Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

MMCR: Benchmarking Cross-Source Reasoning in Scientific Papers

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 2503.16856 v2 pith:6IAVLCLH submitted 2025-03-21 cs.CL

MMCR: Benchmarking Cross-Source Reasoning in Scientific Papers

classification cs.CL
keywords reasoningcross-sourceinformationmodelsvlmsaccuracyscientificability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Fully comprehending scientific papers by machines reflects a high level of Artificial General Intelligence, requiring the ability to reason across fragmented and heterogeneous sources of information, presenting a complex and practically significant challenge. While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have made remarkable strides in various tasks, particularly those involving reasoning with evidence source from single image or text page, their ability to use cross-source information for reasoning remains an open problem. This work presents MMCR, a high-difficulty benchmark designed to evaluate VLMs' capacity for reasoning with cross-source information from scientific papers. The benchmark comprises 276 high-quality questions, meticulously annotated by humans across 7 subjects and 10 task types. Experiments with 18 VLMs demonstrate that cross-source reasoning presents a substantial challenge for existing models. Notably, even the top-performing model, GPT-4o, achieved only 48.55% overall accuracy, with only 20% accuracy in multi-table comprehension tasks, while the second-best model, Qwen2.5-VL-72B, reached 39.86% overall accuracy. Furthermore, we investigated the impact of the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) technique on cross-source reasoning and observed a detrimental effect on small models, whereas larger models demonstrated substantially enhanced performance. These results highlight the pressing need to develop VLMs capable of effectively utilizing cross-source information for reasoning.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. PaperMind: Benchmarking Agentic Reasoning and Critique over Scientific Papers in Multimodal LLMs

    cs.IR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    PaperMind is a new benchmark that evaluates integrated multimodal reasoning and critique over scientific papers through four complementary task families across seven domains.