Organizations: Tsinghua University, China · Sun Yat-sen University, China · Independent Researcher · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China · Guangdong Laboratory of AI and Digital Economy (SZ), China · University of Illinois Chicago, USA
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) perform strongly on natural images, yet their ability to understand discrete visual symbols remains unclear. We present a multi-domain benchmark spanning language, culture, mathematics, physics and chemistry, organized into three cognitive levels: perception and recognition, combination and reasoning, and association and critical thinking. Across leading MLLMs, we observe a consistent cognitive mismatch. Models frequently underperform on elementary symbol recognition while appearing relatively competent on more complex reasoning tasks. This recognition-reasoning inversion indicates that current systems often compensate with linguistic priors, template retrieval or procedural reasoning instead of robust visual grounding. The pattern is especially clear for sparse, low-redundancy symbols such as handwritten characters, formula graphs, circuit diagrams and chemical structures. These results show that symbolic understanding remains a major bottleneck for multimodal intelligence and motivate training and evaluation schemes that prioritize grounded perception in discrete semantic spaces.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Continuous and discrete semantic spaces differ fundamentally in how visual information is organized. Discrete symbol understanding requires precise recognition of individual symbolic units and their structured relations.
Figure 2: Performance and representative cases for language-symbol understanding across three cognitive levels. Models are evaluated on faked-character detection, misspelled-character detection and visual-semantic correction.
Figure 3: Performance and representative cases for cultural-symbol understanding. The tasks progress from lexical grounding of emojis to idiomatic composition and culturally mediated interpretation.
Figure 4: Performance and representative cases for mathematical-symbol understanding, covering function graphs and geometric figures across recognition, reasoning, and verification tasks.
Figure 5: Performance and representative cases for physical-symbol understanding across mechanics and electromagnetism. Sparse physical symbols remain difficult for most models, especially in visually grounded mapping tasks.
Figure 6: Performance and representative cases for chemical-symbol understanding. The benchmark examines molecular structure recognition, reaction reasoning and higher-level correction or prediction.
Figure 7: Overview of the benchmark task design framework and illustrative examples. (a) The instantiation of the three-level symbolic understanding hierarchy across five distinct domains: Language, Cultural, Mathematical, Physical, and Chemical symbols. (b) Representative examples of the tasks designed for our benchmark.
Figure 8: Cross-domain summary of benchmark results. (a) Radar charts illustrate the fine-grained performance of models across General, Language, Culture, Math, Physics and Chemistry domains. (b) Global performance aggregated by difficulty, with accuracy averaged across five symbolic domains. (c) Scatter plots exploring interrelationships between domains.
Figure 9: Human performance on the benchmark compared with the best-performing model Gemini.
Figure 10: Case studies from the comprehensive analysis, highlighting model failures in recognizing and integrating symbols.
Figure 11: Overall performances of different models across the five symbolic domains.
Figure 12: Overview of the benchmark task design, including language symbols, cultural symbols, math symbols, chemistry symbols and physical symbols.
Figure 13: The data construction pipeline of our benchmark.
Field
Sub-field
Task ID
Task Name
Level
Instances
Level Total
Language
Character
T1
Faked Character Detection
Perception and Recognition
526
526
Character
T2
Contextual Character Misuse Identification
Combination and Reasoning
488
488
Character
T3
Visual-Semantic Character Correction
Association and Critical Thinking
824
824
Culture
Emoji
T1
Emoji Semantic Grounding
Perception and Recognition
843
843
Emoji
T2
Emoji-Based Idiomatic Reasoning
Combination and Reasoning
783
783
Emoji
T3
Cross-Cultural Emoji-to-Idiom Mapping (4-word)
Association and Critical Thinking
1,360
1,549
Table 1: Distribution of tasks across domains, sub-fields, and hierarchical levels.
Figure 14: Dataset distribution. (a) Overall data distribution across five domains. (b) Detailed task distribution specifically for Mathematical symbols.
