Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 113 references

Plane Geometry Problem Solving with Multi-modal Reasoning: A Survey

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that plane geometry problem solving can be organized into a single encoder-decoder taxonomy, and that its two central obstacles are diagram hallucination and benchmark data leakage.

desk verdict A useful survey map of a niche field, with a few taxonomy entries that need checking before it goes out. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14340 v1 pith:N3H55ZLC submitted 2025-05-20 cs.CV cs.LG

Seunghyuk Cho , Zhenyue Qin , Yang Liu , Youngbin Choi , Seungbeom Lee , Dongwoo Kim This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords planegeometryproblemsolvingmulti-modalreasoningvision-languagemodelsencoder-decodertaxonomydiagramunderstandingbenchmarkanalysishallucinationdataleakage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This survey argues that automated plane geometry problem solving (PGPS) is now a distinct research area large enough to deserve its own review, and that the right way to see the field is as an encoder-decoder pipeline. The encoder turns the diagram-plus-text input into either a formal-language description or an embedding vector; the decoder converts that representation into a theorem sequence, a logic program, or a natural-language answer. The paper assigns every surveyed method a single combination of these four choices, and uses that grid to show where the field is stuck: models misread diagrams (hallucination during encoding) and many benchmarks do not actually force multi-modal reasoning (data leakage and text-only-solvable problems). A reader accepts the survey if the taxonomy is faithful enough to organize the literature without distorting individual methods.

What carries the argument

The central object is the E/I/D/O tuple, the four-coordinate classification illustrated in Figure 3, with E the encoder, I the intermediate representation, D the decoder, and O the output representation. The intermediate representation carries most of the explanatory weight: formal-language descriptions make the system's reading of the diagram explicit and open to symbolic theorem proving, while embedding vectors make the perception step opaque but allow end-to-end training. The taxonomy's power is comparative — it pins each method to exactly one E/I/D/O combination in Table A1, which is what turns a list of systems into a map of design trade-offs and failure locations.

What would settle it

Find one published PGPS system that genuinely straddles the grid — for example, a system that produces both a formal-language description and an embedding vector for the same problem instance, or that switches between logic-program and natural-language outputs depending on input difficulty — and the survey's claim that each method occupies a single E/I/D/O combination is shown to be incomplete. A concrete check is to take the 29 methods listed in Table A1, reimplement or inspect the released code of a random sample, and see whether any method's actual inference-time pipeline behaves differently from its assigned tuple.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the entire PGPS literature fits a modular encoder-decoder architecture, and that the decisive design choice is the intermediate representation between encoder and decoder. In this view, a PGPS system is fully described by four coordinates: encoder type (rule-based or neural), intermediate representation (formal-language description composed of an entity set and a predicate set, versus an embedding vector), decoder type (rule-based axiomatic search, graph-based, or sequence-to-sequence), and output format (theorem sequence, logic program, or natural-language description). The survey maintains that this four-coordinate grid is complete for the methods it reviews, that it lets the field compare systems on equal terms, and that it localizes the open problems: perception errors happen in the encoding stage, while evaluation errors come from benchmarks that are text-solvable, leak data by reusing diagrams, or rely on synthetic diagrams that miss real-world clutter.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's organizing power rests on the assumption that every reviewed method can be assigned exactly one encoder type, one intermediate representation, one decoder type, and one output format without distortion, even though the assignments were made by reading papers rather than running the code.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the taxonomy is faithful, new PGPS systems can be described and compared by their E/I/D/O tuple, making architecture choices explicit and reproducible.
  • The paper's error analysis implies that improving diagram perception — through visual prompting, segmentation masks, or auxiliary-line drawing — should reduce the dominant error type in current vision-language PGPS systems.
  • The benchmark analysis implies that no current benchmark simultaneously has realistic diagrams, no data leakage, and genuine diagram-text interdependence, so reported accuracy on existing benchmarks likely overstates true multi-modal reasoning.
  • Because L(V)LM-annotated datasets contain hallucinated geometry relations, models trained on those datasets inherit the errors; auditing and cleaning such datasets is a prerequisite for reliable progress.
  • The survey's synthesis implies that the field's immediate bottlenecks are perceptual (reading diagrams accurately) and evaluative (building leakage-free, interdependence-aware benchmarks), not the reasoning decoder itself.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if diagram hallucination is the dominant failure mode, then spending capacity on perception — e.g., fine-tuning encoders on synthetic geometry diagrams with domain adaptation — should yield larger accuracy gains than scaling the reasoning model, a hypothesis that could be tested by ablating the encoder while holding the decoder fixed.
  • Editorial inference: the E/I/D/O grid suggests a diagnostic protocol: for any PGPS system, deliberately corrupt the diagram (or the text) and measure where the error enters; the survey's framework predicts that embedding-based systems will fail silently at perception while formal-language systems will fail by producing malformed or inconsistent predicates.
  • Editorial inference: the leakage critique extends to a practical recipe for benchmark construction — generate synthetic diagrams that mimic real-world styles (markers, clutter, labeled points), ensure each problem is unsolvable from text alone by construction, and withhold diagram templates across train/test splits; this would satisfy all three criteria the survey lists as simultaneously unmet.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper surveys the emerging literature on plane geometry problem solving (PGPS), a multimodal reasoning task in which models must combine diagram and text inputs to produce answers or proofs. The authors organize the field around an encoder–decoder framework: methods are decomposed into an encoder that produces either a formal-language description or an embedding vector, and a decoder that emits a theorem sequence, a logic program, or a natural-language description. On this basis they review rule-based and neural encoders, formal-language and embedding-based decoders, and the associated benchmarks and datasets. The final sections discuss two cross-cutting challenges: hallucination in diagram perception, illustrated with a small GPT-4.1 probe using the authors' GeoDANO engine, and benchmark quality issues such as data leakage and weak diagram–text interdependence. The paper positions itself as the first dedicated, up-to-date survey centered specifically on PGPS.

