Sci-MMR: Benchmarking Multi-Step Evidence-Grounded Scientific Reasoning in Multimodal Agents
Updated 2 h ago · first seen 12 Sept 2026
paper_01M29X34J849J6ZBQPGG8SCEDM
- Published
- 12 Sept 2026
- T1 · 2 h ago
- arXiv
- 2609.11243
- T1 · 2 h ago
- Category
- cs.AI
- T1 · 2 h ago
Abstract
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
Authors 18
Bicheng Deng, Dingwei Zhu, Enyu Zhou, Han Wang, Jiadong Chen, Jiaqiang Li, Jiazheng Zhang, Lei Bai, Qi Zhang, Senjie Jin, Tao Gui, Xiang Zheng, Xingjun Ma, Yajie Yang, Yang Nan, Yanxin Li, Yuhui Wang, Zhiheng Xi
Specification
- Official page
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- Arxiv announce type
- new
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- arXiv id
- 2609.11243
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- Categories
- cs.AI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- Primary category
- cs.AI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- Published
- 12 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →
Provenance
Attributed facts
9
Source tiers
T19
Freshest observation
2 h ago
Conflicts
None
No models linked to this paper yet.
- Authors
- Jiaqiang Li, Yajie Yang, Zhiheng Xi
As of
Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.
Claim history · Authors
Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →
- New paperPaperSci-MMR: Benchmarking Multi-Step Evidence-Grounded Scientific Reasoning in Multimodal Agents
New paper: Sci-MMR: Benchmarking Multi-Step Evidence-Grounded Scientific Reasoning in Multimodal Agents
arxiv
| Source | Document | Type | Tier | Last observed | Snapshots |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI | feed | T1· Official | 2 h ago | 2 |
Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.