Geoparsing: Diagram Parsing for Plane and Solid Geometry with a Unified Formal Language
Authors: Peijie Wang, Ming-Liang Zhang, Jun Cao, Chao Deng, Dekang Ran, Hongda Sun, Pi Bu, Xuan Zhang, Yingyao Wang, Jun Song, Bo Zheng, Fei Yin, Cheng-Lin Liu
Organizations: MAIS, Institute of Automation of Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Future Living Lab of Alibaba
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable progress but continue to struggle with geometric reasoning, primarily due to the perception bottleneck regarding fine-grained visual elements. While formal languages have aided plane geometry understanding, solid geometry which requires spatial understanding remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we address this challenge by designing a unified formal language that integrates plane and solid geometry, comprehensively covering geometric structures and semantic relations. We construct GDP-29K, a large-scale dataset comprising 20k plane and 9k solid geometry samples collected from diverse real-world sources, each paired with its ground-truth formal description. To ensure syntactic correctness and geometric consistency, we propose a training paradigm that combines Supervised Fine-Tuning with Reinforcement Learning via Verifiable Rewards. Experiments show that our approach achieves state-of-the-art parsing performance. Furthermore, we demonstrate that our parsed formal descriptions serve as a critical cognitive scaffold, significantly boosting MLLMs' capabilities for downstream geometry reasoning tasks. Our data and code are available at Geoparsing.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Hallucinations in geometric parsing by SOTA MLLMs. Gemini-3-Pro and GPT-5.1 struggle to correctly parse slightly complex plane geometry and simple solid geometry. Red text indicates parsing errors.
Figure 2: Overview of the GDP-29K dataset for geometry diagram parsing. The dataset spans plane geometry (printed and handwritten) and solid geometry, with each diagram annotated by formal language that captures primitives and semantic constraints.
Statistic
Number
Dataset Scale & Style
Total Images
28,882
- Plane Geometry (PG)
19,965
- Solid Geometry (SG)
8,917
Style
- Printed
23,366
Table 1: Detailed statistics of GDP-29K.
Table 2: Comparison with existing multimodal math benchmarks. SG: Solid Geometry, PG: Plane Geometry. GQA: Geometry QA, MQA: Math QA. Style: P = P rinted, H = H andwritten. Source: S = S elf-sourced, O =Collected from O pen-source Dataset. PGFL/SGFL: Plane/Solid Geometry Formal Language.
Figure 3: Overview of our geometry diagram parsing framework. We first construct SFT training pairs from GDP-29K and obtain initial parser GDP-SFT via instruction fine-tuning. We then further optimize the parser with reinforcement learning via verifiable rewards that enforce both format correctness and geometric validity. The final model GDP-RL generates unified formal language descriptions for both plane and solid geometry diagrams.
Model
Points
Lines
Circles
Semantics
Overall
P
R
F1
P
R
F1
P
R
F1
P
R
F1
Score
Traditional Methods
InterGPS
47.3
90.0
62.2
3.6
52.8
6.7
1.0
7.7
1.8
11.4
11.8
11.6
20.6
PGDPNet
88.8
94.1
91.4
66.8
73.4
70.1
61.6
61.2
61.4
64.1
51.5
57.1
70.6
Open-source MLLMs
LLaVA-OneVision-1.5-7B
94.6
95.2
94.3
51.9
52.1
52.0
54.4
57.1
55.7
57.5
58.4
57.9
65.0
Table 3: Performance comparison on the PGDP-2K test benchmark. Models are categorized by type. P : Precision, R : Recall, F1 : F1-Score. Semantics : Semantic Relations. Overall Score represents the aggregate parsing accuracy. Bold denotes the best performance.
Model
Points
Lines
Circles
Planes
Solids
Overall
P
R
F1
P
R
F1
P
R
F1
P
R
F1
Acc
Score
Open-source MLLMs
LLaVA-OneVision-1.5-7B
91.6
96.9
94.2
54.8
66.5
60.8
34.5
57.4
43.1
31.2
62.3
41.5
69.6
61.9
Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
99.0
98.5
98.8
48.7
69.5
57.3
44.7
47.2
46.0
35.0
73.9
47.5
70.8
64.0
InternVL3.5-8B-Instruct
98.5
94.8
96.6
57.8
50.4
53.8
23.3
86.1
36.7
62.4
72.6
67.1
69.7
64.8
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
98.9
99.1
99.0
42.3
65.4
51.4
48.9
57.6
52.9
32.0
75.1
44.8
77.5
65.1
Table 4: Performance comparison on the SGDP-1K test benchmark. We report Precision ( P ), Recall ( R ), and F1-Score ( F1 ) for multi-component primitives, and Accuracy ( Acc ) for the overall solid type. Overall Score represents the aggregate parsing accuracy. Bold denotes the best performance.
