SciVQR: A Multidisciplinary Multimodal Benchmark for Advanced Scientific Reasoning Evaluation

Scientific reasoning is a key aspect of human intelligence, requiring the integration of multimodal inputs, domain expertise, and multi-step inference across various subjects. Existing benchmarks for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often fail to capture the complexity and traceability of reasoning processes necessary for rigorous evaluation. To fill this gap, we introduce SciVQR, a multimodal benchmark covering 54 subfields in mathematics, physics, chemistry, geography, astronomy, and biology. SciVQR includes domain-specific visuals, such as equations, charts, and diagrams, and challenges models to combine visual comprehension with reasoning. The tasks range from basic factual recall to complex, multi-step inferences, with 46% including expert-authored solutions. SciVQR not only evaluates final answers but also examines the reasoning process, providing insights into how models reach their conclusions. Our evaluation of leading MLLMs, including both proprietary and open-source models, reveals significant limitations in handling complex multimodal reasoning tasks, underscoring the need for improved multi-step reasoning and better integration of interdisciplinary knowledge in advancing MLLMs toward true scientific intelligence. The dataset and evaluation code are publicly available at https://github.com/CASIA-IVA-Lab/SciVQR.

M$^3$-VQA: A Benchmark for Multimodal, Multi-Entity, Multi-Hop Visual Question Answering

We present M$^3$-VQA, a novel knowledge-based Visual Question Answering (VQA) benchmark, to enhance the evaluation of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in fine-grained multimodal entity understanding and complex multi-hop reasoning. Unlike existing VQA datasets that focus on coarse-grained categories and simple reasoning over single entities, M$^3$-VQA introduces diverse multi-entity questions involving multiple distinct entities from both visual and textual sources. It requires models to perform both sequential and parallel multi-hop reasoning across multiple documents, supported by traceable, detailed evidence and a curated multimodal knowledge base. We evaluate 16 leading MLLMs under three settings: without external knowledge, with gold evidence, and with retrieval-augmented input. The poor results reveal significant challenges for MLLMs in knowledge acquisition and reasoning. Models perform poorly without external information but improve markedly when provided with precise evidence. Furthermore, reasoning-aware agentic retrieval surpasses heuristic methods, highlighting the importance of structured reasoning for complex multimodal understanding. M$^3$-VQA presents a more challenging evaluation for advancing the multimodal reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/CASIA-IVA-Lab/M3VQA.

MIND: Unified Inquiry and Diagnosis RL with Criteria Grounded Clinical Supports for Psychiatric Consultation

Large language models (LLMs) have advanced medical dialogue systems, yet psychiatric consultation poses substantially higher demands due to subjective ambiguity and comorbidity complexity: an agent must continuously extract psychopathological cues from incomplete and inconsistent patient reports in multi-turn interactions and perform rigorous differential diagnostic reasoning. However, existing methods face two fundamental challenges. First, without criteria-grounded clinical supports, they are prone to unsupported clinical assertions when symptoms are atypical or underspecified. Second, in multi-turn interactions, they struggle to mitigate inquiry drift (off-topic or low-yield questioning) and optimize questioning strategies. To address these challenges, we propose MIND, a unified inquiry--diagnosis reinforcement learning framework for psychiatric consultation. Specifically, we build a Criteria-Grounded Psychiatric Reasoning Bank (PRB) that summarizes dialogue context into clinical retrieval states, retrieves semantically similar reference consultations, and distills reusable criteria-grounded clinical supports to guide criteria-aligned inquiry and reasoning. Building on this foundation, MIND enforces explicit clinical reasoning with rubric-based process rewards to provide fine-grained supervision over intermediate decision steps, and incorporates a value-aware trajectory rectification mechanism to jointly improve information acquisition and diagnostic decision-making across turns. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MIND consistently outperforms strong baselines in diagnostic accuracy, empathetic interaction quality, interpretability, and generalization.

LingxiDiagBench: A Multi-Agent Framework for Benchmarking LLMs in Chinese Psychiatric Consultation and Diagnosis

Mental disorders are highly prevalent worldwide, but the shortage of psychiatrists and the inherent subjectivity of interview-based diagnosis create substantial barriers to timely and consistent mental-health assessment. Progress in AI-assisted psychiatric diagnosis is constrained by the absence of benchmarks that simultaneously provide realistic patient simulation, clinician-verified diagnostic labels, and support for dynamic multi-turn consultation. We present LingxiDiagBench, a large-scale multi-agent benchmark that evaluates LLMs on both static diagnostic inference and dynamic multi-turn psychiatric consultation in Chinese. At its core is LingxiDiag-16K, a dataset of 16,000 EMR-aligned synthetic consultation dialogues designed to reproduce real clinical demographic and diagnostic distributions across 12 ICD-10 psychiatric categories. Through extensive experiments across state-of-the-art LLMs, we establish key findings: (1) although LLMs achieve high accuracy on binary depression--anxiety classification (up to 92.3%), performance deteriorates substantially for depression--anxiety comorbidity recognition (43.0%) and 12-way differential diagnosis (28.5%); (2) dynamic consultation often underperforms static evaluation, indicating that ineffective information-gathering strategies significantly impair downstream diagnostic reasoning; (3) consultation quality assessed by LLM-as-a-Judge shows only moderate correlation with diagnostic accuracy, suggesting that well-structured questioning alone does not ensure correct diagnostic decisions. We release LingxiDiag-16K and the full evaluation framework to support reproducible research at https://github.com/Lingxi-mental-health/LingxiDiagBench.