We introduce AEGIS, A holistic benchmark for Evaluating forensic analysis of AI-Generated academic ImageS. Compared to existing benchmarks, AEGIS features three key advances: (1) Domain-Specific Complexity: covering seven academic categories with 39 fine-grained subtypes, exposing intrinsic forensic difficulty, where even GPT-5.1 reaches 48.80% overall performance and expert models achieve only limited localization accuracy (IoU 30.09%); (2) Diverse Forgery Simulations: modeling four prevalent academic forgery strategies across 25 generative models, with 11 yielding average forensic accuracy below 50%, showing that forensics lag behind generative advances; and (3) Multi-Dimensional Forensic Evaluation: jointly assessing detection, reasoning, and localization, revealing complementary strengths between model families, with multimodal large language models (MLLMs) at 84.74% accuracy in textual artifact recognition and expert detectors peaking at 79.54% accuracy in binary authenticity detection. By evaluating 25 leading MLLMs, nine expert models, and one unified multimodal understanding and generation model, AEGIS serves as a diagnostic testbed exposing fundamental limitations in academic image forensics.

We introduce SPUR, a comprehensive benchmark for scientific experimental image perception, understanding, and reasoning, comprising 4,264 question-answering (QA) pairs derived from 1,084 expert-curated images. SPUR features three key innovations: (1) Panel-Level Fine-Grained Perception: evaluating the visual perception of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) across three dimensions (numerical, morphological, and information localization) on six fine-grained panel types; (2) Cross-Panel Relation Understanding: utilizing complex images with an average of 14.3 panels per sample to evaluate MLLMs’ ability to decipher intricate cross-panel relations; (3) Expert-Level Reasoning: assessment of qualitative and quantitative reasoning across five experimental paradigms to determine if models can infer conclusions from evidence as human experts do. Comprehensive evaluation of 20 MLLMs and four multimodal Chain-of-Thought (MCoT) methods reveals that current models fall significantly short of the expert-level requirements for scientific image interpretation, underscoring a critical bottleneck in AI for Science (AI4S) research.