Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

MicroVQA: A Multimodal Reasoning Benchmark for Microscopy-Based Scientific Research

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.13399 v1 pith:C7HMWJJ4 submitted 2025-03-17 cs.CV cs.AIcs.CLcs.LGq-bio.CB

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.CLcs.LGq-bio.CB
keywords reasoningmicrovqamultimodalscientificresearchbenchmarkerrorsmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Scientific research demands sophisticated reasoning over multimodal data, a challenge especially prevalent in biology. Despite recent advances in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for AI-assisted research, existing multimodal reasoning benchmarks only target up to college-level difficulty, while research-level benchmarks emphasize lower-level perception, falling short of the complex multimodal reasoning needed for scientific discovery. To bridge this gap, we introduce MicroVQA, a visual-question answering (VQA) benchmark designed to assess three reasoning capabilities vital in research workflows: expert image understanding, hypothesis generation, and experiment proposal. MicroVQA consists of 1,042 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) curated by biology experts across diverse microscopy modalities, ensuring VQA samples represent real scientific practice. In constructing the benchmark, we find that standard MCQ generation methods induce language shortcuts, motivating a new two-stage pipeline: an optimized LLM prompt structures question-answer pairs into MCQs; then, an agent-based `RefineBot' updates them to remove shortcuts. Benchmarking on state-of-the-art MLLMs reveal a peak performance of 53\%; models with smaller LLMs only slightly underperform top models, suggesting that language-based reasoning is less challenging than multimodal reasoning; and tuning with scientific articles enhances performance. Expert analysis of chain-of-thought responses shows that perception errors are the most frequent, followed by knowledge errors and then overgeneralization errors. These insights highlight the challenges in multimodal scientific reasoning, showing MicroVQA is a valuable resource advancing AI-driven biomedical research. MicroVQA is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/jmhb/microvqa, and project page at https://jmhb0.github.io/microvqa.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. MMBU: A Massive Multi-modal Biomedical Understanding Benchmark to Probe the Perception Capabilities of Vision-Language Models

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Introduces MMBU benchmark for VLMs in biomedicine and demonstrates that established benchmarks mask perception deficiencies in evaluated models.

  2. LingoLoop Attack: Trapping MLLMs via Linguistic Context and State Entrapment into Endless Loops

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    LingoLoop traps MLLMs into generating up to 367 times more tokens by applying POS-aware attention adjustments to postpone EOS tokens and pruning generative paths to sustain repetitive loops.

  3. Agentic-J: An AI Agent for Biological Microscopy Image Analysis

    cs.MA 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Agentic-J is a multi-agent AI assistant that converts natural language descriptions of biological image analysis tasks into executable, reproducible scripts for ImageJ/Fiji with specialised sub-agents for plugin manag...

  4. Evolving Roles of LLMs in Scientific Innovation: Assistant, Collaborator, Scientist, and Evaluator

    cs.DL 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper proposes a four-role framework for LLMs in scientific innovation and reviews methods, benchmarks, and limitations across Assistant, Collaborator, Scientist, and Evaluator roles.

Pith tools