Thinkink: 2D Spatial Ink-native Interaction with LLMs

We introduce MentalThink, a visual-symbolic reasoning paradigm that equips Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) with an executable mechanism for "mental" visualization. The core of MentalThink is a think-with-SVG pipeline, where the model learns to generate, render, and interpret scalable vector graphics (SVG) code as an intermediate visual representation for multi-turn reasoning. By creating structured vector sketches, the model can externalize spatial hypotheses, inspect them through deterministic rendering, and reason within a constrained geometric space, effectively mimicking the human process of mental imagery. We instantiate this paradigm through a two-stage training framework, combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) for SVG syntactic alignment with multi-turn Reinforcement Learning (RL) to encourage iterative inspection, revision, and refinement of intermediate visual hypotheses. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that MentalThink achieves superior performance on spatial understanding and reasoning benchmarks (e.g., 55.1% on VSIBench, 76.0% on MindCube), showing that executable vector graphics provide a verifiable visual workspace for dynamic perspective taking, visual reflection, and compositional scene construction.

When faced with complex spatial problems, humans naturally sketch layouts to organize their thinking, and the act of drawing further sharpens their understanding. In this work, we ask whether a similar principle holds for Large Language Models (LLMs): can learning to construct explicit visual layouts from spatial descriptions instill genuine spatial understanding? We introduce Text2Space, a dataset that pairs natural language descriptions with ground-truth ASCII grid layouts and spatial QA pairs, enabling us to separate failures in constructing spatial representations from failures in reasoning over them. We adopt ASCII because it is human-readable, operates entirely within the token space of language models, and encodes spatial relations in a structurally verifiable form. Our evaluation reveals a pronounced "Read-Write Asymmetry": LLMs interpret ASCII representations effectively but struggle to produce them from text, and these construction errors propagate to incorrect answers downstream. To address this limitation, we train models on layout construction (Text$\rightarrow$ASCII) and find that it significantly improves spatial reasoning from text alone, even without producing any ASCII at inference time. Combining construction with comprehension training further amplifies these gains. Crucially, these improvements transfer to three external spatial reasoning benchmarks, demonstrating that, much as sketching sharpens human spatial thinking, learning to construct explicit layouts instills spatial understanding that generalizes beyond the training format.

LLMs are increasingly used to brainstorm research ideas, but existing evaluations mostly judge individual ideas by novelty, feasibility, or expert preference. We instead ask: how far are current LLM-generated ideas from human researchers? To characterize this gap, we build a large-scale evaluation framework for ideation from high-quality human research papers. For each paper, we reverse-engineer a small set of closely related prior works that likely inspired its core idea. LLMs are then prompted to generate a new idea from the set of paper titles and summaries. We introduce a two-axis research-taste taxonomy to profile each idea by its opportunity pattern and research paradigm, and use it to quantify the divergence between human and LLM ideas. Across idea sets generated by different LLMs, we observe a consistent distributional gap: LLM ideas are disproportionately concentrated around bridge-like opportunities and synthesis methods, whereas the human paper reference distribution spreads more broadly across ways of framing gaps and constructing contributions. This result suggests that strong LLMs can produce a range of reasonable ideas, but that range remains narrower than, and systematically shifted relative to, human research taste.