GeoChallenge: A Multi-Answer Multiple-Choice Benchmark for Geometric Reasoning with Diagrams
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Technology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China · Shaanxi Province Key Laboratory of Big Data Knowledge Engineering, Xi’an, China
Abstract
Evaluating the symbolic reasoning of large language models (LLMs) calls for geometry benchmarks that require multi-step proofs grounded in both text and diagrams. However, existing benchmarks are often limited in scale and rarely provide visually grounded multiple-choice questions, limiting reliable evaluation of complex reasoning. We introduce GeoChallenge, a dataset of 90K automatically generated multiple-choice geometry proof problems, each requiring multi-step reasoning over aligned textual descriptions and diagrams. GeoChallenge provides fine-grained complexity ratings and formal language annotations to enable controlled evaluation. Experiments on multiple advanced LLMs show a clear performance gap between models and humans (the best-performing model, GPT-5-nano, achieves 75.89 exact match vs. 94.74 for humans). Further analysis also reveals three common failure patterns of LLMs: (1) exact match failures under the multiple-choice setting; (2) weak visual reliance; and (3) overextended reasoning without convergence.
Figures & tables
| Dataset | Size | AG | IF | CR | Avg PL | Avg DL | FA | LT | QT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GeoS Seo et al. (2015) | 186 | ✗ | ✗ | NA | 23.34 | ✗ | EN | SA | |
| MATH Hendrycks et al. (2021) | 12,500 | ✗ | only | ✔ | 5.48 | 202.66 | ✗ | EN | OE |
| Geometry3K Lu et al. (2021) | 3,002 | ✗ | ✗ | NA | 12.19 | ✔ | EN | SA | |
| GeoQA Chen et al. (2021) | 5,010 | ✗ | ✗ | 2.77 | 52.46 | ✗ | ZH | SA | |
| UniGeo Chen et al. (2022) | 9,543 | ✗ | ✗ | 2.57 | 16.23 | ✔ | EN | SA, OE | |
| GPSM8K Cobbe et al. (2021) | 8,790 | ✗ | only | ✗ | 4.59 | 45.27 | ✗ | EN | OE |
| Model | MATH | Geome- try3K | GeoCha- llenge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gemini 1.5 Pro | 82.19 | 73.88 | 24.45 |
| Claude 3.5 Sonnet | 58.05 | 71.65 | 21.81 |
| GPT-4o | 57.72 | 64.92 | 17.51 |
| Model | EMA | EME | EMM | EMH | P | R | F1 | HA | Avg #Sel |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baselines | |||||||||
| Random | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 46.88 | 2.13 |
| General-Purpose Models | |||||||||
| GPT-4o | 17.51 | 29.09 | 13.81 | 9.24 | 52.87 | 68.83 | 59.81 | 58.62 | 2.18 |
| Claude 3.5 Sonnet | 21.81 | 27.27 | 22.94 | 10.87 | 54.88 | 71.73 | 62.19 | 63.22 | 2.20 |
| Gemini 1.5 Pro | 24.45 | 38.18 | 22.27 | 9.24 | 62.31 | 76.79 | 68.79 | 69.74 | 2.01 |
| Model | EMA | EME | EMM | EMH | P | R | F1 | HA | Avg #Sel |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baselines | |||||||||
| Random | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 6.25 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 46.88 | 2.13 |
| General-Purpose Models | |||||||||
| GPT-4o | 13.99 | 32.00 | 8.69 | 0.0 | 43.75 | 55.89 | 49.08 | 48.62 | 2.14 |
| Claude 3.5 Sonnet | 17.62 | 32.73 | 15.37 | 0.54 | 51.43 | 63.48 | 56.83 | 60.21 | 2.02 |
| Gemini 1.5 Pro | 20.59 | 44.00 | 14.70 | 0.0 | 60.32 | 74.14 | 66.52 | 66.77 | 1.97 |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | EMA | EME | EMM | EMH | P | R | F1 | HA | Avg #Sel |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Both text and images provided | |||||||||
| GPT-4o | 11.89 | 19.64 | 9.13 | 7.07 | 40.27 | 54.66 | 46.38 | 45.84 | 2.25 |
| Claude 3.5 Sonnet | 17.62 | 30.18 | 13.59 | 8.70 | 52.37 | 64.86 | 57.95 | 60.85 | 2.05 |
| Gemini 1.5 Pro | 24.23 | 38.55 | 21.16 | 10.33 | 62.85 | 82.98 | 71.52 | 71.31 | 2.12 |
| llava-1.5-7B | 12.11 | 25.09 | 8.24 | 2.17 | 37.00 | 23.76 | 28.94 | 50.61 | 1.05 |
| Qwen2-VL-7B | 24.01 | 58.91 | 12.47 | 0.0 | 57.16 | 48.97 | 52.75 | 63.13 | 1.41 |
| Statistics | |
|---|---|
| Total Problems | 90,279 |
| Coverage (Img / Sol / EN / ZH) | 100% / 100% / 100% / 100% |
| Difficulty | 90,279 |
| * Easy | 27,083 (30.0%) |
| * Medium | 45,140 (50.0%) |
| * Hard | 18,056 (20.0%) |
| name | meaning |
|---|---|
| X = angle_bisector(A,B,C) | Construct point X on the angle bisector of ABC |
| X = angle_mirror(A,B,C) | Construct point X such that BC is the bisector of ABX |
| X,Y,Z,I = centroid(A,B,C) | Construct point I as the centroid of ABC with midpoints X, Y, Z |
| X = circle(A,B,C) | Construct point X as the circumcenter of ABC |
| A,B,C,D = eq_quadrangle() | Construct quadrilateral ABCD with AD = BC |
| A,B,C,D = eq_trapezoid() | Construct trapezoid ABCD with AD = BC |
| premise(s) | conclusion |
|---|---|
| perp A B C D, perp C D E F, ncoll A B E | para A B E F |
| cong O A O B, cong O B O C, cong O C O D | cyclic A B C D |
| eqangle A B P Q C D P Q | para A B C D |
| cyclic A B P Q | eqangle P A P B Q A Q B |
| eqangle6 P A P B Q A Q B, ncoll P Q A B | cyclic A B P Q |
| cyclic A B C P Q R, eqangle C A C B R P R Q | cong A B P Q |
Mathematical Reasoning Benchmarks
Mathematical reasoning benchmarks test whether AI systems can solve, explain, and verify problems across mathematical levels, formats, and languages.
See all 113 papers