Abstract
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.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27841
