Evaluates a model's ability to perform complex, claim-centric reasoning over full scientific documents containing multimodal elements (charts, tables, figures). It probes the model's capacity to localize evidence and answer questions accurately despite long-context noise and distractors. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SciMDR-Eval, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill scimdr-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Scimdr Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-scimdr-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: scimdr-eval
description: Evaluates a model's ability to perform complex, claim-centric reasoning over full scientific documents containing multimodal elements (charts, tables, figures). It probes the model's capacity to localize evidence and answer questions accurately despite long-context noise and distractors. Use when the user wants to benchmark on SciMDR-Eval, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2603.12249
bibtex_key: chen2026scimdr
confidence: high
---
# scimdr-eval
> SciMDR: Benchmarking and Advancing Scientific Multimodal Document Reasoning — Chen et al. (2026) (arXiv:2603.12249, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates a model's ability to perform complex, claim-centric reasoning over full scientific documents containing multimodal elements (charts, tables, figures). It probes the model's capacity to localize evidence and answer questions accurately despite long-context noise and distractors.
## Datasets
- **SciMDR-Eval** — total 300000; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Percentage of correctly answered questions on the test set, computed as exact-match or semantic match depending on the baseline implementation.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Full scientific research papers (text and embedded figures/tables) paired with claim-centric questions requiring multi-step reasoning.
**Output**: Natural language text answers to the posed questions.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_accuracy(predictions, gold_labels):
correct = 0
for pred, gold in zip(predictions, gold_labels):
if normalize_text(pred) == normalize_text(gold):
correct += 1
return (correct / len(gold_labels)) * 100
```
## Common pitfalls
- Long-context noise causes severe attention dilution; performance drops significantly when full papers are provided vs. oracle context.
- Simple QA pairs without explicit reasoning chains fail to teach complex scientific logic, causing massive accuracy drops.
- Synthetic data generation must balance faithfulness to source claims with realism of full-document context to avoid training degradation.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Table 7: Challenge of Attention Dilution. Effect of context noise on SciMDR-Eval accuracy. Performance degrades as the amount of irrelevant context increases.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{chen2026scimdr,
title={SciMDR: Benchmarking and Advancing Scientific Multimodal Document Reasoning},
author={Chen et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2603.12249}
}
```
- arXiv: 2603.12249
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!