaluation results to different judge models. (a) Overall relative scores of different generation agents. (b) Raw score distributions produced by Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.4.
Human stratum
GPT
Δ GPT
Gemini
Δ Gemini
GPT DAR
Gemini DAR
Strong Ref.
0.4690
-0.0310
0.3806
-0.1194
0.5417
0.8750
Slight Ref.
0.4882
-0.0118
0.4357
-0.0643
0.4783
0.7826
Slight Gen.
0.5210
+0.0210
0.6249
+0.1249
0.6552
0.9310
Strong Gen.
0.5511
+0.0511
0.6838
+0.1838
1.0000
1.0000
Table 3: Human preference alignment evaluation on SciDiagBench -VanillaPref. Ref. and Gen. denote reference-preferred and generated-preferred, respectively. Δ denotes the judge score minus 0.5, which indicates the direction and strength of the judge preference.
Experimental setup
Directional Agreement Rate
Strength Alignment
TSC
HPA
Overall
Gen.-pref.
Ref.-pref.
Kendall’s τb
Spearman’s ρ
–
–
0.6952
0.9143
0.5857
0.4787
0.5979
–
✓
0.7048
0.9429
0.5857
0.2085
0.2746
✓
–
0.7619
0.9429
0.6714
0.4974
0.6205
✓
✓
0.8571
0.9429
0.8143
0.5943
0.7329
Table 4: Ablation results for preference alignment evaluation on SciDiagBench -VanillaPref.
Experimental setup
Stability metrics
TSC
HPA
ICC
Between var.
Within var.
Direction flip
Criterion flip
Criterion entropy
–
–
0.8890
0.0119
0.00149
0.1333
0.1958
0.1727
–
✓
0.8718
0.0113
0.00166
0.1212
0.1939
0.1708
✓
–
0.8613
0.0141
0.00228
0.1333
0.1883
0.1664
✓
✓
0.8714
0.0177
0.00261
0.1212
0.2030
0.1797
Table 5: Stability over three independent scoring runs. Between var. and within var. denote between-instance and within-instance variance.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Representative examples of categories excluded from end-to-end generation by agents.
Figure 4: Example illustrating potential training-data contamination filtering. The reference diagram (a) and Vanilla-generated output (b) share a similar organization of evolutionary stages and branches, motivating precautionary exclusion during manual screening. Both images are shown without cropping or other content modifications.
Figure 5: Domain distribution of all 165 diagrams. Bar lengths indicate counts; labels at bar ends indicate percentages.
Dimension
TL
LD
PE
AF
CSA
CF
TR
GA
ESD
IC
MD
Structure
0.45
0.46
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.52
0.50
0.41
0.46
0.35
0.45
Content
0.40
0.39
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.35
0.40
0.38
0.50
0.40
Aesthetics
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.19
0.16
0.15
0.15
Appendix
Table 6: Type-specific top-level dimension weights Wd,τ . Each column sums to one. Type abbreviations follow Table 1 .
Figure 6: Human annotation interface used to compare a generated diagram with its reference. The screenshot is reproduced unchanged and includes Figure 6A from Lin Zhang, Chang Deng, Xu Ji, and Xiaojing Liu, “Liquid metals power advanced nuclear energy systems,” The Innovation 6, 100959 (2025), DOI: 10.1016/j.xinn.2025.100959 . The source figure is reproduced under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license; no changes were made.
Figure 7: Top row: (a) the original human-created reference, (b) AutoFigure output, and (c) Paper2Figure output. Bottom row: (d) Vanilla output and (e) PaperBanana output.
Method
Dimension
Diagram type
Overall
TL
LD
PE
AF
CSA
CF
TR
GA
ESD
IC
MD
PaperBanana
Structure (weighted)
0.5379
0.4843
0.5797
0.5632
0.5091
0.5834
0.5243
0.6204
0.4572
0.5037
0.4953
0.5326
VOL
0.5302
0.5086
0.5738
0.5697
0.5076
0.5786
0.5295
0.6186
0.4833
0.5361
0.5176
0.5412
LA
0.5459
0.4659
0.5893
0.5553
0.5105
0.5896
0.5174
0.6228
0.4355
0.4764
0.4766
0.5259
Content (weighted)
0.5002
0.4827
0.6195
0.5574
0.4810
0.5557
0.5432
0.6090
0.4478
0.4586
0.4914
0.5224
VER
0.5313
0.5168
0.6306
0.5683
0.4821
0.5371
0.5577
0.5858
0.4685
0.4779
0.4935
0.5318
Appendix
Table 7: Per-category dimension-level results for PaperBanana and Vanilla. Structure and Content rows are the weighted top-level scores; VOL, LA, VER, and CA are their corresponding sub-dimensions.
