Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have recently demonstrated remarkable perceptual and reasoning abilities. However, they struggle to perceive fine-grained geometric structures, constraining their ability of geometric understanding and visual reasoning. To address this, we propose GeoTikzBridge, a framework that enhances local geometric perception and visual reasoning through tikz-based code generation. Within this framework, we build two models supported by two complementary datasets. The GeoTikzBridge-Base model is trained on GeoTikz-Base dataset, the largest image-to-tikz dataset to date with 2.5M pairs (16 × larger than existing open-sourced datasets). This process is achieved via iterative data expansion and a localized geometric transformation strategy. Subsequently, GeoTikzBridge-Instruct is fine-tuned on GeoTikz-Instruct dataset which is the first instruction-augmented tikz dataset supporting visual reasoning. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our models achieve state-of-the-art performance among open-sourced MLLMs. Furthermore, GeoTikzBridge models can serve as plug-and-play reasoning modules for any MLLM(LLM), enhancing reasoning performance in geometric problem-solving. Datasets and codes are publicly available at: https://github.com/sjy-1995/GeoTikzBridge.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: GeoTikzBridge demonstrates advantages in geometric perception and mathematical reasoning. (1) GeoTikzBridge-Base achieves the most accurate reconstruction of local geometric structures compared to existing approaches. (2) The generated tikz representations enhance MLLMs’ mathematical and visual geometric reasoning.
Figure 2: Framework of the proposed iterative self-refinement for GeoTikz-Base dataset and GeoTikzBridge-Base model. It iteratively conducts three steps: dataset construction and sample generation, localized geometric transformation, and model optimization.
Figure 3: Distribution of the 2.5M GeoTikz-Base dataset.
Method
DaTikZ
MathVista-GPS
GAOKAO-MM-Math
EDUBenchmark
CLIP-S ↑
FID ↓
CSR ↑
CLIP-S ↑
FID ↓
CSR ↑
CLIP-S ↑
FID ↓
CSR ↑
CLIP-S ↑
FID ↓
CSR ↑
Open-sourced VLMs
Qwen2.5-VL-32B [ 4 ]
0.788
77.2
80.6%
0.832
61.0
97.6%
0.808
92.2
94.4%
0.748
87.0
81.2%
Qwen2.5-VL-72B [ 4 ]
0.795
49.8
81.5%
0.858
46.9
98.1%
0.854
61.3
90.1%
0.781
60.5
81.8%
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B [ 40 ]
0.672
174.4
89.1%
0.802
65.7
81.0%
0.826
107.9
95.2%
0.748
95.9
80.2%
InternVL3-78B [ 57 ]
0.747
62.7
78.8%
0.860
47.9
92.3%
0.871
55.4
93.7%
0.801
58.3
81.5%
Table 1: Performance comparison of image-to-tikz methods across four datasets. The best and second-best results are marked with bold and underlines, respectively.
Method
MathVista
GAOKAO-MM
RBench-M
RBench-V
RBench-V
(GPS)
(Math)
(en)
(Math)
(Overall)
Closed-sourced VLMs
GPT-4V [ 29 ]
0.505
0.450
-
-
-
GPT-4-turbo [ 1 ]
0.583
0.500
-
-
-
GPT-4o [ 19 ]
0.647
-
0.334
0.244
0.141
Claude3.5-Sonnet [ 3 ]
0.644
-
0.397
-
-
Table 2: Performance comparison of downstream mathematical reasoning across five benchmarks. The best and second-best results are marked with bold and underlines, respectively.
Method
MSE ↓
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
CLIP Score ↑
FID ↓
CSR ↑
FigCodifier [ 42 ]
1435.9
0.135
17.6dB
0.936
9.798
88.0%
GeoTikzBridge-Base-8B
692.6
0.549
23.1dB
0.967
5.476
95.4%
GeoTikzBridge-Instruct
211.7
0.844
89.6dB
0.992
1.158
96.7%
Table 3: Performance comparison of instructed code generation in the downstream auxiliary line generation task. The best results are marked with bold.
Exp ID
I
II
III
IV
Problem Text
✓
✓
✓
✓
Raw Geometric Image
✓
✓
✓
✓
Tikz Code With Aux. Line Added
×
×
✓
✓
Image With Aux. Line Added
×
✓
×
✓
Answer Accuracy
0.688
0.697
0.707
0.736
Table 4: Performance comparison of four different visual reasoning formats on the MathVista-GPS benchmark. The baseline model is InternVL3.5-38B.
