arXiv:2603. 29139v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled agentic systems to translate natural-language intent into executable scientific visualization (SciVis) tasks.
By Kuangshi Ai, Haichao Miao, Kaiyuan Tang, Nathaniel Gorski, Jianxin Sun, Guoxi Liu, Helgi I. Ingolfsson, David Lenz, Hanqi Guo, Hongfeng Yu, Teja Leburu, Michael Molash, Bei Wang, Tom Peterka, Chaoli Wang, Shusen Liu
arXiv:2606. 29667v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The materials science literature encodes decades of experimental knowledge in figures, yet this visual record remains locked away and inaccessible to AI at scale.
By Subham Ghosh, Shubham Tiwari, Mohammad Ibrahim, Abhishek Tewari
arXiv:2606. 28406v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
By Davie Chen
arXiv:2606. 26348v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process diverse inputs, e.
By Po-han Li, Shenghui Chen, Sandeep Chinchali, Ufuk Topcu
The paper investigates why multimodal large language models (MLLMs) struggle with vision‑centric tasks when visual evidence conflicts with pretrained language knowledge. Using image reconstruction and a new WhatIfVis benchmark, the authors show that MLLMs preserve coarse‑grained visual attributes but fail to consistently use them, and that supervised fine‑tuning and activation patching can improve controllability of visual context sensitivity. The study demonstrates that the main bottleneck lies in the models’ inability to reliably regulate their reliance on visual evidence rather than in visual perception itself.
By Jiaang Li, Chengzu Li, Zhaochong An, Yifei Yuan, Xi Liu, Serge Belongie, V\'esteinn Sn{\ae}bjarnarson
SciMIF is a new benchmark that evaluates how well multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can follow complex scientific instructions. It is built on an analysis of 22 tasks across five scientific fields and introduces a taxonomy of 10 constraint groups that capture both general and discipline‑specific requirements. Experiments show large performance gaps between fields—chemistry is hardest—and that larger models do not necessarily improve constraint adherence, especially for fine‑grained, knowledge‑heavy instructions.
By Ye Shen, Yuting Zheng, Dun Pei, Zijian Chen, Wenlong Zhang, Qi Jia, Guangtao Zhai