Model
TL
LD
PE
AF
CSA
CF
TR
GA
ESD
IC
MD
Overall
Default
0.5272
0.4917
0.5975
0.5665
0.4926
0.5703
0.5361
0.6195
0.4610
0.4824
0.4985
0.5312
VLM variants
Gemini 3.1 Pro
0.4439
0.3824
0.5617
0.5380
0.4992
0.5835
0.4835
0.5699
0.5200
0.4751
0.4204
0.4980
Qwen3.5-Plus
0.4723
0.4103
0.5582
0.4905
0.4895
0.5721
0.4773
0.5850
0.4465
0.4750
0.4681
0.4950
Seed 2.0 Pro
0.5277
0.5108
0.5758
0.4620
0.4848
0.5614
0.4597
0.5808
0.4371
0.4455
0.4624
0.5007
Multimodal Generative Model variants
Appendix
Table 8: PaperBanana results under different underlying models. The default configuration pairs GPT-5.4 with Gemini 3 Pro Image; each variant replaces one component while holding the other fixed. Type abbreviations follow Table 1 .
Experimental setup
Directional Agreement Rate
Strength Alignment
TSC
HPA
Overall
Gen.-pref.
Ref.-pref.
Kendall’s τb
Spearman’s ρ
–
–
0.4952
0.7143
0.3857
0.0989
0.1292
–
✓
0.5143
0.8286
0.3571
0.2680
0.3444
✓
–
0.5143
0.7143
0.4143
0.0625
0.0710
✓
✓
0.5714
0.7143
0.5000
0.2277
0.2934
Appendix
Table 9: Human-alignment results for the 2×2 evaluation-framework analysis on the 105 high-agreement instances using GPT-5.4. Gen. and Ref. recall correspond to human preferences for the generated and reference diagrams, respectively. DAR is the primary endpoint.
Figure 8: Stability across diagram types. The left panel reports the type-level standard deviation (SD) across three runs, while the right panel reports criterion-level pairwise flip rates with ε=0 .
Vision-language model evaluation measures multimodal systems’ perception, reasoning, grounding, robustness, and reliability across controlled and real-world tasks.
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.
Vision-language models (VLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in visual question answering with natural images. However, they continue to struggle with scientific diagrams, which are designed to convey functional or relational meaning rather than literal scenes. We therefore introduce a framework for generating large-scale diagram-grounded instruction data by leveraging terminology derived from scientific curricula. Our approach systematically extracts domain concepts, synthesizes atomic facts, retrieves relevant diagrams from the web, and generates multimodal supervision in the form of diagram captions and multiple-choice questions. Using this pipeline, we construct SciGram, a dataset of over 194K diagrams and 1.4M visual instructions across life, earth, and physical sciences. Despite relying on noisy web data and synthetic annotations, models fine-tuned on SciGram achieve substantial improvements on diagram-centric benchmarks, including TQA, ScienceQA, and AI2D, outperforming or matching state-of-the-art VLMs while using fewer training instances. Furthermore, augmenting existing models such as LLaVA OneVision with SciGram establishes new state-of-the-art performance on diagram question answering. Our results highlight the effectiveness of terminology-grounded instruction generation as a general strategy for improving vision-language reasoning in scientific domains. To support future research in scientific diagram understanding, we release both the SciGram dataset and models.
Raul Ortega, José Manuel Gómez-Pérez
Language Technology Research Laboratory Expert.ai 17 Henri Dunant, 28036 Madrid, Spain
Scientific papers use schematic diagrams to communicate methods, workflows, and system structure, yet existing scientific-figure corpora often mix them with plots, screenshots, and photographs and rarely preserve document context. We introduce DiagramBank, a quality-audited dataset of 57,100 schematic diagrams curated from OpenReview-hosted AI/ML venues. Each record links a diagram image to its paper title, abstract, figure caption, in-text figure-reference spans, venue/year metadata, provenance fields, and filtering labels. DiagramBank is a reusable resource for scientific-document understanding, diagram retrieval, corpus analysis, and future benchmark construction. We describe its extraction and cascade-filtering pipeline, release schema, confidence-controlled views, dataset card, and indexing utilities. A manual blind audit of the released cascade-filtered records estimates 93.67% precision, and a separate CLIP threshold analysis characterizes the precision--coverage trade-off for simpler filtering views. We further provide lightweight metadata-indexing and authoring examples to illustrate downstream protocols without treating these utilities as standalone methods. The code is public at: https://github.com/csml-rpi/DiagramBank.
Ling Yue, Tingwen Zhang, Jiaying Wang +2
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute · University of Chicago