Existing vision-language model (VLM) benchmarks emphasize perception and reasoning accuracy (how well VLMs describe and reason about what they see in an image), with limited attention to behavioral reliability under uncertainty (how they behave when visual evidence is missing or misleading). We introduce SciFigBench, a diagnostic VLM benchmark for scientific figure understanding that jointly evaluates perception, reasoning, and behavioral reliability under uncertainty. It contains 250 figures with high-quality human annotations across three evaluation aspects, totaling 600+ hours of annotation effort. We further extend these figures via image transformations, reasoning questions, resistance probes, caption-bias probes, and confirmed selective-blur targets, producing over 34,000 evaluation setups for stress testing. We further propose the Admittance-Resistance-Inductance (A-R-I) framework to evaluate whether models acknowledge insufficient evidence, resist misleading context, and infer cautiously from partial information. Our results reveal substantial behavioral differences among models. GPT-5.2 achieves the highest description quality (MQM 91.6) with strong reasoning accuracy (78.4%), yet hallucinates unreadable content in 96% of cases, whereas Gemini 3.1 Pro, a comparably capable model (MQM 90.2, reasoning 81.0%), admits uncertainty in 71% of such cases and achieves the strongest resistance score (0.91). These findings show that high perception and reasoning accuracy alone do not guarantee behavioral reliability, a dimension critical for deployment in scientific workflows.
Zixian He, Bharath Raahul Murugesan, Patrick Brandt +1cs.CL
High accuracy does not necessarily make an LLM a faithful coder. This issue matters because many social-science studies rely on expert-written codebooks to turn text into structured data. We study political event coding, where a model must identify the action that one actor directs toward another under detailed coding rules. We compare label names alone with concise definitions and enriched guidance that adds examples, event-mode instructions, and boundary rules. We also evaluate alternative prompting and retrieval methods. We then test behavioral reliability under changes to codebook order, label names, and label-definition mappings. Enriched guidance raises mean root-level macro-F1 from 0.457 to 0.633. Methods with access to definitions remain effective when meaningful label names are removed, but no evaluated method exceeds 0.20 weighted F1 after the label-definition mapping is reassigned. These results motivate separate evaluation of predictive performance and adherence to the supplied coding rules.