Significance. If its taxonomy is reliable, the paper provides a genuinely useful organizing device for a fragmented and fast-moving literature. The encoder–decoder language gives practitioners a compact notation for comparing methods, and the appendix table listing each method's E/I/D/O combination is a practical reference. The discussion of hallucination and data leakage is timely and concrete, including an original small error analysis (GPT-4.1 at 59% on GeoDANO-sampled same-side questions) and a useful comparison of benchmark comprehensiveness in Table A3. The paper also makes an honest scope statement in its Limitations section, restricting itself to two-dimensional geometry. The main weakness is that the central taxonomy is asserted rather than validated: several Table A1 assignments are at least debatable, and at least one appears to be factually wrong, which reduces confidence in the survey's core contribution as a map of the literature.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table A1, Section 3] The classification of Visual Sketchpad (Hu et al., 2024b) as E2 I2 D3 O3 is not supported by the cited paper. In its source, Visual Sketchpad is an inference-time prompting framework that interleaves calls to a frozen multimodal language model with editing of a visual sketch; it does not train or contain a sequence-to-sequence decoder that maps an intermediate embedding to a natural-language output. Forcing it into the same E/I/D/O slot as Math-LLaVA and MAVIS misrepresents a qualitatively different mechanism. Because Table A1 is the paper's central organizing contribution, this misclassification is load-bearing: it undermines the claim that the taxonomy faithfully summarizes the surveyed methods. The authors should either reclassify Visual Sketchpad (for example, as a prompting method outside the learned-encoder/decoder scheme, with an explicit caveat in Table A1) or, more generally, validate each Table A1 assignment against the original method description and state the criteria for assigning I2 to end-to-end models.
  2. [Section 2.2.2 (Reasoning tasks)] The sentence 'UniGeo (Chen et al., 2022) is currently the only benchmark designed explicitly to systematically measure reasoning capabilities' is an absolute claim that is not justified by any systematic search or comparison. The paper itself later discusses benchmarks that evaluate reasoning steps or process-level correctness (e.g., Jaiswal et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025a; Sun et al., 2024 appear in the references), and other geometry reasoning benchmarks exist in the broader literature. As written, this claim overstates the uniqueness of UniGeo and weakens the completeness of the task overview. The authors should either qualify the claim to refer to a specific definition of 'reasoning benchmark' or provide a systematic comparison of benchmarks that include reasoning-step evaluation.
  3. [Section 3.1, Table A1] The taxonomy assigns every method a single (encoder, intermediate representation, decoder, output) tuple, but the paper does not establish that this decomposition is jointly exhaustive or that the four components are separable for all surveyed methods. In particular, end-to-end vision-language models such as GeoDANO and MAVIS do not expose a distinct encoder and decoder with a well-defined intermediate embedding; labeling their hidden representations as I2 is an interpretive choice rather than an architectural fact. The authors should state explicitly whether the taxonomy is intended as a functional decomposition or an architectural description, and add a caveat that some assignments, especially for end-to-end models, are approximate. Without that caveat, the table gives a false impression of precision and the survey's central claim loses support.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7] There is a missing period between 'utilized across different methods' and 'Through the analysis'; please correct this punctuation error.
  2. [Table A1] The table uses symbols E1, E2, I1, I2, D1, D2, D3, O1, O2, O3 without a legend in the caption; readers must infer their meaning from Figure 3. Please add a one-line explanation in the Table A1 caption or refer explicitly to Figure 3.
  3. [Table A3] The table uses '⃝' and '×' symbols without a legend; please define them (e.g., '⃝ = satisfies the criterion, × = does not satisfy the criterion') in the caption or text.
  4. [Appendix A.3] The phrase 'L(V)LM-assisted annotation' is used with varying capitalization (L(V)LM, LLMs, VLMs); please standardize the terminology throughout the appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's taxonomy is a descriptive classification, and its only self-citation (GeoDANO) is a non-load-bearing evaluation probe.