Model
PGDP-2K
SGDP-1K
Points
Lines
Circles
Semantics
PPR
Points
Lines
Circles
Planes
Solids
PPR
Qwen3-VL-4B
81.5
33.4
73.8
37.3
27.4
93.1
38.6
42.6
32.8
70.8
26.2
Qwen3-VL-8B
81.5
35.7
77.2
45.7
30.4
94.1
36.1
49.5
32.3
77.5
26.4
Qwen3-VL-32B
83.3
54.6
80.3
50.7
44.8
94.7
51.5
55.4
31.7
83.8
28.8
GPT-5.2-1211
82.9
64.4
83.7
60.9
55.8
91.5
54.9
61.7
58.6
72.7
50.2
Gemini-3-Flash
91.4
87.0
91.7
69.8
63.9
97.7
80.4
76.3
71.7
88.9
64.7
Table 5: Sample Accuracy (SA) and Perfect Parsing Rate (PPR) on PGDP-2K and SGDP-1K.
Model
Plane Geometry
Solid Geometry
GeoQA
PGPS9K
Geometry3K
MathVerse
SolidGeo
MathVerse
Ministral-3-8B
39.6
41.2
44.8
51.2
9.6
26.0
+ Ours
41.5 (+1.9)
47.3 (+6.1)
53.3 (+8.5)
52.4 (+1.2)
8.8 (-0.6)
26.8 (+0.8)
Qwen3-VL-8B
48.9
44.9
50.1
66.8
59.0
42.0
+ Ours
48.7 (-0.2)
53.9 (+9.0)
60.2 (+10.1)
68.5 (+1.7)
62.1 (+3.1)
44.5 (+2.5)
Qwen2.5-VL-32B
59.7
38.1
46.3
54.9
52.5
36.1
Table 6: Downstream reasoning accuracy (%) on Plane and Solid geometry benchmarks. We compare vanilla MLLMs with those augmented by our formal parsing ( + Ours ). Δ (in red ) denotes the absolute improvement. MathVerse results are reported on its plane and solid geometry subsets, respectively.
Figure 4: Effect of Representation Forms on PGPS9K Reasoning Accuracy.
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Distribution of 3D structures in the SGDP subset ( N=9,012 ). The dataset covers a wide range of polyhedral forms and rotational solids to facilitate robust spatial perception.
Figure 6: Distribution of semantic predicates across the PGDP subset ( N=48,613 ). Metric constraints and orthogonal relations form the core of the geometric reasoning tasks.
Category
Formal Syntax (Example)
Geometric Description
Primitives
point A
Defines a point vertex named A.
line A B C
A line segment passing through points A, B, and C.
line k lineson A B C
A line lieson point A B C
plane A B C D
A plane defined by vertices A, B, C, and D.
\odot O lieson A B C
A circle with center O passing through points A, B, and C.
Semantics
AB = 57
The length of segment AB is 57 .
Appendix
Table 7: Detailed syntax and examples of the formal language in GDP-29K, covering 2D primitives and 3D solid structures.
Figure 7: Prompts for geometric structural analysis. These prompts guide the model to extract the topological skeleton of the diagram.
Figure 8: Prompts for geometric structural analysis. These prompts guide the model to extract the topological skeleton of the diagram.
Figure 9: Prompts for geometric structural analysis. These prompts guide the model to extract the topological skeleton of the diagram.
Figure 10: Prompts for 3D geometric structural analysis. These prompts guide the model to classify the solid type and identify its defining vertices.
Figure 11: Prompts for solid geometric plane extraction. These prompts enforce the Maximal Point Set Principle to ensure all coplanar labeled points are grouped together.
Figure 12: Representative plane geometry samples from the GDP-29K dataset.
Figure 13: Representative plane geometry samples from the GDP-29K dataset.
Figure 14: Representative plane geometry samples from the GDP-29K dataset.
Figure 15: Representative solid geometry samples from the GDP-29K dataset.
Figure 16: Representative solid geometry samples from the GDP-29K dataset.
Figure 17: Representative solid geometry samples from the GDP-29K dataset.
