Evaluation of Small Vision-Language Models on Qualitative Mechanical Problems

Despite significant progress in general visual question answering and cross-modal understanding, multimodal large language models still face a pronounced gap in evaluation for complex reasoning within the mechanical engineering domain. Existing benchmarks predominantly focus on rudimentary tasks such as drawing recognition, CAD interpretation, or single-chart querying, falling short of assessing whether models can integrate multiple images, textual conditions, physical principles, and engineering constraints to perform multi-step reasoning when confronted with authentic, intricate mechanical problems. To address this, we introduce MechReason, a benchmark derived from real mechanical engineering papers, comprising 12k question-answer pairs with explicit reasoning-chain annotations and 21k visual materials spanning nine evidence types, including statistical charts, parameter tables, engineering drawings, microscopic images, simulation images, system architectures, real mechanical scene photos, CAD model images and manufacturing flowcharts. MechReason covers eight task types across four reasoning dimensions: explanation, prediction, design, and diagnosis. We devise a four-stage construction pipeline: we first extract core engineering claims and decompose their supporting evidence into premises, reasoning processes, conclusions, and corroborative evidence; we then generate shortcut-preventing questions by masking posterior verification information; finally, we apply multimodal quality validation to ensure task quality and multi-hop nature. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that MechReason is highly challenging, with even the most advanced models achieving only 62.89% accuracy.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated significant achievements in general visual question answering (VQA) tasks. However, they remain brittle on mechanical engineering drawings, where high annotation density and weak domain knowledge, compounded by unreliable spatial relation reasoning under strict projection rules and geometric constraints, make decisive cues easy to miss and frequently lead to wrong answers. To bridge this gap, we introduce the first comprehensive mechanical drawing understanding dataset, MechVQA, created through a semi-automated construction and quality-control pipeline. MechVQA contains 3.3k high-density pictures with 21K question-answer pairs, spanning 10 different fine-grained tasks across three capability levels: Recognition, Reasoning, and Judging, providing a testbed to evaluate and improve MLLM understanding on real-world mechanical drawings. On top of MechVQA, we then develop the MechVL model through a multi-stage training paradigm, building a strong domain-specialized baseline. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that MechVL outperforms the strongest closed-source baseline by 7.57 percentage points on the MechVQA total score, significantly enhancing mechanical drawing understanding ability and providing a reusable foundation for deploying MLLMs in mechanical design and inspection scenarios.

This work introduces MechReasoner, a mechanistic qualitative simulator grounded in confluence-based qualitative physics, together with a benchmark for mechanistic inference. Current large language models (LLMs) generate fluent mechanistic descriptions that do not reliably follow from underlying structural and causal constraints. The benchmark tests whether answers preserve simulator-licensed ambiguity, quantified claims, episode-graph transition evidence, repairs, and trace-support judgments. Its 1,120 items are generated deterministically from admissible interpretation sets, component states, scenario restrictions, confluence constraints, and derivation steps across 18 catalog mechanisms and six task families. Each mechanism undergoes converter checks of structure and topology and behavioral checks against quantitative simulations. GPT-5.5 accuracy decreases as family-specific mechanistic complexity increases, from 76.1% in the lowest-complexity bucket (B1) to 38.0% in the highest-complexity bucket (B4). The negative association remains after controls for rendered-prompt and expected-answer length. These results show that qualitative simulators can support auditable NLP benchmarks for mechanistic inference.