full rationale

This paper is a descriptive survey rather than a derivation. It contains no fitted parameters, no predictive equations, and no uniqueness theorems. Its central contribution is the encoder-decoder taxonomy in Section 3 and Table A1, which is a classification scheme imposed on existing methods, not a result derived from a model. The only place the authors' own prior work (GeoDANO, Cho et al. 2025) appears is as one row in Table A1 and as a probe in Appendix C.2, where the paper states: 'We generated 100 problems using the synthetic data engine from GeoDANO (Cho et al., 2025) and tested them with GPT-4.1.' That self-citation is not load-bearing: the hallucination finding is an observation about GPT-4.1, and the taxonomic row is descriptive. Even if Table A1 contains a debatable assignment, such as classifying Visual Sketchpad as E2 I2 D3 O3, that would be a correctness or interpretation issue, not circularity, because the classification does not follow from accepting the authors' framework by definition. No step in the survey reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no result is imported from a self-citation chain. The survey is therefore self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No equations, constants, or fitted parameters appear. The survey's claims depend on accurate reading of the cited literature and on the exhaustiveness of its taxonomy.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Euclidean plane geometry is defined by points, lines, and circles in two-dimensional space.
    The survey's scope assumes this definition in Section 2.1 and excludes three-dimensional geometry.
  • domain assumption Reported properties of cited benchmarks, including data leakage and diagram-text redundancy, are accurately conveyed from the cited papers.
    The survey does not independently re-audit every benchmark; Table A3 and Section 6.2 rest on citations such as Hu et al. (2024a), Cao et al. (2024), and Chen et al. (2024a).
  • ad hoc to paper The encoder-decoder categorization is jointly exhaustive for the surveyed methods.
    The central taxonomy in Section 3 and Table A1 assumes every method can be assigned a unique E/I/D/O combination without distortion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Plane Geometry Problem Solving with Multi-modal Reasoning: A Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N3H55ZLC

@misc{pith2026250514340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Plane Geometry Problem Solving with Multi-modal Reasoning: A Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N3H55ZLC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14340}
}
read the original abstract

Plane geometry problem solving (PGPS) has recently gained significant attention as a benchmark to assess the multi-modal reasoning capabilities of large vision-language models. Despite the growing interest in PGPS, the research community still lacks a comprehensive overview that systematically synthesizes recent work in PGPS. To fill this gap, we present a survey of existing PGPS studies. We first categorize PGPS methods into an encoder-decoder framework and summarize the corresponding output formats used by their encoders and decoders. Subsequently, we classify and analyze these encoders and decoders according to their architectural designs. Finally, we outline major challenges and promising directions for future research. In particular, we discuss the hallucination issues arising during the encoding phase within encoder-decoder architectures, as well as the problem of data leakage in current PGPS benchmarks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14340 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of three PGPS tasks. The three tasks are commonly used to evaluate PGPS methods in existing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of the overall structure of PGPS methods. PGPS methods first encode the input diagram and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the PGPS pipeline. PGPS methods can be categorized based on the combination of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aleven and Kenneth R

    Vincent A.W.M.M. Aleven and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00061-7 An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor . Cognitive Science, 26(2):147--179

    work page doi:10.1016/s0364-0213(02)00061-7 2002

  2. [2]

    Chris Alvin, Sumit Gulwani, Rupak Majumdar, and Supratik Mukhopadhyay. 2017. Synthesis of problems for shaded area geometry reasoning. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 455--458, Cham. Springer International Publishing

    2017

  3. [3]

    Aida Amini, Saadia Gabriel, Shanchuan Lin, Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1245 M ath QA : Towards interpretable math word problem solving with operation-based formalisms . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics:...

    doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1245 2019

  4. [4]

    Mohit Bansal, Kevin Gimpel, and Karen Livescu. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/P14-2131 Tailoring continuous word representations for dependency parsing . In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 809--815, Baltimore, Maryland. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.3115/v1/p14-2131 2014

  5. [5]

    Averi Bates, Ryan Vavricka, Shane Carleton, Ruosi Shao, and Chongle Pan. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2025.100660 Unified modeling language code generation from diagram images using multimodal large language models . Machine Learning with Applications, 20:100660

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, and 12 others. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165 Lan...

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Jie Cao and Jing Xiao. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.coling-1.130/ An augmented benchmark dataset for geometric question answering through dual parallel text encoding . In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1511--1520, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. International Committee on Computational Linguistics

    2022

  8. [8]

    Lele Cao, Valentin Buchner, Zineb Senane, and Fangkai Yang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.trustnlp-1.16 Introducing G en C eption for multimodal LLM benchmarking: You may bypass annotations . In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Trustworthy Natural Language Processing (TrustNLP 2024), pages 196--201, Mexico City, Mexico. Association for Computat...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.trustnlp-1.16 2024

Show all 113 references
  1. [9]

    Jiaqi Chen, Tong Li, Jinghui Qin, Pan Lu, Liang Lin, Chongyu Chen, and Xiaodan Liang. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.218 U ni G eo: Unifying geometry logical reasoning via reformulating mathematical expression . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empir...