Figure 4: Ablation study of geometric representation on the MathVista-GPS benchmark. The baseline model is Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B.
Figure 5: Ablation study of localized geometric transformation strategies for GeoTikzBridge-Base-8B, evaluated on the MathVista-GPS benchmark.
Figure 6: Visualization results of tikz codes generated by GeoTikzBridge-Base compared with GPT-5.0 [ 30 ] , each figure shows the input image (either geometric or non-geometric) and the corresponding image rendered from our predicted tikz code.
Figure 7: Visualization results of instruction-driven auxiliary line generation compared with GPT-5.0 [ 30 ] , each figure shows the input geometric image, the natural language instruction for auxiliary line addition, and the rendered image from the generated tikz code.
Figure S1 : Prompt input to Doubao for filtering unreliable instruction annotations in the GeoTikz-Instruct dataset construction.
Figure S2 : Ablation study of different values of self-refinement K for GeoTikzBridge-Base-8B, evaluated on the MathVista-GPS benchmark.
Figure S3 : Ablation study of different values of CLIP score based filtering threshold τ for GeoTikzBridge-Base-8B, evaluated on the MathVista-GPS benchmark.
Figure S4 : FID, SigLip/DINO scores of Base-8B model (up) and Instruct-8B model (bottom) across different geometric structures.
Figure S5 : Average failure rate distributions of InternVL3.5-38B+GeoTikzBridge-Base-8B across different geometric structures (up) and mathematical domains (bottom).
Figure S6 : Failure cases of InternVL3.5-38B with tikz code input.
Method
CLIP
SigLip
DINO
FigCodifier
0.936
0.940
0.957
ours-Base-8B
0.967
0.970
0.978
ours-Instruct-8B
0.992
0.992
0.995
Table S5 : Performance comparison of instructed code generation methods across CLIP, SigLip, and DINO model metrics.
Method
DaTikZ
MathVista-GPS
ClIP
SigLip
DINO
ClIP
SigLip
DINO
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
0.795
0.803
0.832
0.858
0.880
0.911
Qwen3-VL-30B
0.672
0.696
0.758
0.802
0.839
0.893
InternVL3.5-38B
0.733
0.752
0.786
0.786
0.793
0.855
GLM4.5V-106B
0.806
0.812
0.834
0.769
0.773
0.838
FigCodifier
0.785
0.791
0.819
0.884
0.906
0.922
Table S6 : Performance comparison of image-to-tikz methods across CLIP, SigLip, and DINO model metrics.
Method
FID ↓
CSR ↑
CLIP ↑
SigLip ↑
DINO ↑
GPT-5.0
44.8
96.9%
0.880
0.903
0.921
ours-Base-8B
36.0
97.1%
0.895
0.919
0.937
Table S7 : Performance comparison of image-to-tikz methods with GPT-5.0 on the MathVista-GPS benchmark across five metrics.
Method
Accuracy (Base/+Ours)
GPT-5.0
0.891/ 0.937
Claude-4.5-Sonnect
0.774/ 0.846
Gemini-3-Pro
0.779/ 0.923
Table S8 : Mathematical reasoning performance of latest closed-source models on the MathVista-GPS benchmark. Scores are reported as original model / model + GeoTikzBridge-Base-8B.
Figure S7 : Visualization results of tikz codes generated by GeoTikzBridge-Base, consisting of input images (either geometric or non-geometric) and the corresponding figures rendered from our predicted tikz codes.
Figure S8 : Visualization results of instruction-driven auxiliary line generation, including the input geometric images, the natural language instructions for auxiliary line addition, and the rendered figures from the generated tikz codes.
Figure S9 : Example I: Angle calculation problem solving comparison with and without tikz code. Tikz clarifies geometric relationships to avoid perceptual errors in angle reasoning.
Figure S10 : Example II: Segment length problem solving comparison with and without tikz code. Tikz facilitates accurate proportion and theorem application for length reasoning.
Figure S11 : Example III (1/2): Auxiliary line instruction (connecting circle center and tangent points) and tikz code generation. The line manifests radius-tangent perpendicularity.
Figure S12 : Example III (2/2): Problem solving comparison under different forms, with incorrect analysis/answers highlighted in red and key correct ones in green. Both auxiliary line image and its tikz combination enable correct reasoning via explicit perpendicularity recognition.