Figure 18: Representative solid geometry samples from the GDP-29K dataset.
Figure 19: Qualitative comparison between Direct Inference and our method (+ Ours) on PGPS9K. Our formal parsing provides precise symbolic grounding that rectifies reasoning errors.
Figure 20: Qualitative comparison between Direct Inference and our method (+ Ours) on PGPS9K. Our formal parsing provides precise symbolic grounding that rectifies reasoning errors.
Figure 21: Qualitative comparison between Direct Inference and our method (+ Ours) on PGPS9K. Our formal parsing provides precise symbolic grounding that rectifies reasoning errors.
3D spatial reasoning studies how AI systems infer geometry, object relations, viewpoints, and motion to understand and act in three-dimensional scenes.
Geometric problem solving, as a typical multimodal reasoning problem, has attracted much attention and made great progress recently, however most of works focus on plane geometry while usually fail in solid geometry due to 3D spatial diagrams and complex reasoning. To bridge this gap, we introduce Hilbert-Geo, the first unified formal language framework for solid geometry, including an extensive predicate library and a dedicated theorem bank. Based on this framework, we propose a Parse2Reason method containing two steps of first parsing then reasoning. In the parsing step, we utilize conditional description language (CDL), a formalized language composed of predicates specifically designed to construct geometric conditions, to represent both problem description (natural text) and solid diagrams (visual image). In the reasoning step, we leverage those formal CDL and the theorem bank to perform relational inference and algebraic computation, generating strictly correct, verifiable, and human-readable reasoning processes. Notably, our proposed Hilbert-Geo is also applicable to plane geometry. To advance geometric reasoning, we curate two expert-annotated dataset SolidFGeo2k and PlaneFGeo3k, which are furnished with geometric formal language annotations, solutions and answers. Extensive experiments show that our proposed method achieves the state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance 77.3% in SolidFGeo2k and 84.1% in MathVerse-Solid (one small subset in MathVerse dedicated to solid geometry), substantially outperforming leading MLLMs, such as Gemini-2.5-pro (54.2% on SolidFGeo2k) and GPT-5 (62.9% on MathVerse-Solid). In addition, our method achieves the SOTA accuracy 80.2% in PlaneFGeo3k, demonstrating the generality of the Hilbert-Geo in geometric reasoning. Our code and datasets are released at https://github.com/PremiLab-Math/Hilbert-Geo.
Ruoran Xu, Haoyu Cheng, Bin Dong +1
Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University · Ricoh Software Research Center Beijing Co.,Ltd.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often struggle to identify and use geometric relations in diagrams. Recent methods address this challenge by converting geometric entities, relations, and constraints into explicit textual representations for the model to reason over. However, effective formalization is highly non-trivial: on Geometry3K, structure injection fixes 28 errors but introduces 13 new ones among 200 examples. Redundant relations can distract the model, while ambiguous references to diagram elements can lead it to apply constraints incorrectly. This suggests that the key challenge is not merely extracting more geometric facts, but organizing them into representations that support downstream reasoning. To fully exploit the power of formalization, we further propose GeoReform, a reflective formalization evolution framework that treats formalization as an optimizable policy rather than a fixed parser output. GeoReform executes the full reasoning pipeline, collects failed rollouts, diagnoses defects in the current representation, and mutates the policy to better select, ground, group, and present geometric entities, relations, constraints, and targets. On Geometry3K, GeoReform improves Qwen3VL-2B accuracy from 42.0% to 56.0%. Extensive experiments and analyses across geometry reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that effective formalization is crucial for improving multimodal geometry reasoning.
Jialu Wang, Ruichen Zhang, Xiaoou Liu +2
Tongji University · University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · Arizona State University
Plane geometry remains a significant challenge in AI, requiring the integration of visual perception and mathematical reasoning. While Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) naturally handle visuo-linguistic inputs, they are often computationally intensive and opaque. We demonstrate that a pure Large Language Model (LLM), when equipped with specialized modules, can rival state-of-the-art LMMs on complex geometry problems. Our framework integrates a Geometric Vision Parser, which translates diagrams into symbolic form, with a Symbolic Solver that performs formal deductions, thereby mitigating hallucinations and promoting interpretable reasoning. To enable rigorous evaluation, we curate a benchmark of challenging problems from the 2025 Chinese Zhongkao examinations, ensuring data novelty and testing deeper deductive skills. Experiments demonstrate that our approach achieves performance comparable to Gemini 2.5 Pro while delivering clearer, human-like solutions.