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Jiaqi Chen, Jianheng Tang, Jinghui Qin, Xiaodan Liang, Lingbo Liu, Eric Xing, and Liang Lin. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.46 G eo QA : A geometric question answering benchmark towards multimodal numerical reasoning . In Findings of the Association for Co...

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Lin Chen, Jinsong Li, Xiaoyi Dong, Pan Zhang, Yuhang Zang, Zehui Chen, Haodong Duan, Jiaqi Wang, Yu Qiao, Dahua Lin, and 1 others. 2024 a . Are we on the right way for evaluating large vision-language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.20330

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W. Cohen. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=YfZ4ZPt8zd Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reasoning for numerical reasoning tasks . Transactions on Machine Learning Research

    2023

  5. [13]

    Xiaoyu Chen, Dan Song, and Dongming Wang. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-014-9433-7 Automated generation of geometric theorems from images of diagrams . Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 74(3):333--358

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    Fouhey, Joyce Chai, and Shengyi Qian

    Xuweiyi Chen, Ziqiao Ma, Xuejun Zhang, Sihan Xu, Jianing Yang, David F. Fouhey, Joyce Chai, and Shengyi Qian. 2024 b . https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/file/4ea4a1ea4d9ff273688c8e92bd087112-Paper-Conference.pdf Multi-object hallucination in vision language...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Zhe Chen, Jiannan Wu, Wenhai Wang, Weijie Su, Guo Chen, Sen Xing, Muyan Zhong, Qinglong Zhang, Xizhou Zhu, Lewei Lu, Bin Li, Ping Luo, Tong Lu, Yu Qiao, and Jifeng Dai. 2024 c . Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks. In ...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Seunghyuk Cho, Zhenyue Qin, Yang Liu, Youngbin Choi, Seungbeom Lee, and Dongwoo Kim. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11360 Geodano: Geometric vlm with domain agnostic vision encoder . Preprint, arXiv:2502.11360

    2025

  9. [17]

    Junyoung Chung, Caglar Gulcehre, KyungHyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3555 Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling . Preprint, arXiv:1412.3555

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423 BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Associat...

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. 2021. https://openreview.net/forum?id=YicbFdNTTy An image is worth 1...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Fitzpatrick and J.L

    R. Fitzpatrick and J.L. Heiberg. 2007. https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=7HDWIOoBZUAC Euclid's Elements . University of Texas at Austin, Institute for Fusion Studies Department of Physics

    2007

  13. [21]

    Daocheng Fu, Zijun Chen, Renqiu Xia, Qi Liu, Yuan Feng, Hongbin Zhou, Renrui Zhang, Shiyang Feng, Peng Gao, Junchi Yan, Botian Shi, Bo Zhang, and Yu Qiao. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15780 Trustgeogen: Scalable and formal-verified data engine for trustworthy multi-modal g...

    2025

  14. [22]

    Wenbin Gan, Xinguo Yu, Ting Zhang, and Mingshu Wang. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218001419400032 Automatically proving plane geometry theorems stated by text and diagram . International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 33(07):1940003

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Jiahui Gao, Renjie Pi, Jipeng Zhang, Jiacheng Ye, Wanjun Zhong, Yufei Wang, Lanqing HONG, Jianhua Han, Hang Xu, Zhenguo Li, and Lingpeng Kong. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=px1674Wp3C G- LL a VA : Solving geometric problem with multi-modal large language model . In The...

    2025

  16. [24]

    Himanshu Gupta, Shreyas Verma, Ujjwala Anantheswaran, Kevin Scaria, Mihir Parmar, Swaroop Mishra, and Chitta Baral. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14702 Polymath: A challenging multi-modal mathematical reasoning benchmark . Preprint, arXiv:2410.14702

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Doll\'ar, and Ross Girshick. 2022. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16000--16009

    2022

  18. [26]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Yusuke Hirota, Ryo Hachiuma, Chao-Han Huck Yang, and Yuta Nakashima. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.986 From descriptive richness to bias: Unveiling the dark side of generative image caption enrichment . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Met...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 Long short-term memory . Neural Computation, 9(8):1735--1780

    1997 doi

  21. [29]

    Xuhao Hu, Dongrui Liu, Hao Li, Xuanjing Huang, and Jing Shao. 2024 a . Vlsbench: Unveiling visual leakage in multimodal safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.19939

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Smith, and Ranjay Krishna

    Yushi Hu, Weijia Shi, Xingyu Fu, Dan Roth, Mari Ostendorf, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah A. Smith, and Ranjay Krishna. 2024 b . https://openreview.net/forum?id=GNSMl1P5VR Visual sketchpad: Sketching as a visual chain of thought for multimodal language models . In The Thirty-eighth An...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Weinberger

    Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens van der Maaten, and Kilian Q. Weinberger. 2017. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Kung-Hsiang Huang, Can Qin, Haoyi Qiu, Philippe Laban, Shafiq Joty, Caiming Xiong, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11492 Why vision language models struggle with visual arithmetic? towards enhanced chart and geometry understanding . Preprint, arXiv:2502.11492

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Raj Jaiswal, Avinash Anand, and Rajiv Ratn Shah. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3696409.3700262 Advancing multimodal llms: A focus on geometry problem solving reasoning and sequential scoring . In Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Conference on Multimedia in Asia, MMAsia...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Pengpeng Jian, Fucheng Guo, Cong Pan, Yanli Wang, Yangrui Yang, and Yang Li. 2023 a . https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12224578 Interpretable geometry problem solving using improved retinanet and graph convolutional network . Electronics, 12(22)

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Pengpeng Jian, Fucheng Guo, Yanli Wang, and Yang Li. 2023 b . https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2023.023243 Solving geometry problems via feature learning and contrastive learning of multimodal data . Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, 136(2):1707--1728

    2023

  28. [36]

    Ryo Kamoi, Yusen Zhang, Sarkar Snigdha Sarathi Das, Ranran Haoran Zhang, and Rui Zhang. 2024. Visonlyqa: Large vision language models still struggle with visual perception of geometric information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00947

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Mehran Kazemi, Hamidreza Alvari, Ankit Anand, Jialin Wu, Xi Chen, and Radu Soricut. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=1AUbiBrOF1 Geomverse: A systematic evaluation of large models for geometric reasoning . In AI for Math Workshop @ ICML 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.02907 Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks . Preprint, arXiv:1609.02907

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Terry Koo, Xavier Carreras, and Michael Collins. 2008. https://aclanthology.org/P08-1068/ Simple semi-supervised dependency parsing . In Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pages 595--603, Columbus, Ohio. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2008

  32. [40]

    Zhengfeng Lai, Vasileios Saveris, Chen Chen, Hong-You Chen, Haotian Zhang, Bowen Zhang, Wenze Hu, Juan Lao Tebar, Zhe Gan, Peter Grasch, Meng Cao, and Yinfei Yang. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=TWnUgSAWNw Revisit large-scale image-caption data in pre-training multimoda...

    2025

  33. [41]

    Jimin Lee, Steven-Shine Chen, and Paul Pu Liang. 2025. Interactive sketchpad: A multimodal tutoring system for collaborative, visual problem-solving. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1--14

    2025

  34. [42]

    Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.703 BART : Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translatio...

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    Liunian Harold Li*, Pengchuan Zhang*, Haotian Zhang*, Jianwei Yang, Chunyuan Li, Yiwu Zhong, Lijuan Wang, Lu Yuan, Lei Zhang, Jenq-Neng Hwang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Jianfeng Gao. 2022. Grounded language-image pre-training. In CVPR

    2022

  36. [44]

    Yifan Li, Yifan Du, Kun Zhou, Jinpeng Wang, Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.20 Evaluating object hallucination in large vision-language models . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processi...

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Yunxin Li, Zhenyu Liu, Zitao Li, Xuanyu Zhang, Zhenran Xu, Xinyu Chen, Haoyuan Shi, Shenyuan Jiang, Xintong Wang, Jifang Wang, Shouzheng Huang, Xinping Zhao, Borui Jiang, Lanqing Hong, Longyue Wang, Zhuotao Tian, Baoxing Huai, Wenhan Luo, Weihua Luo, and 3 others. 2025. https:...

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Zhong-Zhi Li, Ming-Liang Zhang, Fei Yin, and Cheng-Lin Liu. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.153 LANS : A layout-aware neural solver for plane geometry problem . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 2596--2608, Bangko...

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Zhenwen Liang, Tianyu Yang, Jipeng Zhang, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.440 U ni M ath: A foundational and multimodal mathematical reasoner . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pa...

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Piotr Dollar, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, Bharath Hariharan, and Serge Belongie. 2017 a . Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollár. 2017 b . https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.324 Focal loss for dense object detection . In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 2999--3007

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=w0H2xGHlkw Visual instruction tuning . In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2023

  43. [51]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11692 Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach . Preprint, arXiv:1907.11692

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Pan Lu, Hritik Bansal, Tony Xia, Jiacheng Liu, Chunyuan Li, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Hao Cheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=KUNzEQMWU7 Mathvista: Evaluating mathematical reasoning of foundation models in visual contexts . I...

    2024

  45. [53]

    Pan Lu, Ran Gong, Shibiao Jiang, Liang Qiu, Siyuan Huang, Xiaodan Liang, and Song-Chun Zhu. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.528 I nter- GPS : Interpretable geometry problem solving with formal language and symbolic reasoning . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual ...

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    Huan Ma, Yan Zhu, Changqing Zhang, Peilin Zhao, Baoyuan Wu, Long-Kai Huang, Qinghua Hu, and Bingzhe Wu. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v39i18.34124 Spurious feature eraser: Stabilizing test-time adaptation for vision-language foundation model . Proceedings of the AAAI Conf...