Figure S13 : Example IV (1/2): Auxiliary line instruction (extending midpoint connection) and tikz code generation. The line constructs a key right triangle by forming intersection Q .
Figure S14 : Example IV (2/2): Problem solving comparison under different forms, with incorrect analysis/answers highlighted in red and key correct ones in green. The auxiliary line image provides a visual foundation for constructing the right triangle △ NPQ. Its combination with tikz code achieves correct reasoning, since tikz explicitly encodes the spatial structure of the constructed right triangle.
Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) often struggle with geometric reasoning due to visual hallucinations and a lack of mathematically precise Chain-of-Thought (CoT) data. To address this, we propose the GeoSym Engine, an automated and scalable neuro-symbolic framework. By leveraging a type-conditional grammar and an analytic SymGT Solver, it derives exact symbolic ground truths and seamlessly integrates with a robust rendering pipeline to produce high-precision geometric diagrams. Using this engine, we construct GeoSym127K, a difficulty-stratified dataset featuring 51K high-resolution images, 127K questions with symbolic ground truths, and 55K answer-verified CoT QA pairs. We also introduce GeoSym-Bench, an expert-curated suite of 511 complex samples for rigorous evaluation. Through extensive supervised fine-tuning (SFT), we demonstrate that GeoSym drives concentrated improvements specifically on diagram-dependent and multi-step geometry tasks. Our Qwen3-VL-8B model gains an absolute +22.21% on the MathVerse Vision-Only subset and reaches 61.52% (+6.19% improvement) on WeMath, mitigating long-horizon logic fragmentation and outperforming advanced closed-source models like Doubao-1.8. Furthermore, applying Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) via GRPO reveals that initializing from structural SFT checkpoints substantially elevates the performance ceiling over zero-shot RL. Driven by deterministic exact-match signals, this showcases the robust scaling potential of our verifiable reasoning synthesis. Datasets and code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Tomie0506/GeoSym127K and https://github.com/Tomie56/GeoSym127K.
Jinhao Jing, Zheng Ma, Jinwei Liang +9
SenseTime Research · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · University of California, Los Angeles +3
Multimodal geometry reasoning requires models to jointly understand visual diagrams and perform structured symbolic inference, yet current vision--language models struggle with complex geometric constructions due to limited training data and weak visual--symbolic alignment. We propose a pipeline for synthesizing complex multimodal geometry problems from scratch and construct a dataset named GeoCode, which decouples problem generation into symbolic seed construction, grounded instantiation with verification, and code-based diagram rendering, ensuring consistency across structure, text, reasoning, and images. Leveraging the plotting code provided in GeoCode, we further introduce code prediction as an explicit alignment objective, transforming visual understanding into a supervised structured prediction task. GeoCode exhibits substantially higher structural complexity and reasoning difficulty than existing benchmarks, while maintaining mathematical correctness through multi-stage validation. Extensive experiments show that models trained on GeoCode achieve consistent improvements on multiple geometry benchmarks, demonstrating both the effectiveness of the dataset and the proposed alignment strategy. The code will be available at https://github.com/would1920/GeoCode.
Geometric reasoning inherently requires "thinking with constructions" -- the dynamic manipulation of visual aids to bridge the gap between problem conditions and solutions. However, existing Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are largely confined to passive inference with static diagrams, lacking the strategic knowledge of when and how to construct effective visual aids. To address this, we present a framework for Visual-Text Interleaved Chain-of-Thought. We first introduce GeoAux-Bench, the first benchmark comprising 4,334 geometry problems that aligns textual construction steps with ground-truth visual updates. Our pilot study reveals two critical insights: (1) interleaved visual-textual aids outperform single-modality counterparts, which cannot losslessly capture geometric synergy; and (2) valid constructions act as entropy reducers, strongly correlating with reduced reasoning perplexity. Building on these findings, we propose Action Applicability Policy Optimization (A2PO), a reinforcement learning paradigm for mastering strategic construction. A2PO employs Adaptive Reward Shaping to regulate the timing and quality of visual aids via counterfactual sampling to distinguish necessary from redundant constructions. Experiments demonstrate our approach enables MLLMs to leverage selective auxiliary constructions, yielding a 3.51% gain over strong baselines. Code and data are available on GitHub.
Haokun Zhao, Wanshi Xu, Haidong Yuan +3
College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Fudan University · School of ECE, Peking University · School of Software and Microelectronics, Peking University +1