Do Vision-Language-Models show human-like logical problem-solving capability in point and click puzzle games?

Jigsaw puzzle solving requires jointly reasoning about visual content and geometric constraints, yet existing benchmarks use rectangular cuts that create ambiguous ground truth in texture-repeated regions. We introduce \textit{\ours{}}, a benchmark with tab-and-blank interlocking pieces where geometric constraints provide strong local compatibility requirements that, combined with visual content, yield unambiguous ground truth. Across 95K instances at four grid densities (4$\times$4 to 16$\times$16), we find that \textbf{zero-shot VLMs largely lack geometric reasoning}: only one of five frontier models (GPT-5.5) exceeds random baseline on 4$\times$4 puzzles, while all others perform at chance level. While supervised fine-tuning achieves $>$97% on 4$\times$4, \textbf{all models collapse on larger grids}: GPT-5.5 drops from 70% to near-random on 8$\times$8, and even fine-tuned models fall below 5% on 12$\times$12. This ``scaling cliff'' suggests current architectures cannot maintain consistent constraint satisfaction as the number of pieces increases. \ours{} establishes scalable geometric reasoning as an open challenge for vision-language models.

ARC-AGI-2 is a benchmark of human-intuitive visual puzzles that measures a machine's ability to generalize from limited examples, interpret symbolic meaning, and flexibly apply rules in varying contexts. In this paper, we discuss our approach to solving the ARC-AGI-2 puzzles with TinyLM, with additional fine-tuning at test time, including Test-Time-Training (TTT) and Products of Experts (POE). Our model achieves 96.1% accuracy on the training set and 21.7% accuracy on the evaluation set.

While Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) exhibit strong perceptual capabilities, they remain vulnerable in visual reasoning tasks. Existing benchmarks largely focus on symbolic mathematical or scientific problems and simple vision-centric tasks, offering limited assessment of complex visual reasoning and logical consistency, a critical requirement for reliable reasoning systems. We introduce ConVBench, a complex vision-centric reasoning benchmark in which each image is paired with two logically equivalent questions across six categories: action and state, complex counting, spatial reasoning, causal and intent understanding, commonsense reasoning, and temporal perception. To complement this benchmark, we define two evaluation metrics, logical consistency and robust accuracy, that jointly assess both the correctness and consistency of model responses. We further present ConVLM, which improves LVLM reasoning through Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO)-based reinforcement learning with a novel consistency reward. This method leverages automatically generated logically equivalent question-answer pairs and a dual-reward design combining accuracy- and consistency-based signals, encouraging agreement between paired responses. The framework functions effectively with or without strict answer supervision.