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Candès, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19393 s1: Simple test-time scaling . Preprint, arXiv:2501.19393

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Logan Murphy, Kaiyu Yang, Jialiang Sun, Zhaoyu Li, Anima Anandkumar, and Xujie Si. 2024. Autoformalizing euclidean geometry. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'24. JMLR.org

    2024

  49. [57]

    Maizhen Ning, Qiu-Feng Wang, Kaizhu Huang, and Xiaowei Huang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3581783.3612570 A symbolic characters aware model for solving geometry problems . In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM '23, page 7767–7775, New York...

    2023

  50. [58]

    OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4v(ision) system card. https://openai.com/index/gpt-4v-system-card

    2023

  51. [59]

    OpenAI. 2025 a . Introducing gpt-4.1 in the api. https://openai.com/index/gpt-4-1/

    2025

  52. [60]

    OpenAI. 2025 b . Openai o3-mini. https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini

    2025

  53. [61]

    Shuai Peng, Di Fu, Yijun Liang, Liangcai Gao, and Zhi Tang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.850 G eo DRL : A self-learning framework for geometry problem solving using reinforcement learning in deductive reasoning . In Findings of the Association for Comput...

    2023 doi

  54. [62]

    Tianshuo Peng, Mingsheng Li, Hongbin Zhou, Renqiu Xia, Renrui Zhang, Lei Bai, Song Mao, Bin Wang, Conghui He, Aojun Zhou, Botian Shi, Tao Chen, Bo Zhang, and Xiangyu Yue. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.05983 Chimera: Improving generalist model with domain-specific experts . ...

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. 2021. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/radford21a.html Learning transferable visual model...

    2021

  56. [64]

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=HPuSIXJaa9 Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model . In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Infor...

    2023

  57. [65]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(1)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Nikhila Ravi, Valentin Gabeur, Yuan-Ting Hu, Ronghang Hu, Chaitanya Ryali, Tengyu Ma, Haitham Khedr, Roman R \"a dle, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Eric Mintun, Junting Pan, Kalyan Vasudev Alwala, Nicolas Carion, Chao-Yuan Wu, Ross Girshick, Piotr Doll \'a r, and Christoph F...

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Charles Murray, Robert G M

    Steven Ritter, Brendon Towle, R. Charles Murray, Robert G M. Hausmann, and John Connelly. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13437-1_110 A cognitive tutor for geometric proof . In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems - Volume Pa...

    2010 doi

  60. [68]

    Mrinmaya Sachan, Kumar Dubey, and Eric Xing. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D17-1081 From textbooks to knowledge: A case study in harvesting axiomatic knowledge from textbooks to solve geometry problems . In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural...

    2017 doi

  61. [69]

    Mrinmaya Sachan and Eric Xing. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S17-1029 Learning to solve geometry problems from natural language demonstrations in textbooks . In Proceedings of the 6th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (* SEM 2017) , pages 251--261, Va...

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    Pranab Sahoo, Prabhash Meharia, Akash Ghosh, Sriparna Saha, Vinija Jain, and Aman Chadha. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.685 A comprehensive survey of hallucination in large language, image, video and audio foundation models . In Findings of the Associat...

    2024 doi

  63. [71]

    Min Joon Seo, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Ali Farhadi, and Oren Etzioni. 2014. Diagram understanding in geometry questions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI'14, page 2831–2838. AAAI Press

    2014

  64. [72]

    Minjoon Seo, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Ali Farhadi, Oren Etzioni, and Clint Malcolm. 2015. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D15-1171 Solving geometry problems: Combining text and diagram interpretation . In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proc...

    2015 doi

  65. [73]

    Wenhao Shi, Zhiqiang Hu, Yi Bin, Junhua Liu, Yang Yang, See-Kiong Ng, Lidong Bing, and Roy Ka-Wei Lee. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.268 Math- LL a VA : Bootstrapping mathematical reasoning for multimodal large language models . In Findings of the Assoc...

    2024 doi

  66. [74]

    Kai Sun, Yushi Bai, Ji Qi, Lei Hou, and Juanzi Li. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.73 MM - MATH : Advancing multimodal math evaluation with process evaluation and fine-grained classification . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ...

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971 Llama:...

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Trinh, Yuhuai Wu, Quoc V

    Trieu H. Trinh, Yuhuai Wu, Quoc V. Le, He He, and Thang Luong. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06747-5 Solving olympiad geometry without human demonstrations . Nature, 625(7995):476--482

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    Aaron van den Oord, Oriol Vinyals, and Koray Kavukcuoglu. 2017. Neural discrete representation learning. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6309–6318, Red Hook, NY, USA. Curran Associates Inc

    2017

  70. [78]

    Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS'17, page 6000–6010, ...

