InSight: A Benchmark for Agentic Claim Verification in Interactive Visualizations

Vision Language Models have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in interpreting static visual artifacts, but modern data analysis is inherently dynamic, requiring the active interrogation of interactive environments. Existing benchmarks are predominantly constrained to static imagery and one-shot question answering and fail to capture the epistemic demands of this domain, where evidence is frequently occluded, distributed across linked views, or conditionally revealed through user agency. In this paper, we introduce InSight, a benchmark for agentic claim verification over interactive visualizations. The dataset consists of 21,349 claims derived from human-authored analytical narratives and grounded in fully interactive web-based environments. Agents must navigate these environments to determine whether a natural language claim is supported, refuted or not verifiable given the available evidence. Unlike traditional evaluations, InSight treats interaction traces as intrinsic proxies for reasoning, enabling a rigorous audit of how models seek and synthesize visual evidence. We evaluate state-of-the-art models, revealing that interactive verification remains a non-trivial challenge. We release InSight at https://github.com/maevehutch/insight.

MAP: A Benchmark on Multimodal Accessibility Planning for Real World Places

We introduce MAP, the first benchmark to evaluate multimodal AI systems as assistants for users with accessibility requirements when planning visits to places in the real world. In our evaluation, systems are presented with requests to verify or recommend a point of interest meeting an accessibility requirement. MAP contains two novel assessments: Claim verification for accessibility planning assesses if information on places and stated accessibility features is supported and identifies places that satisfy requested accessibility features. Visual evidence retrieval for accessibility planning checks if a multimodal AI system can select visual evidence for the requested place and accessibility feature. Our methodology supports comparison of AI systems in a setting where place information and accessibility information can change over time by evaluating systems and refreshing ground truth data at scheduled times. The benchmark is based on automatic rating and human rating for a proportion of responses.

Chart-Supported or Model-Supplied? Examining MLLM-Generated Claims for Accessible Visualization

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can connect visualization patterns to external causes, consequences, and domain knowledge, but the evidential basis of these interpretations is often unclear. We present an exploratory study of 102 visualizations from four sources, three MLLMs, and four input conditions that vary access to the image, source-specific accessible chart context, and withheld-context framing. Across 1,224 descriptions, we analyze model-attributed DIRECT, DERIVED, and SPECULATIVE labels and conduct an automated audit of numeric agreement. Accessible chart context shifted Gemini and GPT toward DIRECT claims and improved numeric agreement for some models. Adding the image to the full context did not yield a consistent numeric benefit, and the withheld-context prompt did not reliably increase cautious language. The prompt-defined Real-World Significance section remained predominantly SPECULATIVE. These results motivate accessible description systems that distinguish claims supported by supplied evidence from model-supplied interpretation

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

Scientific discovery increasingly relies on automated systems that generate hypotheses, inspect multimodal evidence, and validate claims at scale. Yet scientific claim verification is not well served by asking a vision-language model for a direct binary judgment: claims often combine numerical results, comparisons, scope qualifiers, and explanatory context, while evidence is encoded in tables and figures with distinct grounding structures. We present SciLens, an evidence-conditioned atomic entailment framework for multimodal scientific claim verification. SciLens decomposes each claim into central empirical atoms and background atoms, grounds the central atoms to modality-specific evidence witnesses, and predicts the final label with an atom-level entailment rule. For tables, atoms are grounded to rows, columns, cells, arithmetic relations, and table scope; for figures, they are grounded through panels, axes, legends, visual encodings, categories, trends, ranks, and qualifier checks. This yields a unified validation procedure in which a claim is supported only if every central empirical atom is entailed by the current evidence. On the SciClaimEval development set, SciLens achieves 79.2% macro-F1 and 63.1% pair accuracy, showing that structured agentic validation improves both evidence sensitivity and interpretability.

Context-Aware Multimodal Claim Verification in Spoken Dialogues

Every day, millions absorb claims from podcasts and streams that no fact-checker ever sees. Spoken misinformation is built through conversation, where credibility comes not from facts alone but from how claims are framed, reinforced, or left unchallenged across turns. Yet fact-checking has focused on isolated text, leaving dialogue audio under-studied. We introduce MAD2, a new Multi-turn Audio Dialogues benchmark for spoken claim verification, containing 1,000 two-speaker dialogues with 3,368 check-worthy claims and approximately 10 hours of audio, and propose calibrated multimodal fusion of a context-aware audio encoder and a dialogue-aware text model. Across settings, adding dialogue context improves verification, but the gains depend on scenario type. Using only preceding context often matches offline performance, supporting live-moderation settings, and audio contributes most when transcript-based models are destabilized by additional context. Overall, conversational structure matters more for verification than misinformation framing.