Recent multimodal large language models (MLLMs) advance visual reasoning by strengthening both perception and reasoning, implicitly assuming a process that transitions seamlessly from perception to reasoning. However, we observe a counterintuitive phenomenon that challenges this assumption: holding the model, question, and decoding fixed, we replace images with their caption or code representations (symbolic views), which seems to be redundant given the clear image structures, but the performance surprisingly improves by 10.2% to 23.6% across model scales and datasets. We term this performance gap as the Symbolic Visual Gap and then take a closer look at it. Through experiments, we find that although the visual evidence can already appear in the reasoning trace for the image-input model, the symbolic-view-input model shows much higher attention to the correct evidence than the image-input model. This suggests that despite good capabilities from current works in perception and reasoning themselves, another bottleneck exists between perception and reasoning in selecting perceived visual information as appropriate evidence for subsequent reasoning. To handle this bottleneck, since the symbolic view steers attention toward correct evidence and is readily obtained at scale, it provides supervision for evidence selection without manually labeled evidence. Building on this, we introduce MM-OPD, a multimodal on-policy self-distillation framework for symbolic-to-visual correction that transfers guidance from symbolic-conditioned behavior to the image-conditioned policy through residual token-level targets, steering the model toward correct visual evidence. Experiments across benchmarks and model scales show that MM-OPD improves a broad range of multimodal abilities, with gains in visual perception, chart and document understanding, mathematical reasoning, and general VQA.
Jintao Tong, Yujing Lou, Zhanming Shen +6
Huazhong University of Science and Technology · Alibaba Token Hub, Alibaba Group · Zhejiang University
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have achieved impressive progress on vision language benchmarks, yet their capacity for visual cognitive and visuospatial reasoning remains less understood. We introduce "Mind's Eye", a multiple-choice benchmark of eight visuo-cognitive tasks inspired by classic human intelligence tests and organized under a novel "A-R-T" taxonomy: Abstraction, Relation, and Transformation. The tasks probe core processes of fluid intelligence such as pattern induction, analogical relation mapping, and mental transformation. We evaluate a diverse suite of closed-source and open-source MLLMs and compare their performance with human participants. Humans achieve 80% accuracy, while top performing MLLMs remain below 50%. Error analysis reveals failures in: (i) visual attention allocation, (ii) internal perceptual manipulation, and (iii) weak abstraction of underlying visual concepts. Our findings suggest that current MLLMs exhibit limited visuospatial reasoning capabilities, when compared with human participants, highlighting the need for more cognitively grounded evaluation frameworks.
Rohit Sinha, Aditya Kanade, Sai Srinivas Kancheti +2
CSE Dept., IIT Hyderabad Hyderabad, India · Microsoft Research Bengaluru, India
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process text presented as images, yet they often perform worse than when the same content is provided as textual tokens. We systematically diagnose this "modality gap" by evaluating seven MLLMs across seven benchmarks in five input modes, spanning both synthetically rendered text and realistic document images from arXiv PDFs to Wikipedia pages. We find that the gap is highly sensitive to rendering choices such as font and resolution, and that natural document images often exhibit much smaller gaps, suggesting the performance difference partly reflects evaluation artifacts rather than fundamental limitations. Through a grounded-theory error analysis of over 4,000 examples, we identify the primary cause: image input alone suppresses reasoning effort, with models producing 5--19x shorter outputs that skip step-by-step computation or reasoning. The reluctance to reason, not a failure of perception or knowledge retrieval, drives the performance gap, particularly on tasks requiring multi-step reasoning. We show that a simple, lightweight on-policy self-distillation method by fine-tuning models on their own text-mode reasoning traces paired with image inputs closes this gap, raising image-mode accuracy to match or exceed text-mode performance with over 50% improvement, and the gains transfer to unseen benchmarks without catastrophic forgetting. Overall, our results and analyses provide a systematic understanding of the modality gap and suggest a practical path toward improving visual text understanding in multimodal language models.
Kaiser Sun, Xiaochuang Yuan, Hongjun Liu +4
Johns Hopkins University · Amazon · New York University +1