    2017

  71. [79]

    Vicuna. 2023. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90 https://lmsys.org/blog/2023-03-30-vicuna/

    2023

  72. [80]

    Ke Wang, Junting Pan, Weikang Shi, Zimu Lu, Houxing Ren, Aojun Zhou, Mingjie Zhan, and Hongsheng Li. 2024 a . https://openreview.net/forum?id=QWTCcxMpPA Measuring multimodal mathematical reasoning with MATH -vision dataset . In The Thirty-eight Conference on Neural Information...

    2024

  73. [81]

    Zhikai Wang, Jiashuo Sun, Wenqi Zhang, Zhiqiang Hu, Xin Li, Fan Wang, and Deli Zhao. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18589 Benchmarking multimodal mathematical reasoning with explicit visual dependency . Preprint, arXiv:2504.18589

    2025 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Zirui Wang, Mengzhou Xia, Luxi He, Howard Chen, Yitao Liu, Richard Zhu, Kaiqu Liang, Xindi Wu, Haotian Liu, Sadhika Malladi, Alexis Chevalier, Sanjeev Arora, and Danqi Chen. 2024 b . https://openreview.net/forum?id=cy8mq7QYae Charxiv: Charting gaps in realistic chart understan...

    2024

  75. [83]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processi...

    2022

  76. [84]

    Rossi, Ruiyi Zhang, Subrata Mitra, Dimitris N

    Junda Wu, Zhehao Zhang, Yu Xia, Xintong Li, Zhaoyang Xia, Aaron Chang, Tong Yu, Sungchul Kim, Ryan A. Rossi, Ruiyi Zhang, Subrata Mitra, Dimitris N. Metaxas, Lina Yao, Jingbo Shang, and Julian McAuley. 2024 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.15310 Visual prompting in multimodal la...

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Wenjun Wu, Lingling Zhang, Jun Liu, Xi Tang, Yaxian Wang, Shaowei Wang, and Qianying Wang. 2024 b . https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.01312 E-gps: Explainable geometry problem solving via top-down solver and bottom-up generator . In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi...

    2024

  78. [86]

    Renqiu Xia, Mingsheng Li, Hancheng Ye, Wenjie Wu, Hongbin Zhou, Jiakang Yuan, Tianshuo Peng, Xinyu Cai, Xiangchao Yan, Bin Wang, Conghui He, Botian Shi, Tao Chen, Junchi Yan, and Bo Zhang. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=6RiBl5sCDF Geox: Geometric problem solving through...

    2025

  79. [87]

    Liangyu Xu, Yingxiu Zhao, Jingyun Wang, Yingyao Wang, Bu Pi, Chen Wang, Mingliang Zhang, Jihao Gu, Xiang Li, Xiaoyong Zhu, Jun Song, and Bo Zheng. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.12597 Geosense: Evaluating identification and application of geometric principles in multimodal r...

    2025 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Shihao Xu, Yiyang Luo, and Wei Shi. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3688866.3689124 Geo-llava: A large multi-modal model for solving geometry math problems with meta in-context learning . In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Large Generative Models Meet Multimodal Applications,...

    2024

  81. [89]

    Yibo Yan, Jiamin Su, Jianxiang He, Fangteng Fu, Xu Zheng, Yuanhuiyi Lyu, Kun Wang, Shen Wang, Qingsong Wen, and Xuming Hu. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.11936 A survey of mathematical reasoning in the era of multimodal large language model: Benchmark, method & challenges . ...

    2025 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Jianwei Yang, Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Xueyan Zou, Chunyuan Li, and Jianfeng Gao. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.11441 Set-of-mark prompting unleashes extraordinary visual grounding in gpt-4v . Preprint, arXiv:2310.11441

    2023 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Weichen Yu, Ziyan Yang, Shanchuan Lin, Qi Zhao, Jianyi Wang, Liangke Gui, Matt Fredrikson, and Lu Jiang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.19531 Is your text-to-image model robust to caption noise? Preprint, arXiv:2412.19531

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Zhou Yu, Jun Yu, Yuhao Cui, Dacheng Tao, and Qi Tian. 2019. Deep modular co-attention networks for visual question answering. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2019

  85. [93]

    Yuan Yuan, Zhaojian Li, and Bin Zhao. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1145/3713070 A survey of multimodal learning: Methods, applications, and future . ACM Comput. Surv., 57(7)

    2025 doi

  86. [94]

    Xiang Yue, Yuansheng Ni, Kai Zhang, Tianyu Zheng, Ruoqi Liu, Ge Zhang, Samuel Stevens, Dongfu Jiang, Weiming Ren, Yuxuan Sun, Cong Wei, Botao Yu, Ruibin Yuan, Renliang Sun, Ming Yin, Boyuan Zheng, Zhenzhu Yang, Yibo Liu, Wenhao Huang, and 3 others. 2024. Mmmu: A massive multi-...

    2024

  87. [95]

    Xiaohua Zhai, Basil Mustafa, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Lucas Beyer. 2023. Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 11975--11986

    2023

  88. [96]

    Jiaxin Zhang and Yashar Moshfeghi. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-naacl.19 GOLD : Geometry problem solver with natural language description . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024, pages 263--278, Mexico City, Mexico. Associa...

