Abstract
Scientific figure quality is bound to the manuscript: a crop can be visually clear and still contradict its caption or the paragraph that cites it. Most image quality assessment and chart-understanding methods target a detached visual surface or a question-answering score, rather than alignment among the figure, its caption, and the citing text. A single end-to-end prompt that sees the image and the text together still mixes what is visible with what the caption and the citing paragraph claim, so fluent wording can raise a visual score and missing text can be treated as low quality. To address this gap, we introduce SciFigQual-Bench, a manuscript-linked benchmark for published CS-conference figures that binds each figure to its caption and to index-resolved citing paragraphs, and scores visual clarity, layout, caption consistency, context consistency, and misleading risk, leaving a dimension unevaluated when its evidence is absent. SFQ-Agent reads the image and the text in separate calls and records modality-specific evidence. A cross-modal judge scores caption and citing-text alignment from those reports, and a deterministic runner keeps the visual scores, sets misleading risk by a fixed rule, and applies the written caps, so each dimension follows the rubric instead of a single end-to-end prompt. Experiments comparing this staged judge with single-pass and OCR-sidecar protocols find the closest point-estimate fit to mean human ratings under staged judging, while the gap between protocols remains small. Caption consistency remains the main gap, and agreement with the rater mean answers a different question from agreement among human raters.