A Survey of Multimodal Mathematical Reasoning: From Perception, Alignment to Reasoning

Mathematical reasoning is a fundamental capability for educational applications of Large Language Models (LLMs), where reliable problem solving requires not only correct answers but also coherent and verifiable reasoning processes. Multi-agent systems (MASs) have shown growing potential in this domain by leveraging collaboration and verification among multiple LLM agents. However, existing evaluations primarily focus on the correctness of final answers in text-only settings, offering limited insight into multimodal reasoning capabilities, the reliability of intermediate reasoning steps, and robustness against reasoning errors. To address these limitations, we introduce MAMath-Bench, a process-aware benchmark designed to evaluate the multimodal mathematical reasoning capabilities of MASs. MAMath-Bench comprises 1,003 problems spanning 11 mathematical categories, multiple difficulty levels, and several modalities, including text, images, and audio. It features fine-grained milestone annotations to evaluate systems across three dimensions: problem-solving correctness, reasoning-process reliability, and robustness to adversarial reasoning-chain perturbations. Our evaluation yields three key findings. First, multi-agent collaboration does not consistently improve final-answer accuracy over strong single LLMs. Second, collaboration can substantially enhance the coverage of intermediate reasoning, but such gains may come at the cost of increased reasoning redundancy. Third, current systems remain vulnerable to adversarial reasoning errors, particularly those involving subtle structural perturbations. The dataset is available at https://github.com/mira-ai-lab/AgentMath.

Evaluation of multimodal reasoning models is typically reduced to a single accuracy score, implicitly treating reasoning as a unitary capability. We introduce MathLens, a benchmark of textbook-style geometry problems that exposes this assumption by operationally decomposing performance into perception, reasoning, and multimodal-specific components. Each problem is derived from a symbolic specification and accompanied by visual diagrams, text-only variants, multimodal questions, and targeted perceptual probes, enabling controlled measurement of each component. Using this decomposition, we show that common training strategies are associated with systematically different capability profiles that are invisible under aggregate accuracy. Across the models we study, reinforcement learning primarily improves perceptual grounding and robustness to diagram variation, while our analysis suggests that textual SFT yields gains through reflective reasoning. In contrast, as perception and reasoning improve, a growing fraction of remaining errors fall outside these components and are categorized as multimodal-specific. These results suggest that apparent progress in multimodal reasoning reflects shifting balances among subskills rather than uniform advancement, motivating evaluation beyond scalar accuracy.

Multimodal large language models have recently shown promising progress in visual mathematical reasoning. However, their performance is often limited by a critical yet underexplored bottleneck: inaccurate visual perception. Through systematic analysis, we find that the most failures originate from incorrect or incomplete visual evidence extraction rather than deficiencies in reasoning capability. Moreover, models tend to remain overly confident in their initial perceptions, making standard strategies such as prompt engineering, multi-round self-reflection, or posterior guidance insufficient to reliably correct errors. To address this limitation, we propose M3-ACE, a multi-agentic context engineering framework designed to rectify visual perception in multimodal math reasoning. Instead of directly aggregating final answers, our approach decouples perception and reasoning by dynamically maintaining a shared context centered on visual evidence lists. Multiple agents collaboratively contribute complementary observations, enabling the system to expose inconsistencies and recover missing perceptual information. To support stable multi-turn collaboration, we further introduce two lightweight tools: a Summary Tool that organizes evidence from different agents into consistent, complementary, and conflicting components, and a Refine Tool that filters unreliable samples and guides iterative correction. Extensive experiments demonstrate that M3-ACE substantially improves visual mathematical reasoning performance across multiple benchmarks. Our method establishes new state-of-the-art results 89.1 on the MathVision benchmark and achieves consistent improvements on other related datasets, including MathVista and MathVerse. These results highlight the importance of perception-centric multi-agent collaboration for advancing multimodal reasoning systems.