    2024 doi

  89. [97]

    Ming-Liang Zhang, Fei Yin, Yi-Han Hao, and Cheng-Lin Liu. 2022. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2022/228 Plane geometry diagram parsing . In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-22 , pages 1636--1643. International Joi...

    2022 doi

  90. [98]

    Ming-Liang Zhang, Fei yin, and Cheng-Lin Liu. 2023. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2023/376 A multi-modal neural geometric solver with textual clauses parsed from diagram . In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23 ...

    2023 doi

  91. [99]

    Renrui Zhang, Dongzhi Jiang, Yichi Zhang, Haokun Lin, Ziyu Guo, Pengshuo Qiu, Aojun Zhou, Pan Lu, Kai-Wei Chang, Yu Qiao, Peng Gao, and Hongsheng Li. 2025 a . Mathverse: Does your multi-modal llm truly see the diagrams in visual math problems? In Computer Vision -- ECCV 2024, ...

    2025

  92. [100]

    Renrui Zhang, Xinyu Wei, Dongzhi Jiang, Ziyu Guo, Yichi Zhang, Chengzhuo Tong, Jiaming Liu, Aojun Zhou, Shanghang Zhang, Peng Gao, and Hongsheng Li. 2025 b . https://openreview.net/forum?id=MnJzJ2gvuf MAVIS : Mathematical visual instruction tuning with an automatic data engine...

    2025

  93. [101]

    Shan Zhang, Aotian Chen, Yanpeng Sun, Jindong Gu, Yi-Yu Zheng, Piotr Koniusz, Kai Zou, Anton van den Hengel, and Yuan Xue. 2025 c . https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.06430 Open eyes, then reason: Fine-grained visual mathematical understanding in mllms . Preprint, arXiv:2501.06430

    2025 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Xiaokai Zhang, Na Zhu, Yiming He, Jia Zou, Cheng Qin, Yang Li, and Tuo Leng. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16040404 Fgeo-sss: A search-based symbolic solver for human-like automated geometric reasoning . Symmetry, 16(4)

    2024 doi

  95. [103]

    Xiaokai Zhang, Na Zhu, Cheng Qin, Yang Li, Zhenbing Zeng, and Tuo Leng. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11461 Fgeo-hypergnet: Geometric problem solving integrating formal symbolic system and hypergraph neural network . Preprint, arXiv:2402.11461

    2024 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Xiaokai Zhang, Na Zhu, Cheng Qin, LI Yang, Zhenbing Zeng, and Tuo Leng. 2024 c . https://openreview.net/forum?id=8wDSfs1W3w Formal representation and solution of plane geometric problems . In The 4th Workshop on Mathematical Reasoning and AI at NeurIPS'24

    2024

  97. [105]

    Xinsong Zhang, Yarong Zeng, Xinting Huang, Hu Hu, Runquan Xie, Han Hu, and Zhanhui Kang. 2025 d . https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13123 Low-hallucination synthetic captions for large-scale vision-language model pre-training . Preprint, arXiv:2504.13123

    2025 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Zeren Zhang, Jo-Ku Cheng, Jingyang Deng, Lu Tian, Jinwen Ma, Ziran Qin, Xiaokai Zhang, Na Zhu, and Tuo Leng. 2025 e . https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP49660.2025.10889286 Diagram formalization enhanced multi-modal geometry problem solver . In ICASSP 2025 - 2025 IEEE International...

    2025

  99. [107]

    Junbo Zhao, Ting Zhang, Jiayu Sun, Mi Tian, and Hua Huang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05543 Pi-gps: Enhancing geometry problem solving by unleashing the power of diagrammatic information . Preprint, arXiv:2503.05543

    2025 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Ling Zhong, Yujing Lu, Jing Yang, Weiming Li, Peng Wei, Yongheng Wang, Manni Duan, and Qing Zhang. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19498 Domaincqa: Crafting expert-level qa from domain-specific charts . Preprint, arXiv:2503.19498

    2025

  101. [109]

    Na Zhu, Xiaokai Zhang, Qike Huang, Fangzhen Zhu, Zhenbing Zeng, and Tuo Leng. 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym17010008 Fgeo-parser: Autoformalization and solution of plane geometric problems . Symmetry, 17(1)

    2025 doi

  102. [110]

    Chengke Zou, Xingang Guo, Rui Yang, Junyu Zhang, Bin Hu, and Huan Zhang. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=VOAMTA8jKu Dynamath: A dynamic visual benchmark for evaluating mathematical reasoning robustness of vision language models . In The Thirteenth International Conferenc...

    2025

  103. [111]

    Jia Zou, Xiaokai Zhang, Yiming He, Na Zhu, and Tuo Leng. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym16040437 Fgeo-drl: Deductive reasoning for geometric problems through deep reinforcement learning . Symmetry, 16(4)

    2024 doi

  104. [112]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  105. [113]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.