Not Search, But Scan: Benchmarking MLLMs on Scan-Oriented Academic Paper Reasoning

With the rapid progress of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), AI already performs well at literature retrieval and certain reasoning tasks, serving as a capable assistant to human researchers, yet it remains far from autonomous research. The fundamental reason is that current work on academic paper reasoning is largely confined to a search-oriented paradigm centered on pre-specified targets, with reasoning grounded in relevance retrieval, which struggles to support researcher-style full-document understanding, reasoning, and verification. To bridge this gap, we propose \textbf{ScholScan}, a new benchmark for academic paper reasoning. ScholScan introduces a scan-oriented task setting that asks models to read and cross-check entire papers like human researchers, scanning the document to identify consistency issues. The benchmark comprises 1,800 carefully annotated questions drawn from nine error categories across 13 natural-science domains and 715 papers, and provides detailed annotations for evidence localization and reasoning traces, together with a unified evaluation protocol. We assessed 15 models across 24 input configurations and conducted a fine-grained analysis of MLLM capabilities for all error categories. Across the board, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) methods yield no significant improvements, revealing systematic deficiencies of current MLLMs on scan-oriented tasks and underscoring the challenge posed by ScholScan. We expect ScholScan to be the leading and representative work of the scan-oriented task paradigm.

THEMIS: Towards Holistic Evaluation of MLLMs for Scientific Paper Fraud Forensics

We present THEMIS, a novel multi-task benchmark designed to comprehensively evaluate multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on visual fraud reasoning within real-world academic scenarios. Compared to existing benchmarks, THEMIS introduces three major advances. (1) Real-World Scenarios and Complexity: Our benchmark comprises over 4,000 questions spanning seven scenarios, derived from authentic retracted-paper cases and carefully curated multimodal synthetic data. With 60.47% complex-texture images, THEMIS bridges the critical gap between existing benchmarks and the complexity of real-world academic fraud. (2) Fraud-Type Diversity and Granularity: THEMIS systematically covers five challenging fraud types and introduces 16 fine-grained manipulation operations. On average, each sample undergoes multiple stacked manipulation operations, with the diversity and difficulty of these manipulations demanding a high level of visual fraud reasoning from the models. (3) Multi-Dimensional Capability Evaluation: We establish a mapping from fraud types to five core visual fraud reasoning capabilities, thereby enabling an evaluation that reveals the distinct strengths and specific weaknesses of different models across these core capabilities. Experiments on 16 leading MLLMs show that even the best-performing model, GPT-5, achieves an overall performance of only 56.15%, demonstrating that our benchmark presents a stringent test. We expect THEMIS to advance the development of MLLMs for complex, real-world fraud reasoning tasks.